Iain is requested and advised to read this rave in it's entirety: _______________________ Superb New Scientist special guide debunking the top 26 'anti global warming' myths. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462?DCMP=3DNL= C-nletter&nsref=3Ddn11462 The detailed comments on each point are well worth looking at. With all this good science in support, how can anyone possibly question its reality? :-) Note that the language is often enough somewhat more moderate than the headings and the hoopla may suggest. Failure to consider the arguments in some detail may lead you to being more rather than less perplexed. eg consider what their wording " ... a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture ... " is REALLY saying. Rephrase that as something your children might tell you when you ask if something is true etc. How would you respond? At present the very best science that money can buy as reported by the official GW watchdogs says that the statistical probability that GW is predominantly caused by man made activity has a P value of 0.1*. That sounds reasonably conclusive until you consider that anyone submitting data with that confidence limit in support of *ANY* normal scientific proposal, conclusion or funding activity would be shown the door if they ever actually got through it in the first place. NO peer reviewed paper would be accepted for publication at this confidence level. The international body charged with making you aware that Global Warming is man made (maybe I put that badly? :-) ) is the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Cha= nge This year they issued a major "Summary for Policy Makers document which can be found here http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf In it they, already famously, stated "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations Here the "very likely due" means, based on the figures that they provided - 'with a statistical P value of 0.1' I assure you that if you tried to get a funding grant for anything science based (except perhaps GW research) based on the same "very like due to ..." P values that you'd be liable to be terribly unsuccessful. But, don't just take my word for this - ask anyone who applies for grants or research approval or who has submitted a paper for publication and see what they say. **** NB NB NB NB **** I am certainly not saying that GW is not predominantly man made - but it is quite possible that it's not. I am not saying that we should not practice "prudent avoidance" or practice the precautionary principle - I believe that we should, especially when the cost of getting it wrong is so very very large. BUT I am saying that there is a lot of junk science out there, there's a vast amount of vested interest at stake, there are lies being told at all levels and scientific conclusions are being dressed up with smarmy words which are effectively lies in order to push an agenda (in fact many agendas) and to make people rich and to make people famous and to give people funding to do what they want and much more. Often at the expense of addressing the perceived problem. I'm saying that - the REAL situation, based on the best science that money can buy, and the IPCC can buy a vast amount of science and a very large number of scientists, - is that we don't know with any certainty. - The science does NOT support the major premise with any certainty at all. As measured by the IPCC's own figures and reports (let alone anyone else's) - We should be investigating the matter even more thoroughly than we are now. - But we should be open about the results. - we should NOT be demonising and seeking to destroy those who raise valid questions and complaints (or even invalid questions and complaints) - We should be applying the precautionary principle with a vengeance - but we should also be open about the anomalies that we have introduced and - we should apply far better science to determining what is and isn't considered to address the problems which just may exist. (Carbon credits are as much, alas, political boondoggle/pork belly/influence trading and career and fortune building as an attempt to solve problems which may exist). Russell * A P value of 0.1 means that the area of uncertainty that lies in the tail of the normal probability curve is only 10% of the total area. This sounds like it would be reasonable to say "it's 90% certain that GW is caused mainly by man made factors" or "there's only 10% chance that GW isn't caused by ..." AND to a scientist those statements may have some merit. BUT for practical purposes they don't. In reality (ie as observed across a very very wide range of real world areas over many centuries) when something has a P value of 0.1 then it means that "it seems that there's some sort of possibility that something may be happening but its quite likely that really nothing is happening at all". When you get to a P value 0f 0.05, which may *seem* not TOO much more likely, we can say "something statistically significant is happening". BUT the jump from 0.1 to 0.05 is a reasonably vast one. The usual suspects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Russell.. . ________________________________________ New Scientist: Special Report Earth Climate change: A guide for the perplexed 17:00 16 May 2007 NewScientist.com news service Michael Le Page Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences. Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up. With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories. So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions. There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources. =95 Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter =95 We can't do anything about climate change =95 The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong =95 Chaotic systems are not predictable =95 We can't trust computer models of climate =95 They predicted global cooling in the 1970s =95 It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? =95 It's too cold where I live - warming will be great =95 Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans =95 It=92s all down to cosmic rays =95 CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas =95 The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming =95 Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming =95 The oceans are cooling =95 The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming =95 It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England =95 We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age =95 Warming will cause an ice age in Europe =95 Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming =95 Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell =95 Mars and Pluto are warming too =95 Many leading scientists question climate change =95 It's all a conspiracy =95 Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming =95 Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production =95 Polar bear numbers are increasing If you would like to comment on this article, visit our blog. -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist