Physicist Freeman Dyson has some doubts about the validity of global warming science. Among his specific critiques are that the current science is based too heavily on computer models, instead of on empirical data gathering, and that the influences of vegetation on the climate are not adequately considered.
But hey, why let the arguments of an eminent scientist throw, er, cold water on the plans of the many politicians, politicians, politicians and journalists with no significant science education who have convinced themselves that the "scientific consensus" is "settled"?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 06, 2007 11:22 AM | Email ThisWhat did King County do in their traffic modeling to create capacity on a roadway that they previously had determined was already over capacity? Done, of course, to allow approval of a development that had previously been denied for lack of traffic concurrency.
Here is a sample of some of the more grotesque manipulations to their computer model:
- They calibrated the model using "measured" 1998 data that had been corrupted to artificially lower volumes in their model by 30%.
- They inserted a non-existing, unfunded and unapproved road into the model (that would destroy a wetland area) that diverted volume away from the critical roadway.
- They used a value for the percentage of car trips that would use this non-existent roadway that was grossly higher than the value used in the Environmental Impact Statement.
- The computer modeling software used required iteration. Once loaded with data, the model was required by ordinance to be run 3 times to converge on an accurate representation of traffic flows and congestion. After each run the inputs were to be adjusted based on the results obtained after the prior runs gridlocked. King County, despite testifying that they followed this requirement, eventually had to admit that they were only running the models once. And when the model run completed, they simply claimed that the model validated their inputs, even though the result was the failure of the model discrediting their assumptions.
- Topping it off has to be the nerve of several county planners and their managers willing to stand in front of a hearing examiner and the public and testify in defense of these actions.
It's hard for me to believe that people out there challenge the charge that grant-driven scientists would bias their science in favor of their backers? Come on!
Not only does any computer model react to the data input into it, but the code itself can be crafted in such a way to achieve a result. This has occurred within KCDOT too. During another challenge of DOT's modeling years ago, it was determined that the county had modified their modeling code to simply ignore certain triggers that would have demonstrated failures of their models. Computer code and be designed to do anything and achieve any result desired.
The use of the phrase "computer model" is intended to suggest to people that human error has been eliminated because an unbiased and foolproof computer program is doing the work. The reality is that any result can be programed into computer models, whether by using flawed data, flawed assumptions, or flat-out flawed programming.
The real danger of computer modeling is that when done with deceptive intent, very few people are capable of challenging it, and even when they do, they are dismissed as not fully understanding the details. In most cases, critics don't even have access to the models alleged to support flawed conclusions.
For those interested in the end of this story; despite the exposure of these manipulations, and even a recommendation from the hearing examiner to deny the permit, the King County Council approved it anyway. And when last checked, King County had spent more than $1 million on private counsel to defend DOT and several managers involved in these actions being sued by former employees who tried to expose their actions.
Posted by: MJC on June 6, 2007 12:10 PMThe thing about the NASA guy is the only thing they could nail him on was that he gave a "personal" opinion as compared to Al Gore's NASA expert.
At least if the naysayers are wrong, then at least Greenland will be green again.
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2007 12:24 PMPrager asks: "what happened to the Left's favorite teenaged mantra 'QUESTION AUTHORITY'? All of a sudden if you question THEM, it's bad. ?????
Preach it, Dennis.
Al Gore admits that even if we implemented all of his draconian anti-man, anti-growth CO2 regulations, that it still would likely have little effect on climate change. And this would be especially true if humans are causing little to no warming in the first place.
The goal of the Global Warming Truthers is the imposition of a Robin Hood like redistribution scheme that takes from the taxpayers of the US and other industrialized nations and gives to the third world countries. And, meanwhile, the haughty Chicken Littles like Al Gore will continue to live their fancy lifestyles regardless of what they impose upon the middle class.
There's plenty of solid science disputing Global Warming, but politicians and journalists have already made up their minds.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2007 12:43 PMWell, I "think" it won't increase again. So who is right? Nobody knows. But this points out the fallacy of all these models.
There are millions of interactions and cause and effect relationships that we simply do not and can not know. Couple this with the changes in technology that will occur over the next 20-30 years that will undoubtedly change human's life styles significantly. Just look back 20-30 years and see how people lived and worked with where we are today. What will the next 20-30 years bring? I guarantee it will not look like today.
So when I add all of this together, I find that using GW modeling as a method to look forward 20-30 years and enforce draconian and wildly expensive "remedies" on us to be pure folly.
If anything I'd say we're at least trying to do something rather rather than making subsidizing H3's for everyone.
Posted by: Cato on June 6, 2007 02:01 PMI just spent 8k for a solar panel that will put out the juice for about a light bulb year around. I hope they go down more if they are gone down already.
