BewaConsensus Science

Geez - I wish I had the time to follow this more
closely.

Arthur & Tangoman

I've read Bjorn Lomborg's book and the Hard Science of
Global Warming by Danny Harvey and didn't feel
statisfied by either argument as being complete or
comprehensive.

Granted I am not a professional scientist and cannot
spend a great deal of time reading up on the subject.
There still seems room to drive a third view of the
climate change debate that fits within both Lomborg
and Harveys works.

Harvey uses a lot of averages for cloud cover and
terrestrial albedo where I find this to be the most
significant control on global climate that there is.

Lomborg points out that there are more acres of forest
now than 100 years ago (don't quote me on this) and
the primary increase is around the North pole
(balances out the losses in the tropics). My
assertion is if you move the plants from the
equatorial regions to the polar regions you setup a
giant change in the heating and cooling patterns.

Third both of them use low altitude continental
terrestrial measurements to cooberate their
models/arguments. I look at the top of the atmosphere
and the interchange of moisture and air between the
polar realm and the middle latitudes. A powerful
North South circulation pattern speaks volumes to me
more than a .5 degree warmer year as measured against
the last 50. The recent evidence of global shading is
interesting though entirely within the idea that
faster lofting of dust, soot, and whatever else gets
up there and stays up there longer.

Ok my data is more sketchy and I have to guess what is
happening over the Pacific ocean as nobody has put
sensors there yet. What I do have is volumes of
documented defrosting of the polar region complete
with suspected 100,000 year old organic material
rotting in a swamp. My geologist instincts for
disaster are going off like Spiderman and I don't by
the more banal assertions.

In summary I don't fault or praise the emissions of
C02 nearly as much as the increase of population to 6+
billion. If true then there is a much more difficult
soul searching to be done about the fate of humanity
and how to live with so many demands on the natural
world.

My solution to all that will hear me is to look to
what space development has to offer especially SPS.
Wealth to the Egyptians was green grass to raise
cattle. Look one step up to the sun and it is all the
same - power to shape and control our environment.

Sincerely, Thor

"The path to the stars goes through the problems of
the earth"

>--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

>
>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
>>>
>>>
>
>>>Here's the press coverage:
>>>Study Warns of Global Warming Extinctions
>>>tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040107/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2
>>>
>>>
>
>>Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from
what I heard.
>>Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out
lying and
>>misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened
in the Climate
>>Research article, is rather a bit worse.
>>
>I wonder if the editor of Nature will be forced to
resign and what
>censure the authors of the piece will face for their
conduct?
>
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html
>

Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by
Exxon-Mobil and friends.
They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good
science. What happened
with Climate Research, AS I SAID in the last note, was
the editor in
chief was not allowed to act as any peer-review
journal editor in chief
should, by publishing an editorial on future review
policies in his own
journal. He resigned in protest. Nature still
practices good peer review
policies. Sometimes things are published that are
wrong, that's normal
science, and not the issue.

>Here is some stuff on Lomborg's vindication.
>
>http://www.greenwatch.org/news/news.asp?ID7
>
Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question, and is
strongly supported
by the current (conservative) Danish government.
That's a very sorry
case there. Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital
Research Center",
info on it here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Capital_Research_Center
Let me just quote one phrase: "CRC has also published
two recent books
denying that smoking causes cancer."

So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and
the statements of
major scientific societies, and you rely on these guys
for your
information? I think you need to change the websites
you frequent.

Arthur