I think that John's post rather illustrates the problem of the science of global warming. Unlike other scientific enquiries this one is violently distorted by the politicisation of the global climate conferences.
Nobody could be in any doubt after the second round of the climate change conference that the debate is not about science, but about the rival claims of the major industrial powers, and that the substance of the issue is capitalist rivalry. Europe wants to restrain US industry, its own being rather more lacklustre, by introducing political limitations on the level of US economic activity.
The mobilisation of scientific evidence is generally secondary to the opposing interests of the different sides. To see only the anti-global warming science as compromised rather assumes that the European campaign to restrain US industry is benevolent, which, I'm sorry to say, is indeed naive.
In keeping with the partisan nature of the debate, John thinks that he is at liberty to call one working scientist a liar and a whore. I would be interested to know if John has the elementary good manners to put these charges to the scientist in question personally, before making them here, behind his back. If not, then I have to say that it would be unethical to continue to entertain them here.
When future generations look back on the science of global warming, I suspect that they will see it as being as sound as the science of eugenics. In retrospect anyone today can see that this 'science' was largely an ideological cover for the Western monopoly of political power, and that the 'science' followed the ideological needs. So too with the 'science' of global warming. It serves political needs - the needs of the Western powers to restrain industrial development in the third world, and European needs to restrain industrial competition from the US.
None of this is to pass judgement on the actual subject matter of climate change. But I think there are enough reasons to stand back from making adamantine judgements, as long as the issue is subordinated to political and capitalist interests.
In message <00ea01c0620d$e1628140$38b30e18 at sprgfld1.mo.home.com>, John
Thornton <jthorn16 at home.com> writes
>
>
>
>> >, John Thornton writes
>> >
>> >Try reading the Sept. 1993 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological
>Society'
>> >review of Robert Balling's work written by Michael MacCracken. He had
>been
>> >at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 25 years as a climate
>modeler.
>> >He was later director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
>> >For Patrick Michaels work try the Summary for Policy Makers, Second
>> >Assessment Report by the IPCC Working Group I from spring '96. It
>addresses
>> >his findings specifically. These are both excellent places to start. [JT]
>>
>> Well I shall certainly look out for it, but why don't you enlighten us
>> here?[JH]
>
>I am not certain what you want. Are you wanting me to directly critique
>Balling & Michaels new book 'The Satanic Gasses'? Are you wanting a critique
>of their periodical 'The World Climate Report'? Which incidentally is funded
>by the Western Fuel Association and is NOT a peer-reviewed publication. I
>could give an extremely limited example of deliberate misrepresentation of
>data on the part of both scientists. They have both claimed at various times
>that satellite based temperature readings show no more warming of the
>atmosphere than can be explained through natural variables even after they
>had been made aware of the fact that in August 13 1998 vol.394 of Nature
>that showed when corrected for orbital decay the measured warming trend of
>the lower troposphere was consistent with the ground surface temperature
>trend. A small but DELIBERATE deception that makes one question their
>motives. [JT]
>>
>> Balling and Michaels demonstrate that the model of global warming
>> adopted at the Rio Summit has consistently deviated from the recorded
>> temperatures, calling it into doubt. (Prometheus 1) They show that in
>> 1995 the IPCC was already having to revise its estimates of global
>> warming to save the data.
>
>This is just wrong. The 'revisions' have to do with the model used by the
>Hadley Centre including the negative forcing effect of aerosol sulfates that
>were not originally included. One would expect revisions as our knowledge
>grows and the models become more refined. The deviations between the models
>projections and recorded temperatures were cited incorrectly by Michaels. He
>cited a sensitivity of 4 degrees C when it fact it is a sensitivity of 2.5
>degrees C. He has probably confused it with the Syukuro Manabe Global
>Climate Model used by NOAA and has a sensitivity of 4 degrees C. Now I'm
>getting in about as far as I'm comfortable going. I have said before I am
>not an expert in this field. I don't have all this information in my head
>and I am having to do more re-reading than I would like. Anyone who knows
>more want to jump in?[JT]
>>
>>
>> Then you are exceptionally naive.[JH]
>
>Please don't make personal statements like this, it is counterproductive.And
>unpleasant to read.[JT]
>>
>> For my part I am delighted that these industrial capitalists are funding
>> research, whose results can be tested against the evidence. By contrast,
>> the IPCC has attempted to decide the scientific matter by political
>> fiat, which is a threat to free scientific enquiry. But your suggestion
>> that Balling changed his mind because he was paid to is a gratuitous
>> insult, that you would not have the courtesy to repeat to his face, and
>> therefore unworthy of comment.
>> But perhaps you ought to tell us who you are working for, if you want to
>> go down that road.
>
>You're delighted the foxes have decided to safeguard the henhouse? I have
>not suggested Balling changed his mind about anything. I have no way to know
>his opinion about anthropogenic influences on climate change prior to '91
>because he hadn't published anything on the subject before that. I only
>pointed out that his original work was as a researcher paid by Western
>Fuels. I would be more than willing to question his objectivity to his
>face.I still don't see how you can consider the work of Michaels, Balling,
>Lindzen, and Idso relatively unbiased. Besides fossil fuel industry funds
>they also receive money from the Competitive Enterprise Institute whose moto
>is "advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government".
>Sounds suspiciously like an biased agenda to me.[JT]
>
>
-- James Heartfield