in article [email protected], Wolfgang Schwanke at [email protected]re
wrote on 15/01/05 3:36:


    > I'm skeptical. It could be a media created phenomenon. There are
    > scientists who say there is no "global warming" taking place, some others
    > say there is but it's probably not caused by human activities.


This is not true (see below). The consensus view of people who work in the
atmospheric
sciences is that global warming is occurring. There are few renegades who
do not and they are largely receive payments from the energy industry to
pooh-pooh the issue. The renegades don't publish in peer reviewed
journals,
in the US they work with ring wing think tanks and work largely with the
media.

On the other hand, you will NOT get scientists who agree (as a consensus)
that local weather variations, or an odd winter or two are due to global
warming. If one is talking about the worldwide decrease in glaciers, that
you will get agreement on. It is due to global warming. If you are talking
about the 4 big hurricanes in the Caribbean this year, or the unusual
Typhon activity in the Pacific, you will get virtually no scientists
saying those are due to global warming.

So the currently warm winter in Europe, while exceptional, is not
attributed to global warming. One year does not make global warming.
It should be commented on, however, the warm winters in my part
of France have been occurring for years, and I personally think, we
viewed over the last 20 years, that we are seeing its effects.
This winter is merely part of that trend.

****


Friday, December 03, 2004

Talk About a Consensus

The latest issue of Science contains a short paper by Naomi Oreskes which
reports on a literature review of peer reviewed papers on climate science
between 1993 and 2003. The idea was to test whether any of them challenge
the consensus view that human emissions are causing warming. The results are
astonishing:

The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued
statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for
comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change."

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

****

Voila

Earl

Earl Evleth writes:

    > The facts are than the water in the gutters have not frozen
    > once this year in our quartier, and that I have not see
    > before in our 30 years here.

Let's just hope that this is not a foretaste of the coming summer.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 15/01/05 14:38:

    > Earl Evleth writes:
    >
    >> The facts are than the water in the gutters have not frozen
    >> once this year in our quartier, and that I have not see
    >> before in our 30 years here.
    >
    > Let's just hope that this is not a foretaste of the coming summer.


Just keep you thoughts in the gutter and you will make it.

Earl

Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:BE0EDA07.2F7B5%[email protected]:

    > in article [email protected], Wolfgang Schwanke at
    > [email protected]re wrote on 15/01/05 3:36:
    >
    >
    >> I'm skeptical. It could be a media created phenomenon. There are
    >> scientists who say there is no "global warming" taking place, some
    >> others say there is but it's probably not caused by human
    >> activities.
    >
    >
    > This is not true (see below).

Yes it is.

    > The consensus view of people who work in
    > the atmospheric sciences is that global warming is occurring.

There is no consensus. Differing views exist.

    > There are few renegades
    > who do not and they are largely receive payments from the energy
    > industry to pooh-pooh the issue.

The term "renegades" is very loaded. It shouldn't have a place in
scientific discussions. You admit that differing views exist after all.

    > The renegades don't publish in peer
    > reviewed journals,
    > in the US they work with ring wing think tanks and work largely with
    > the media.

Well, I've seen one on television, a university professor. He said that
he thinks global warming exists, but that he believes natural causes to
be likely.

    > ****
    >
    >
    > Friday, December 03, 2004
    >
    > Talk About a Consensus

What is the source of this?

    >
    > The latest issue of Science contains a short paper by Naomi Oreskes
    > which reports on a literature review of peer reviewed papers on
    > climate science between 1993 and 2003. The idea was to test whether
    > any of them challenge the consensus view that human emissions are
    > causing warming. The results are astonishing:
    >
    > The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union,
    > and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
    > have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence
    > for human modification of climate is compelling.

Limited to American institutions, and says nothing which is disputed. To
prove your point there would have to be a statement "No studies with
contrary viewpoints have ever been published".

    > Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or
    > studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate
    > change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Who wrote that summary, and can that person be considered impartial?
    >
    > ****
    >
    > Voila

I'm not convinced, especially since I have personally heard dissenting
statements from scientists, see above.

Regards

--
Gültig für alle Staaten und Westberlin

http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

Gordon Forbess wrote:

    > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Many wondering what happened to Europe's winter.
    >
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    > Europe's winter has been on holiday in Southern California.

But we'd happily send it home!!!!!

John Bermont wrote:

    >
    >
    > Earl Evleth wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Many wondering what happened to Europe's winter.
    >
    >
    > Ah, the weather. Many complain about it but nobody can do anything about
    > it. But then I could be wrong (happened before). Do you have an answer
    > Earl? But please don't give out with the "global warming" lefto-politic
    > rant.

Why not, when that's the most likely explanation? The moron
in our White House may not believe in it, but he's hardly a
scientist, is he? (Au contraire, he's barely literate,
according to some.)

