From: Rich Winkel <•••@••.•••>Date: 11 December 2009 02:48:52 GMTTo: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: re-1: There is no global warming problem
On Thu, Dec 10, Richard Moore wrote:
I’ve heard from about two dozen folks regarding the global warming posting. None of them looked at any of the reports that I provided. The majority opinion seems to be that “everyone knows” Co2 is over-heating the globe, and there’s no point in discussing the matter. Given all the propaganda, I can understand lots of people feel that way. But from this cyberjournal community I expected at least a few people to be willing to engage the evidence and talk about it. If for no other reason that to set me straight. I must say I am disappointed in the response so far.
I’m surprised at this, both from a political and a scientific perspective. I’m no expert, but I know enough about chaotic systems and computer simulations to be very skeptical of the certainty with which these claims are being made. They have taken a purported temperature trend which is based on questionable methodology (but which has flattened out since 1998 in any case) and an atmospheric CO2 trend (which continues to rise) and tried to link them using computer simulations which have already failed to predict the recent flattening. Even the simplest chaotic systems are notoriously difficult to accurately simulate over long time periods, especially given the unavoidable sampling errors. Furthermore there are known mechanisms by which increased temperature will cause increased CO2 emissions from both land and the oceans, so the direction of causality (to the extent that causality exists at all) is also questionable. All they have is a not-too convincing correlation which is rapidly fading.
And then there’s the political aspect. On the basis of this purported consensus (which is far from unanimous, by the way) they propose to completely restructure the global economy, using government-enforced market based mechanisms which are guaranteed to condemn millions to grinding poverty or starvation while enriching a few enron types and creating a funding mechanism for global government. All of this is really too convenient for the globalists. If you have lots of money, all you need to do to create a scientific “consensus” is fund those whose publications support your position. This happens all the time in medicine, where the “evidence base” has a lot more to do with corporate profits than science.Of course there are uncertainties and the precautionary principle has its place. But at the very least we ought to make sure that any carbon trading mechanisms are government run, with the “profits” being recycled back to the people. Otherwise the speculators will have us by the short hairs.Rich