BMI’s Gainor: ‘Stewardship’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Lunacy’

By Nathan Burchfiel | March 6, 2008 - 18:10 ET

Business & Media Institute Vice President Dan Gainor told viewers of the Fox Business Network that stewardship of the environment "doesn't mean you have to embrace every bit of global warming lunacy that comes down the pike."

In his March 6 appearance, Gainor discussed BMI's new report, "Global Warming Censored," showed that network news shows routinely shut out debate on climate issues, even from scientists' perspectives. In fact, in 80 percent of the stories studied an alternate viewpoint wasn't even mentioned.

And when network news shows did feature dissenting views, those people were often branded as "deniers" or "flat Earthers." Scott Pelley, a reporter for CBS, continued to report on climate change for that network despite his 2006 comparison of global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Fox Business Live co-host Liz Claman challenged Gainor, however, pointing out that several large companies have "green" initiatives aimed at limiting their "carbon footprint" and having a smaller impact on the environment.

 "All businesses have marketing departments. Their whole job is to make the business look good," replied Gainor. "If you do things that are going to make the business look bad, or you're going to get beaten up about it then you try to, then you try to adapt. And so I don't blame companies for trying to do that."

The problem, he said, is that the media refuse to acknowledge or give fair coverage to people who don't buy into the hype perpetuated by alarmists like former Vice President Al Gore. The media even failed to give fair coverage to the International Conference on Climate Change, a gathering of hundreds of skeptical scientists, economists and policy experts in New York City March 2-4.

 "The problem here is even within this conference, this conference was people who embraced debate. Not everybody agreed. We had two keynote speakers, two, some of the most well-known climatologists in the country, Pat Michaels and Bill Gray, who didn't agree. No one cared; they really wanted to hear what they had to say," Gainor said. But as far as the media are concerned, there is no debate remaining.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There's no debate (as far

There's no debate (as far as the media are concerned) because the facts don't matter to Liberals who make up the 90% of the media.  All they want is an issue they can use to justify the furtherance of their socialist agenda.

Did you ever see, from the MSM or any other Liberal source, a solution to a problem that did not involve some expansion of government power at the expense of the average working stiff?

No, you haven't.

Censorship is freedom of speech to liberals

The only speech to liberals that is free is what they want you to hear or say. Censoring debate on global warmng is the only way they can control it's outcome because once people learn the truth about the hysteria they will no longer buy into it.

Simply getting people to watch another video about this instead of just Al Gore's propaganda film is next to impossible with the media censorship that they even exist:

Censored Global Warming Videos (Videos)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

I was just about to put

I was just about to put this in the other global warming thread, but I will put it here instead. I remember reading last year (I think) that a lot of journalists liken tellling both sides of the story on AGW to allowing David Duke to comment every time race is discussed.

I was trying to find where I had read that, but I didn't. I did, however, find this: Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias

It starts out thus (emphasis added):


A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming
, superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be
a form of informational bias.
Despite the consistent assertions of the
United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that human activities have had a "discernible" influence on the
global climate and that global warming is a serious problem that must
be addressed immediately, "he said/she said" reporting has allowed a
small group of global warming skeptics to have their views greatly
amplified.

Another quote:

Pitting what "some scientists believe" against what "skeptics contend"
implies a roughly even division within the scientific community. And
putting the term "global warming" in scare quotes serves to subtly cast
doubt on the reality of such a phenomenon.

<sarc> I guess it's time to do away with the idea of "balance"...there is a "consensus" and it's time we call the naysayer what they are...no better than Holocaust deniers.

 

 

mb... I just heard about an

mb...

I just heard about an hour ago on msnbc the weather guesser calling snow in Texas (I think they said Texas) thunder snow...

Lovely isn't it?

Btw...before anybody jumps on me with technicalities, when it is snowing it is snowing...we didn't have little names for it when I was growing up...

It is snowing...in Texas.
Where is Algore?

weather guesser---I like

weather guesser---I like that LOL!

did they maybe mean a thunderstorm with thunder and lightning but with snow instead of rain? I know that is kind of rare....

mb... LOL... WE have had

mb...
LOL...

WE have had snow with thunder in Ca. where I was growing up now and then, we have had snow with thunder here in Mt. too...we have always still called it snow, so did the weather guessers...my point is now the weather guessers are going out of their way trying ever-way but sideways to act like this is still a global warming winter...spin spin spin...I just love the blow-hards.

We have broken records here all over the NW this year.
It does get old.

Thundersnow

BT, we hear the term "thundersnow" in our local weather reports on occasion.  It's a thunderstorm with snow.  It does happen from time to time.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Bigtimer, I want to

Bigtimer, I want to congratulate you on coining what is easily one of the greatest titles for a job I have ever heard. It has always been my contention that alleged weather forecasters have the greatest job ever since they can routinely do it badly and NOT get fired.

Weather guessers sums it up perfectly since they obviously know as much as we do.

Bravo! :-)

Motherbelt, I believe the

Motherbelt,

I believe the story you are referring to, about someone comparing debate on Global Warming being equal to allowing David Duke to speak was said in 60 minutes.

But this is a new tactic being deployed on the left.  In Canada, at York University, an abortion debate was cancelled by the president of the student center there because as she put it, "allowing debate on women reproductive rights is like allowing debate on whether or not a man should rape a woman."  The administration at York University did NOTHING to have the debate go on. 

It is very, very scary what is going on.  The left is succesfully starting to silence those that disagree with their agenda. 

Liberals believe themselves to be so high and mighty and to always be on the right side of the issue that they feel no debate is needed.  They believe that what IS needed is the imposition of their will.

"Starting"???  They started

"Starting"???  They started it over 100 years ago.  This is why creation, capitalism, republicanism, christianity, conservatism etc. have been kept out of public schools, except as anomalies to laugh at or ridicule, since at least the 1950's, but it was building up from many decades earlier.

Mattm, Sorry, you are

Mattm,

Sorry, you are right, "starting" is wrong...I guess getting more blunt, and being a lot more upfront in their tactic to silence anyone they disagree with. 

I will say this, in the mid-1990s during my college years Liberals didn't force Conservatives into silence.  They did use insults, etc, but at least they would debate us.

today, i feel that the generation that is in college, mainly those that are Liberal, are uninterested in debating anyone that doesn't agree with their point of view. 

I mean honestly, what idiot compares an abortion debate to allowing a debate on whether or not a woman should be raped?  You know how far gone you have to be, how warped, brainwashed you have to be?  These are Nazi and Stalinist tactics. 

It never ceases to amaze me how "open minded" and "tolerant" Liberals are.  They only want to listen to views that agree with theirs.  Sad, truly, truly sad.  

futbol... "Liberals

futbol...

"Liberals believe themselves to be so high and mighty..."

High would explain alot, but mighty? Nah!

"Abstain from McCain"

But this is a new tactic


But this is a new tactic being deployed on the left.

Exactly right. And it goes along with what happens on college campuses regarding conservative speakers. Liberal college students will tell you with a straight face that being a liberal means being willing to listen to other opinions, but then say that Jim Gilchrist shouldn't be allowed to speak against illegal immigration because that's "hate speech." When someone decides not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD because of their attitude towards America, that's "censorship." But college administrators pre-emptively censoring by refusing to allow Ann Coulter or David Horowitz to speak, on the grounds that they are "controversial" and their very presence might create a "disturbance," is just fine.

Telling both sides can

Telling both sides can never be informational bias, unless one of the sides is misrepresented, which is what the pro-APGW people do all the time.

The idea that APGW is a fact is wrong and the idea that skeptics don't have a legitimate argument is wrong and the idea that the debate is over is wrong.  But those are all facts, and facts don't matter when you have a socio-political agenda to push.

Does anybody know why we have Economists?

Answer:  To make weathermen look good

AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change

An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council on 1 February 2007) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 88

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

Excerpt: 

The following is an Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background
This statement is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U. S. Climate Change Science Program. All these reports recognize the uncertainties in climate projections, and identify the scientific work needed to reduce those uncertainties. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

This summary of the current state of scientific understanding is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

How is climate changing?
Climate is changing in many ways.  Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years, with the six warmest years since 1860 occurring in the last decade. Regionally, the warming trend is greatest in northern latitudes, over land, and at night. Decreases in Arctic sea ice have been observed. Most studies indicate that ice loss has recently accelerated at the margins of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet, whereas the East Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland interior appear to be gaining mass.

Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

lotr... ROFLMAO! Thanks,

lotr...

ROFLMAO!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. 

"Abstain from McCain"

AMS Abridged Statement on Climate Change

"...All these reports recognize the uncertainties in climate projections, [...]

...members offered alternative views on climate change or put quite different emphases on the uncertainties of climate projections. ...The scientific process of debate and investigation is the lifeblood of science; this essential process must continue. [...]

...the East Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland interior appear to be gaining mass. ...little or no annual temperature change in the southeast U.S. in recent decades. [...]

Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. [...]

Changes in the land surface also change the surface water and energy budgets act to redirect the incoming solar energy. Humans alter land surface characteristics through irrigation practices, removal and reintroduction of forests, agricultural changes to vegetative cover, reduction of soil water recharge by soil compaction, and modification of heat storage by cities and reservoirs. Many of these lead to changes in the reflectivity of the surface. ...such changes can have significant effects on regional and local climate patterns.

The interaction of all these effects on climate is complex. ...the east–west difference in U.S. temperature trends may be tied to the spatial patterns of global ocean warming, ...or to natural climate variations. [...]

Changes in the means and extremes of temperature and precipitation in response to increasing greenhouse gases can be projected over decades to centuries even though the timing of individual weather events cannot be projected. Unlike daily weather forecasts, there is limited historical basis of experience on which to judge the accuracy of climate projections. [...]

Weather predictions beyond a few days are nowadays based on ensembles of simulations that estimate the range of probable outcomes. The same ensemble concept is used for projections of climate change, where uncertainty arises from the limitations of models and from the emission scenarios used to represent the effects of human activity. Model limitations include uncertainties in the way in which processes that operate at scales smaller than the resolved scale of the model are represented, as well as those that arise from components of the Earth system not currently included in models. Among the most important uncertainties are changes in clouds, which can either cool or warm the climate. ...The emission scenarios used to drive the climate model projections are uncertain since they depend on socioeconomic responses to climate change; [...]

...considerable uncertainty still exists in the degree to which the land will warm more than the oceans, and this contributes significantly to uncertainties in future projections of global sea level rise. [...]

...There is evidence ...against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date. Though hurricanes are projected to intensify with further warming of sea surface temperatures, significant uncertainty remains as to how other influences on hurricane strength will change in the future. [...]

...On the other hand, longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization enhancing plant growth may potentially lead to some benefits. [...]

The Earth system is highly interconnected and complex, with many processes and feedbacks that are just beginning to be detected and understood. [...]

...Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change."

As for policy statements:

"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Gee, I suppose we should

Gee, I suppose we should also disregard the position statement of the American Heart Association also, regarding cigarette smoking. 

I shall continue to relay what the professional scientific societies are saying -- as someone immersed in this culture, I can assure you that the scientific masses are not rising in revolt against such statements.  Folks are free to take it or leave it, but let's be clear about one thing: These statements reveal that AGW is neither a "myth," nor an "MSM-invention" (nor an Algorista invention, although he did invent the Internet).  It is a prediction about a possible near-future mean state of the atmosphere (i.e., climate), one that differs from today, based upon the very best our scientific knowledge has to offer.  As with any prediction, there is uncertainty and the possibility for error.  But that doesn't render the prediction a "myth," nor is that prediction considered "doomsday" (except in sensational Hollywood movies that thrive off ignorance). 

Lets be clear AGW is a manufactured dogma

We already had this discussion about the AHA.

You continue to repeat the same things, then I will continue to repeat the same things.

Those statements reveal nothing but the opinion of 9 council members. You cannot prove science based on a 9 council member decided position statement.

The predictions are worthless because they are based on worhtless Computer Models - something you have proven to have absolutely no understand of. Leave computers to the computer scientists.

AGW is not science it is a manufactured dogma.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

What discussion about the

What discussion about the AHA?  What was the conclusion of said "discussion"?  That the AHA position statement on smoking is based upon the opinion of a council?  So we should just disregard it?  This is called making a point by way of analogy.

Also, I, for one, use computers for numerical calculations, almost on a daily basis, using high level languages.  They are quite good at it, and the numerical results are quite accurate, thank you (to well within the precision of our measurements).  The models themselves are physical; the computers are merely programmed to perform the integrations numerically.

Millions of people "use" computers everyday

That is irrelevant as far fewer actually understand them. What "high level" languages do you use? Fortran? please. Do you understand all of this?

Software Engineering, GIGO, Defensive Programming, SQA, Code Audit, ISO 9000, Unit Testing, Code Coverage, Regression Testing, Errata, ICE, Logic analyzers, Source Code, Legacy Code, Compilers, Interpreters, Assemblers, Debugging, Input Validation Errors, Exception Handling, Logic Errors, Execution Handling, Divide by Zero, NULL Pointer, Run-Time Error, Race Condition, Infinite Loop, Memory Leak, Stack Overflow/Underflow, Buffer Overflow, Dangling Pointer, Deadlock, SQL Injection, Priviledge Escalation, Checksum, CRC, Code Libraries, APIs, OLE, ODBC, ASCII, Open-Source, Closed-Source, DOS, Windows, UNIX, Linux, COBOL, Pacal, Basic, Visual Basic, Java, .NET, PHP, C++, C#, Machine Code, Assembly Language, GCM, AGCM, SGCM, OGCM, AOGCM, Flux Correction, Spectral Models...

Saying X amount of CO2 causes X amount of temperature increase does not make it true simply because you programmed it in. Which is my point and why you do not understand modeling and why people like you are so easily fooled by computer generated results.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

And your CV is? In this

And your CV is?

In this post, I'm seeing a snarkish reply with no content. Perhaps informing us of your programming models skill would be more beneficial to a discussion than jumping into an assumption that 'you do not understand modeling' without an explanation of yours.

I am a computer Scientist/Analyst.

I am a Computer Anaylst by profession but Scientist by schooling. I actually have to make sure the crap half-ass programmers write works, and corrections where necessary if not outright rewriting portions myself. But I have been doing IT work for over 15 years.

Computer Modeling is nothing more then a program simulation. I have dealt with "models" used by the FAA for air traffic analysis and have seen first hand how natural scientists and engineers cannot comprehend that computers do not fill in the blanks for what is not programmed in or cannot correct for what is programmed in incorrectly.

Anyone who claims global climate models prove anything are beyond computer illiterate and do not understand basic computing.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

You Tell'm Popular

Computers only DO what you TELL them to do, using the Calculations you think of.   If you don't think of it....if you don't "Write" the Equation, Computers don't "think of it".

There is no Artificial Intelligence as of yet . . . . there is Fast Processing of a HUGE amount of Data thru the same Calculations/model, but there is no fill in the blanks Intelligence on the Hardware side. 

 

So, now we are saying that

So, now we are saying that scientists and engineers don't know how to program computers using high level languages?

What high level language?

I ask again what "high level" language are you talking about? You mean Fortran?

I am saying that anyone not trained in computer programming or computer science does not fully comprehend what they are doing. There are self trained programmers who are brilliant but these are not natural scientists or engineers. Natural Scientists and Engineers rely on nature to provide for what they do not understand or are testing or experimenting on, they irrationally apply this to computers. Computers do not work that way. There are no close enough results with computers! It is either right or wrong.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

How Scientists fool Computer Illiterates

It is quite clear to me why this scam has been able to go on so long. You would never dare show up in a programming forum and claim you program using "High Level Languages" and then admit it is merely Fortran and MATLAB. The reason is you would get laughed at. But to the computer illiterate it sounds impressive.

Natural Scientists and non-computer Engineers do not even begin to comprehend computer programming even though they think writing a script and getting it to compile in Fortran makes them an expert.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"Merely Fortran" (?)

Merely Fortran and MATLAB??  And just why exactly are these languages sub-par for numerical modeling??  Because they are high level?  I assure you, they are quite adequate for numerical modeling, and Fortran has been around longer than you have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_physics

Mind you, I don't claim to speak for ALL scientists/engineers -- there are many I work with who are quite adept with C++, many who in fact are computer programmers who work along side the scientists, who do the dirty work, so to speak.  I am just speaking from my own experience -- I use MATLAB, as is common with physicists.

http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/

Typical

Read what I said and do not imply what I did not say. Numerical Programming Languages and High Level Languages are two different things. A programming lanugage being adequate for modeling and the model being adequate for the programming are two different things as well.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Then say what you mean

PopTech said:

"You would never dare show up in a programming forum and claim you program using 'High Level Languages' and then admit it is merely Fortran and MATLAB.  The reason is you would get laughed at.  But to the computer illiterate it sounds impressive."

To which I interpreted to mean that he dismisses Fortran and MATLAB as not being high level languages, that one would "get laughed at" for claiming as much.  I am hoping that he will concede that he mispoke, or that he meant otherwise.

More on high level languages, including Fortran and MATLAB, based on a very quick Google search:

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa072198.htm

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/high_level_language.html

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/h/highll.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB

BTW, as an anonymous blogger, I'm not here to impress anyone.  Perhaps PopTech is projecting?  I was flat out asked which high level programming languages I use to which I provided an honest answer.  I am very quick to add the qualifier that many whom I work with are in fact dedicated computer programmers (who build operational processing systems and translate science code into operational code), and they are quite adept in other languages such as C++ and Perl.  I have realized for some time now that Fortran is not considered chic or elegant in computer scientist circles, but that doesn't take away from its ability for solving numerical scientific problems.  It bears repeating: Scientists use Fortran because subroutines have been around and time-tested since the dawn of electronic computing.

Sounding Impressive to Computer Illiterates

The reason why this matters is because the only one who is going to understand what you said was another computer programmer, the illiterate who people like you prey on thinks it sounds very impressive, which is why you stated it as such.

Computer programmers state what languages they program in and only refer to them as "high-level" languages when having discussions about languages in general or comparing them to "low-level" languages such as assembly and machine. It is actually more impressive to computer programmers to be able to program in "low-level" languages but that does not sound as impressive to computer illiterates who you are trying to impress.

Over stating credentials and giving the false impression on computer programming prowness is typical. Merely stating you program in Fortran or MATLAB does not sound as impressive as saying you program in "high-level" langauges.

I didn't dismiss either as not being "high-level languages" - I dismissed the way you used the term since the overwhelming majority of languages that programmers program in are "high-level" including all the ones that I mentioned.

Fortran has seriously issues with maintainable code which gets worse if clean coding practices are not followed which I have yet to see natural scientists and non-computer engineers follow.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

PopTech is projecting

PopTech is projecting again.  Nothing in my threads "overstates" credentials.  And PopTech is also self-contradictory: On the one hand, I have been accused of being "computer illiterate."  But now, in the same breath I am accused of throwing around computer terminology to impress "illiterates."   I guess I should take this latest ad hominem attack as a compliment.  Never mind the fact that the relevant threads were in response to PopTech himself, whom I assumed knew what was meant by "high level language."  All this is a smokescreen that skirts the point that high level languages are what physical scientists and engineers successfully use to solve problems requiring prediction (e.g., designing ships, airplanes, rockets, dams, building bridges, forecasting weather, remote sensing from satellites, designing more aerodynamic cars, modeling the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, predicting climate, etc.).

Correction:  Scientists,

Correction:  Scientists, OLD scientists, use FORTRAN because they don't know any better.

This is a purely ignorant

This is a purely ignorant statement.  In geophysical sciences, Fortran is a given because most of the subroutines, well established since the 1970s, are written in it.  Everyone in my office has to have familiarity with Fortran -- that's not to say that they only know Fortran.  Fortran, although not chic, is quite good at what is was designed for, namely number crunching.

"In geophysical sciences,

"In geophysical sciences, Fortran is a given because most of the subroutines, well established since the 1970s, are written in it"

This was my point exactly.  Concession.  Point mine.

"This is a purely ignorant statement"

Fascinating lede considering you conceded my point in the next breath. 

"is quite good at what is was designed for, namely number crunching"

And YOUR credentials in computing science are???

FORTRAN, in general, is an inferior solution.  Why?  Becasue all 3rd and 4th generation languages are just as good at number crunching as FORTRAN and are emminently more maintainable, especially if they were written by computing professionals instead of Physicists, Geologists and Meterologists.

 

If they are using FORTRAN,

If they are using FORTRAN, they are **NOT** using a high level language.

Saying X amount of CO2

Saying X amount of CO2 causes Y amount of statistical mean temperature increase is true because the laws of physics (conservation of energy) provide predictive power.  The computer is merely programmed to do the computation numerically, as it is used for countless other science and engineering applications.

P.S. -- I use MATLAB, IDL and Fortran for physical modeling.  Do you understand what is meant by "physical modeling"?  I'll give you a clue -- it's not MS-Word processing.  Many, if not most, science codes use Fortran, as the basic subroutines go way back to the 70s and even earlier, and are thus time-tested.

lotr...are you serious?

Do you really think that a climate model is that simple?

Cause and effect: You program anything to be modeled. There is NO prrof that CO2 necessarily causes anything. You start babbling about statistical mean temperature and then thow in laws of physics ... predictive power?

[ If you want to question my credentials, I have a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics. I have done both theoretical and practical modeling. ]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

»→ LionKing

If I'm a tree, is my rate of growth affected by increased CO2 in the air?

Just asking, because us trees like CO2 a lot and I don't want lotr starving us out.  Some humans think we're quite useful.

♣ a seal

CA

deciduous or evergreen?

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

»→ botg

I'm just a damned tree, how the heck do I know?

♣ a seal

CA

well, it's winter, does you got any leaves?

"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius  

Botg- - LOL

that's funny . . got leaves . . ?

»→ Yes

And nuts.  Does that help?

♣ a seal

No, climate models are highly complex

First off, I recommend you consult with any basic undergraduate atmospheric science text.  If you want me to cite some, I can provide you them tomorrow when I'm back in the office.  CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas.  We intuitively expect increased concentrations in the atmosphere to cause a mean warming in the lower troposphere.  All climate models, taking into account the relevant physics at relevant scales, show the same thing.  I have comfirmed the warming effect myself using a state-of-the-art line-by-line radiative transfer model.  And everything we say here amounts to hand waving in comparison.

Complexity does not equal accuracy

The more complex the code the more errors you will find = fact.

You say they take into account the relevant physics at the relevant scales? So the models scale to the molecular level? So climate physics are all 100% understood and verifiable empirically?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

PopTech is partially correct

PopTech is partially correct regarding compexity and errors -- I would restate it, however, that the more complex the code is the more possibility there is for error -- codes are, generally speaking, QAed and debugged.  The same goes for Operating Systems and most other GUI-driven software applications, which have become behemoths.  But I was merely addressing the earlier question about whether I though the climate system was simple, to which I indicated "no."

No I am right

And unless clean coding practices are followed the amount of errors increases significantly. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of computer programming. What makes this worse is that finding these bugs with climate models is reduced significantly because the user base is smaller.

If you know anything about Operating Systems - bugs are founds constantly and those have a large user base.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"If you know anything about

"If you know anything about Operating Systems - bugs are founds constantly and those have a large user base."

Absolutely true.  But, by and large, operating systems still work.  Climate models, like other science codes, are modularized, and the components are QAed and checked against known results/measurements.

Fortran - I am not surprised

Like I said you use Fortran. What version of Fortran do you use? Natural Scientists and Engineers are the only ones using Fortran.

"Time-tested"? AHAHAHA! So age of code determines lack of errors? Age of code proves it's accuracy to the real world? Are you serious?

Wow you program in Fortran and do "physical modeling". So way over my head, stupid me only programs in Microsoft Word not Java, C, Visual Basic, PHP, C++, Perl, Python, C#, Delphi, Javascript, SQL, COBOL, Pascal or any other commonly used language.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Fortran 90

Look, this is not a pissing match -- wonderful that you are able to program in all those languages, but what relevance does that have to numerical modeling using Fortran?

Do you have a computer science degree?

Computer programming has everything to do with computer programming.

Is all of your modeling code available to the public? Who does you code audits? What clean coding practices do you follow? Who is authorized to oversee these methods are followed? What are their credentials?

It is pretty scary that million dollar climate models rely on decades old FORTRAN scripts as "proven accurate with age".

FØRTRAN: Write all your code in FORTRAN. If your boss ask why, you can reply that there are lots of very useful libraries that you can use thus saving time. However the chances of writing maintainable code in FORTRAN are zero, and therefore following the unmaintainable coding guidelines is a lot easier.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

No, I don't, but...

We are talking about using Fortran (and MATLAB, which is what I, and most physicists, primarily use -- I only use Fortran when absolutely necessary) for numerical modeling and scientific computing.  PopTech has yet to address what is problematic here.  It seems here that he is suggesting that no one can program a computer to solve numerical problems except himself.  Sounds pretty elitist.  It's also quite false.  Some more on Fortran:

http://colleges.weber.edu/science/dean/Fortran_Cpp/default.htm

http://macresearch.org/worth-learning-fortran

 

What I am suggesting

I am suggesting that those trained in computer science have enough problems programming but at least they generally understand what a computer can and cannot do.

Anyone can use a computer, anyone can learn to program a computer or use it to solve a numerical problem. A much smaller minority can program them correctly.

But this is only part of the problem because people such as you cannot comprehend the meaning of the results they receive from these "models" and do not understand why they are irrelevant.

I am sorry to say but it is obvious that computer climate modelers are absolutely ignorant about computers. Computers cannot fill in the blanks for what you do not know or program in wrong. It is impossible for them to be validated empirically.

Yet even you use terms like "state of the art" - according to who? Those who made them? Calling something an impressive sounding name does not make the results any more relevant. Saying we are 60, 70, 80 or 90% of the way there on a model makes the model IRRELEVANT for prediction! 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"A much smaller minority

"A much smaller minority can program them correctly."

Scientists fall into this "minority." 

"State of the art" according to the international science community. In this case, "science community" refers to specialists in environmental radiative transfer, of the caliber found attending meetings such as:

http://www.irs2008.org.br/site/index.php

The language used is

The language used is indicative of how obsolete the model is.

**NOBODY** has done anything new in FORTAN since the early 80's.  All work still being done in FORTRAN is maintenance work on old code. Ergo, these models must be old code.  Very old code, in fact.

Are Global Climate Models at the molecular Scale?

If not how do they accurately predict the conservation of energy of molecules they are not modeling? How do they determine the exact starting point of said molecules? Or do they use "empirical approximations" AKA guesses?

What physic's law calculates made up "forcings" that can be verified empirically?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Newsflash...

"Climate," by its very definition, is concerned with large space/time scales (i.e., macroscale); on the macroscale level, the atmosphere and ocean are considered continuous fluids, which fall under the domain of classical physics.  The concept of temperature itself (the ultimate object of any discussion of "global warming"), is merely a statistical description -- the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.  Is PopTech suggesting that we abandon the concept of "temperature"?

The answer is no

So the answer is no thus the models are irrelevant.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

non sequitur

This is another non sequitur.

lotr...not to be picky, but

lotr...not to be picky, but isint 1860 the "year without summer"? That was the time krakatoa erupted. Its a bogus time line there.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bassndude

Not sure what this was in response to.  I would have to go back and check that year, but if Krakatoa were a strong volcano then I would imagine a global cooling for a couple years following.  Please bear in mind that I'm not a climate specialist, though....