Then again, he DID believe in "WMD's" in Iraq, took our
country to war because of them, and now, caught with egg on
his face, still claims it was the "right" decision, even if
his "reason" proved bogus! (Under the circumstances, an
apology might have been nice, but he's committed to
pig-headed obstinacy.) "Ignorance and arrogance are bad
foreign policy" - may God deliver us from all "true believers"!

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

    > John Bermont <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Earl Evleth wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Many wondering what happened to Europe's winter.
    >>Ah, the weather. Many complain about it but nobody can do anything about
    >>it. But then I could be wrong (happened before). Do you have an answer
    >>Earl? But please don't give out with the "global warming" lefto-politic
    >>rant.
    >
    >
    > Why not? And what's with the "lefto-politic" tag?
    >
    > The new thing now is global dimming.

Environmental or intellectual? ;-)

in article [email protected], Wolfgang Schwanke at [email protected]re
wrote on 15/01/05 21:38:

    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:BE0EDA07.2F7B5%[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >> The consensus view of people who work in
    >> the atmospheric sciences is that global warming is occurring.
    >
    > There is no consensus. Differing views exist.

Perhaps you have misinterpreted the English word, consensus.
It means almost all, or a very major portion.

    >
    >> There are few renegades
    >> who do not and they are largely receive payments from the energy
    >> industry to pooh-pooh the issue.
    >
    > The term "renegades" is very loaded. It shouldn't have a place in
    > scientific discussions. You admit that differing views exist after all.

Back to the word "consensus".

    >> The renegades don't publish in peer
    >> reviewed journals,
    >> in the US they work with ring wing think tanks and work largely with
    >> the media.
    >
    > Well, I've seen one on television, a university professor.

TV is a media event, and not peer reviewed. I have heard George Bush
on TV too.

The article I posted gives the over all tone among those
who publish in this area. The fact that it is American makes little
difference, the informed opinion here is Europe is the same

Earl

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:38:19 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Earl Evleth writes:
    >> The facts are than the water in the gutters have not frozen
    >> once this year in our quartier, and that I have not see
    >> before in our 30 years here.
    >Let's just hope that this is not a foretaste of the coming summer.

Are you hoping that water will freeze in the gutters this summer?

Just had the second consecutive night with a hard frost in NL.
--
Martin

in article [email protected], nitram at
[email protected] wrote on 16/01/05 11:05:

    > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:38:19 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Earl Evleth writes:
    >>
    >>> The facts are than the water in the gutters have not frozen
    >>> once this year in our quartier, and that I have not see
    >>> before in our 30 years here.
    >>
    >> Let's just hope that this is not a foretaste of the coming summer.
    >
    > Are you hoping that water will freeze in the gutters this summer?
    >
    > Just had the second consecutive night with a hard frost in NL.


Our gutters in Paris remained unfrozen last night, and the temperature
is supposed to warm up over the next couple of days.

The temperature within Paris seems to vary a bit since
a few weeks back gutter water was frozen in the 14th but not here
in the 6th.

It was fogged in this morning but the skies just turned blue and
the sun is out.

Earl

nitram writes:

    > Are you hoping that water will freeze in the gutters this summer?

I'm hoping that temperatures remain below or at least do not exceed
seasonal summer norms.

    > Just had the second consecutive night with a hard frost in NL.

It's -1° C here in Paris and it's almost noon. But that's okay with me
as I wasn't planning to go out, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 16/01/05 11:21:

    > It's -1° C here in Paris and it's almost noon. But that's okay with me
    > as I wasn't planning to go out, anyway.


Where to you live in Paris? Here it was around 4°C and no water
was frozen in the gutters. It was not freezing here.

Earl

Earl Evleth writes:

    > Where to you live in Paris?

A few hundred metres away from you.

    > Here it was around 4°C and no water
    > was frozen in the gutters. It was not freezing here.

That's what my thermometer said, but the "official" weather (in the Parc
Montsouris, perhaps?) said -1° C. Right now, Météo France says 2.9° in
Bretigny, and my thermometer says 7°.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article <[email protected]>,
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to John Bermont
    >
    > >But please don't give out with the "global warming" lefto-politic
    > >rant.
    >
    > Yes, the whole world except US is on a "lefto-politic" rant,
    > sure.

The whole scientific-community is too, except for Bush's "faith-based
community."

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:12:42 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Gordon Forbess wrote:
    >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:16:23 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Many wondering what happened to Europe's winter.
    >>
    >>
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >> Europe's winter has been on holiday in Southern California.
    >But we'd happily send it home!!!!!

We need it to linger a while longer. Snow in the Sierras is water in
the reservoirs this summer. And I doubt that the ski resort operators
are complaining.. 180 inches of snow (4.6 meters) at Mammoth Mountain,
California is more than I can ever remember. So bring those inflated
Euros over here this year and spend away!

Gordon