Quote:
|
I take it you're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be speaking like that. Please, indicate what information is erroneous. Being that we're speaking of a complex aspect of the FUTURE, I guess we can't really know what would be erroneous or not, now do we?
|
The
erroneous informantion refered to and linked to twice:
Quote:
|
There are three published studies out on long term changes in solar radiation (or "global dimming" if preferred). All use the same data sources. Solar radiation has been measured at weather stations worldwide since about 1956-57. As with many other measurements most of the data are from the Northern Hemisphere and all are taken on land. A reduction in downward solar radiation of about 4% or about 7W/m2 from 1961 to 1990 was found at stations worldwide by Gilgen et al., (1998). Gilgen et al. did a quick analysis and used all the available data with increasingly shorter records for their trend statistics. Stanhill and Cohen (2001) calculated a stronger reduction of about 8% per decade. The reason for the discrepancy might be that only 30 records were used in the latter study and it seems only the ones with the declining trend. My own analysis was based on 110 continuously recording stations worldwide from 1961 to 1990 (Liepert 2002). I confirmed Gilgen et al.'s estimate of a reduction of about 4% in three decades. Since the late 1980s a recovery seems to be occurring but the studies demonstrating this are not yet published.
|
Quote:
|
I believe the article said "predictions", which in my book would not single out computer models, but all predictions made. It seems to me that you're taking a general statement about the accuracy of predictions in general and applying it specifically to computer models, which seems to suit your position in this debate quite nicely.
|
Excuse me. Let's review what you said about computer models:
Quote:
|
Oh, let me guess... You're not going to believe anything it concludes because it's a simulation. Well, how else are we going to do climate prediction?
|
Well, gee. I would have to agree with you there. It does suit my little debate to agree, that as inaccurate as computer models have proven to be, they seem to be the most scientific way of guessing. You seem to agree as well. That being said, what other predictions did you think the article was talking about?
Quote:
|
Would apply to this magazine and Dr. Jaworowski's article as well, wouldn't it?
|
I will admit he is biased. All scientists are. The have an agenda- to convince people that they are right. But so far, I have not seen any blatent attempt to mislead the reader. This probably explains why Stanhill was met with a "sceptical response from other scientists." Jaworowski point of view is different than Stanhill's. That alone does not make it wrong, nor does citing articles from Discover or Nature magazines. If you want to make a case against Jaworowski's article, make it. However, it is a fallacy to state that because he has an agenda and cites articles, he therefore is using erroneous information. So, the part about
:
Quote:
|
So basically your article is a demonstration of how erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists."
|
Yes. That would apply to the Jaworowski article if you can find some erroneous information used as a fundamental part of his arguement AND suggestion of a cataclysmic change in the environment occuring in the near future AND prove it gets people to watch the bbc.
Quote:
|
I know you're being sarcastic, but I just want to make a comment about the WWF's use of the article. The WWF's goal is to save the animals, and shit the bed every time something with fur dies. I think most of us would agree that they can go overboard in many situations (and perhaps this is one of them) but the purpose of my bringing it up is merely to indicate the possibility for severe climate change, and perhaps one could also derive from that how a high rate of climate change could, over a not-too-long time frame have an adverse effect on the environment which humanity would also feel the effects of. Trust me, the LAST people that I would take my environmental position from is the WWF, as they also have quite a well-defined agenda... or could I call that a crusade? Haha...
|
The fact that they use misinformation, lies, and hyperbole to push their agenda is what bothers me. I agree with their goals. Saving animals is great. Caring about the environment is a good thing. But the means with which they attempt to achieve those goals is condemnable. Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie?