Manipulated climate reports

[Tiger Moth]

I am sure Crichton wrote his novel intending for it to sell and to make money.

 

But, as far as sensationalizing is concerned, at the end of the novel he included a 5 page section entitiled Author's Message. Should you not be inclined to read his novel, I recommend you stop in a bookstore and read the 5 pages.

 

Here are 3 of the things he said, at least 2 of which I expect you would agree with:

1) Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.

2) We desparately need a non-partisan, blind funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy.

3) We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

[Denarius]

Ok, let's take it slow so you don't get confused, talk around in circles and end up not providing anything meaningful.

 

Data Source:

You think the source is important, and it seems that you think IPCC data is good, and oil company data or other industrialist data is bad.

 

I think that motives have no bearing on actual scientific data or logic.

 

Now be careful, I said actual scientific data, not manipulated data. You will say that the IPCC would never do data manipulation and I will show you that they have.

 

Now the data itself (accurate data of course).

 

Which do you think is more accurate, proxy data or direct data? For CO2 readings I say Proxy being ice core and Direct being flask.

 

Do you think that if you wanted accurate CO2 data of the world it is better to just take them at 2 spots in the world or a lot of different spots (comprehensive)?

 

Is a consistent methodology good?

 

Should you have multiple confirming measurements?

 

Should you have alternate methods to confirm measurements?

 

Should you measure all significant variables?

 

Should you have a large number of random measurements?

 

 

 

What are your answers?

[Tiger Moth]

Sorry to see DNA has not replied to your post.

 

I find the discussion interesting.

 

The subject is actually extremely important.

 

However, it seems to me that Crichton is correct in that sufficient scientific knowledge does not yet exist in order to make effective policy.

 

Just read that Sheryl Crow is now on a tour with the purpose of educating people on climate change. On one hand, I think it is admirable that wealthy celebrities try to do good. On the other hand, I also think that generally they are not qualified by education, and knowledge to give advise to others.

[Tiger Moth]

Film on Global Warming challenged by scientists:

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070425/global_warming_film.html?.v=1