Gdi 2010 Energy Reform Politics da
A2: Warming–Defense- IPCC Flawed- Unscientific
Download 0.59 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2: Warming- Defense- Models Bad
A2: Warming–Defense- IPCC Flawed- UnscientificIPCC puts pressure on participants to slant results in favor of warming Lindzen 92 (Richard S. ,92 ,Professor of Meteorology @ MIT, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) ET The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of scientists posted to it by government agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists contributed to the report, but university representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time needed for participation are not available to most university scientists. Many governments have agreed to use that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The report, as such, has both positive and negative features. Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report models are largely verified by comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that approach does not seem promising. In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. Nonetheless, the body of the report is extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe. The IPCC is corrupt- controlled by political agendas Novak 2k (Gary, Microbiologist, http://nov55.com/ipcc.html) ET The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposedly the last word on global warming. Those who promote global warming hype declare IPCC reports to be peer reviewed science, and peer reviewed science to be infallible. On that basis, critics are attacked for putting themselves above the unquestionable word of science. But the IPCC is controlled by political hacks who reshape the science for their agenda. There is no place in science for arbitrary authority—least of all a subject as complex as climate change. I'm an independent scientists, not a journalist. Alexander Cockburn is a journalist who describes the position of the critics fairly well. So I'll let him do the journalism, while I do the science. He says, "To identify either the government-funded climate modelers or their political shock troops, the IPCC's panelists, with scientific rigor and objectivity is as unrealistic as detecting the same attributes in a craniologist financed by Lombroso studying a murderer's head in a nineteenth-century prison for the criminally insane." IPCC report isn’t scientifically credible- don’t weigh their impacts D’Aleo 7 (Joseph, Meteorologist @ Weather Services Internatn’l Corporation, Jul 9, http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544#) ET Despite the 90 percent certainty that man is behind recent global warming trends, the word “uncertainty” appears 494 times in the recent “Summary for Policymakers,” produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though the actual research scientists generally did a commendable job, the more alarmist interpretation was provided by a smaller cadre of agenda-driven scientists and statesmen. Then the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further. So what is the real story? The report’s final summaries had several failings. First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon dioxide rise of 36 percent, when direct measurements(1) suggest the change is closer to 15 percent. Their models assume an annual increase of 1 percent, although over the last 50 years the long-term annual average consistently has been less than half that, 0.43 percent. Their models treat the oceans as distilled water when in reality they are an infinite buffer for atmospheric CO2. Burning all the earth’s fossil fuels would amount to no more than a 20 percent increase. It could never double(2). In any event, ice cores tell us carbon dioxide lags, not leads, the temperatures by as much as 800 years A2: Warming- Defense- Models BadIPCC admits - GCMs aren’t reliable Horack and Spencer 97 NASA Scientist, the Senior Executive Service – and Spencer - a climate change research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville (John and Roy, “Accurate ‘Thermometers’ in Space: The State of Climate Measurement Science”, NASA: Marshall Space Flight Center, October 2nd, http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm)//CNDI - GP A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees: ``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed." GCMs can only tell so much and are far too inaccurate to base policy off of Michaels and Balling 2k Prof Environmental Sciences @ U Virginia, and Prof Climatology @ ASU The Satanic Gasses Pg. 62) ET This kind of gross calculation relating geological scale events such as mountain building to the ice ages is really about as accurate as a GCM can be. As for specific predictions about the climate of a given point (see Figure 4.1 in insert), GCMs were and are largely inadequate. Even the IPCC rates its confidence in such predictions as "low." Asking GCMs how the local climate changes for relatively small changes in the atmospheric greenhouse effect (which is all that human beings could ever induce on the atmosphere compared with the 33°C [59°F] natural greenhouse effect resulting largely from planetary water vapor) is asking too much, too soon. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|