06-23-2006, 04:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2006, 04:28 AM by the Langolier.)
I went to the wiki and checked many of the references they gave. Here's what I found (organized by wiki-category):
Introduction - general Global Warming
Reference 1 quotes the SAR report by the IPCC as such: âThe balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climateâ. "Also: In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
What are vague terms like "most", "suggests", "discernable" and "likely" supposed to convey? What percentage do the facts say "most" is? How much is a "discernable" amount, and mind you, it is only "suggesting" that there is a discernable amount. How do you take into account uncertainties if they are, well, uncertain? The second statement mentions greenhouse gases in general, not only CO2. It doesn't address the sources of green house gases, including water vapor (which has the most significant effect on the greenhouse affect BTW). The percentage of Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is less that .05%, and ESTIMATES on its effect as a greenhouse ranges from 9-25%. Note only is a data range of +-300% scientifically meaningless, no one knows how much of that CO2 is directly attributable to human activity. And finally, the greenhouse gas effect is only one LIKELY cause to global warming as the report says.
There's no facts. There's no numbers. There's no clue. When you boil it down, those statements by the IPCC are scientifically meaningless.
EDIT: Holy #$%&, the whole middle part of my post (references 2-5) dissappeared aparently. Well I'm not going to re write it now. Consequently, the following is taken out of context as it specifically refers to contents of one of the articles:
<blockquote>The relationship between the total and the human influence, however, is undetermined. It doesn't give any data about what percentage of the total is anthropogenic, nor does it report by what percentage anthroprogenic emissions has increased.
Despite all of this, however, there is no fact, number or statement that CO2 is a definitive cause of global warming. (EDIT: In said report)</blockquote>
Reference 6: CO2 concentrations are increasing at the ocean surface. Nothing about the causes of such increaes nor how much is natural phenomenon.
I've getting tired so I will continue this later, but as of yet I have seen no facts that demonstrate the quantitative effect of human activity on the climate. There's possibilities and trends, and even some consensus, but I'm not interested in that.
The critics are guessing. So are the advocates. There's measured data, but no scientific data about 1) our measured influence on greenhouse gasses or 2) the measured influence of greenhouse gasses on global climate. Really, the IPCC report should be sufficient to realize this. I included the two quotes from their report that I have seen referenced by many of the pages in the Wiki, and they contain no fact - are those really the strongest arguements?
The opinion of Michael Crichton is based upon three years of study. He is an author second, a researcher first. In fact it is as valid as any other person, entity or website that did not perform the research themselves, which would be most. His main argument is that we really just don't know enough about our complex environment to be able to say what the affects of our actions would be. The consesus of the public is that reducing our emissions, alternative fuels, yada yada yada will prevent global warming. There is absolutely nothing scientific that will support this. A second main argument of his is that oftentimes our actions have unexpected consequences, especially when applied to complex systems. Most especially when we can't even be sure what every factor is and how it affects the system.
BTW all of what I have quoted/paraphrased by Michael Crichton was from
Introduction - general Global Warming
Reference 1 quotes the SAR report by the IPCC as such: âThe balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climateâ. "Also: In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
What are vague terms like "most", "suggests", "discernable" and "likely" supposed to convey? What percentage do the facts say "most" is? How much is a "discernable" amount, and mind you, it is only "suggesting" that there is a discernable amount. How do you take into account uncertainties if they are, well, uncertain? The second statement mentions greenhouse gases in general, not only CO2. It doesn't address the sources of green house gases, including water vapor (which has the most significant effect on the greenhouse affect BTW). The percentage of Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is less that .05%, and ESTIMATES on its effect as a greenhouse ranges from 9-25%. Note only is a data range of +-300% scientifically meaningless, no one knows how much of that CO2 is directly attributable to human activity. And finally, the greenhouse gas effect is only one LIKELY cause to global warming as the report says.
There's no facts. There's no numbers. There's no clue. When you boil it down, those statements by the IPCC are scientifically meaningless.
EDIT: Holy #$%&, the whole middle part of my post (references 2-5) dissappeared aparently. Well I'm not going to re write it now. Consequently, the following is taken out of context as it specifically refers to contents of one of the articles:
<blockquote>The relationship between the total and the human influence, however, is undetermined. It doesn't give any data about what percentage of the total is anthropogenic, nor does it report by what percentage anthroprogenic emissions has increased.
Despite all of this, however, there is no fact, number or statement that CO2 is a definitive cause of global warming. (EDIT: In said report)</blockquote>
Reference 6: CO2 concentrations are increasing at the ocean surface. Nothing about the causes of such increaes nor how much is natural phenomenon.
I've getting tired so I will continue this later, but as of yet I have seen no facts that demonstrate the quantitative effect of human activity on the climate. There's possibilities and trends, and even some consensus, but I'm not interested in that.
fragbait Wrote:The opinion of Michael Crichton is insignificant. There are four groups of critics to the thesis of global warming. Each of them is, like he said, more or less guessing. Some of them just ignore the measured data.
The critics are guessing. So are the advocates. There's measured data, but no scientific data about 1) our measured influence on greenhouse gasses or 2) the measured influence of greenhouse gasses on global climate. Really, the IPCC report should be sufficient to realize this. I included the two quotes from their report that I have seen referenced by many of the pages in the Wiki, and they contain no fact - are those really the strongest arguements?
The opinion of Michael Crichton is based upon three years of study. He is an author second, a researcher first. In fact it is as valid as any other person, entity or website that did not perform the research themselves, which would be most. His main argument is that we really just don't know enough about our complex environment to be able to say what the affects of our actions would be. The consesus of the public is that reducing our emissions, alternative fuels, yada yada yada will prevent global warming. There is absolutely nothing scientific that will support this. A second main argument of his is that oftentimes our actions have unexpected consequences, especially when applied to complex systems. Most especially when we can't even be sure what every factor is and how it affects the system.
BTW all of what I have quoted/paraphrased by Michael Crichton was from