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2007 02:22 PMCrap, has anybody told Gore yet?
Posted by: H Moul on June 6, 2007 03:05 PMA quote from the video where he is discussing an ozone hole forming over the Arctic "...that's my primary concern with the carbon dioxide at the moment, it's not what the public is worrying about. The public thinks you have to wait until gobal warming is proved before you do something... but that's completely ridiculous because the other effects which are more easily measurable are already happening anyway."
He goes on to discuss mitigating and managing climate change through not small land use management policy changes.
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 6, 2007 03:12 PMJerry was a science advisior to the White House, and he travels between politics, history, sci-fi and science-space as he is a science fitction author of note.
He has posted this link about the Brightness of Neptune. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/
this is from worldclimatereport.com May 08 Neptune.
everybody: read this and tell me it is man-made.
What chance is there that humans can spend $$$$$ and undo the heat of the SUN?
If we need to plan for global warming, let's do that but get real about the cause.
A: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html
NPR did a piece on the largest contributors this morning but forgot to address the REAL major contributors.
Posted by: daveg on June 6, 2007 04:39 PMYou reveal your true motive and those of the majority of GW crowd. Its not so much global warming as it your frustration with human's impact on the earth. GW is just the best tool available to achieve your desired results.
If you don't like Hummers, don't buy one and try to convence all your friends and neighbors to do the same. Like to ride the bus and light rail, great, ride the heck out it. However, I don't want the government to dictate that I have to live the life style that you would like me to live especailly using very bad "science" to do it. Manmade GW is an insignificant problem. Using it to make the world conform to you and your GW buddies desires by force of government is disgusting.
Posted by: rjk on June 6, 2007 05:25 PMTheir tactic is a common leftist one, perfected by Gerbil in Nazi Germany prior to WWII. The tactic is "Tell a lie or promote your propaganda enough times and enough people will believe it". The MSM is their conduit and often aids and abets them. The best way to stop it is to get in their face and demand that they prove what they say is true. If they don't respond or dance around the question - Tell the audience that they are using "Gerbil's tactic" tell a lie enough times with end result that the enough of the lazy masses will believe it so it can successfully corrupt our culture.
Posted by: KS on June 6, 2007 07:23 PMCO2 is plant food. Plants like it and grow faster.
Beyond that, Global Warming™ (or Climate Change™, depending) is a 300 billion a year industry with tax breaks, subsidies and plenty of government dinaro being sprinkled around like a wood nymph dancing through the forest. I find it suspicious that an industry that large would give an accurate accounting of what is now really happening and the true effects of it long term. Why would Al Gore torpedo his carbon credits firm he's invested large sums of $$ in? Every time he gets on stage he's pimping it by default.
Me? I think that the smart money is to listen to the guys who don't have a dog in the hunt. The guys and gals who don't have their face in the trough. Those are the folks to listen to. And you know what they say? Global Warming™ is quite natural. Brought to us by Ol' Sol. Some day it will probably get cooler too.
Reality is so boring.
More boring reality: This globe has been a lot warmer in the past and it was quite pleasant then. Greenland supported agriculture, Britain grew wine grapes. Switzerland had mountain silver mines (recently found thanks to retreating glaciers). And the ocean didn't flood coastal population centers. And don't you Albert Gorites post stuff about pollution. Different subject entirely.
Speaking of that, I'd also like to say that pollution is a problem these days. Smog is bad in some places. Seeing that the burning of ethanol creates more of the stuff that creates smog, we should stop this ethanol nonsense.
Yet they tell all of us to use less and pay a tax for our sins.
This is a major reason I think all this GW is just bunk!
He scoffed when I asked if the shifting geographic locations for Seattle weather data are accounted for in his renowned climate models.
He explained that specific temperature, precipitation and geographic are not important factors in the algorithms used in his Northwest climate models.
But -- I want to believe his model is true, since it predicts a cooler and wetter climate for Puget Sound. I am happy to pick and choose beliefs, just like Al Gore, when it suits me.
And it does suit me.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 7, 2007 06:56 AM#28 - do you have any other points to make ?
Posted by: KS on June 8, 2007 10:31 AMJust read that the planet will start cooling by around 2010.
Which is neither good nor bad in my mind BUT imagine that after all of this CO2 nonsense (that reductions of will have little or no effect on climate) and 'round about 2013 the leftist eco-wackos stick their fingers in the air and lo! It's cooler! Now they start taking credit for reversing Global Warming™.
I'd have to kill myself.
Somehow current vegetation is supposed to suck up all the coal based and oil based carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere. Millions of years worth of carbon going into the atmosphere and todays vegetation is supposed to suck it up.
This guy is a classic example of an intellegent man who can't see beyond his nose.
Bob
Posted by: Bob on June 9, 2007 12:58 AM