You a bass player, dude?

lotr...my mistake. Krakatoa

lotr...my mistake. Krakatoa erupted in 1883. 1816 was the year without summer. The years following the 1883 eruption, the average global temp fell 1.2 degrees C. So this still throws a kink in the time line beginning in 1860. Global weather did not return to "normal" untill 1888. My point is that you cannot take a time line and make a blanket statement about global temps rising. Its all bogus. You have to take a time line in which there are no Krakatoa's, or St. Helens to screw up the data.

Fortran is an basicaly an engineering language. I would think that with all the unknowns that C would be better suited and give better results. In engineering, you know all of the variables. Stress, strain, deflections, cross sections, ect. ect. You cant say that about the weather.Just MHO.

And no, I fish. Do play a little guitar tho. 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

The "Year without a Summer",

The "Year without a Summer", 1816, was the product of an eruption that dwarfed Krakatoa 1883.  Tambora on the Island of Sumbawa produced a VEI level 7 event in 1815.

oh, that kind of bass...

OK, thanks for verifying this.  Major volcanic eruptions occur are a fairly periodic basis.  In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo erupted, which caused a short period global cooling, superimposed upon a long period global warming.  That doesn't mean we can't a posteriori observe the long period trends in the data.

C and C++ are increasingly used in my field.  Fortran, however, is still used because of legacy codes, and it is quite adequate for numerical modeling.  Note that nowhere on this blog have I written that Fortran is somehow "superior" or the computer language par excellence.  Believe me, I have had enough interaction with computer scientists (we work alongside them) to know that C++ can do more, is more structured, gives more control to the programmer, etc.  But that doesn't mean Fortran can't be used to solve a system of equations.

Let the stupid be stupid ...

... if some idiot wants to believe God is out taking a smoke break while the earth heads towards global warming "disaster" let that jack_ss keep banging his head against the wall trying to make his lie the truth.

Deceivers wax worse and worse ... let 'em go down in flames.

"So there we have it. On

"So there we have it. On one hand we have the IPCC, the rest of the
world's major scientific organisations, and the government's chief
scientific adviser, all pointing to the need to cut emissions. On the
other we have a small band of sceptics, including lobbyists funded by
the US oil industry, a sci-fi writer, and the Daily Mail, who deny the
scientists are right. It is reminiscent of the tobacco lobby's attempts
to persuade us that smoking does not cause lung cancer. There is no
danger this lobby will influence the scientists. But they don't need
to. It is the influence on the media that is so poisonous." B May 'Under-informed, over here' Guardian Jan. 2005

"Riley E. Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University
who has studied the influence of conservative policy institutes, said
in an e-mail message that such events were designed to foster the
impression of “little Davids battling the Goliath of the environmental
establishment.”

But Dr. Dunlap said such activities were well
financed and, “When you have the full support of some of the wealthiest
and most powerful political actors in the nation, you can hardly be
considered to be underdogs.”" A. Revkin '
Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming' NYT March 2008 www.nytimes.com/2008...

"
There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some
individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has
led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that
there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's
climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate
scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging
in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with
which they disagree.

We believe that it is important to separate two issues. The first one
is the scientific question of how and why climate changes. The second
question is, if the climate is changing and humans are causing part of
this change, then what should societies do about it. The appropriate
arena for debating the first, scientific question is through
peer-reviewed scientific publications--not the media. However, the
appropriate arenas for debating the second question of public policy
are the media and political fora, because answering the second question
is inherently a public and political process. And it is the
responsibility of the scientific community to participate in the public
and policy processes as well as in the scientific process." Avery et al 'Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer http://www.ucar.edu/...

small band of sceptics, including lobbyists funded by the US oil

"So there we have it. On one hand we have the IPCC, the rest of the
world's major scientific organisations, and the government's chief
scientific adviser, all pointing to the need to cut emissions.
On the
other we have a small band of sceptics, including lobbyists funded by
the US oil industry, a sci-fi writer, and the Daily Mail, who deny the
scientists are right. It is reminiscent of the tobacco lobby's attempts
to persuade us that smoking does not cause lung cancer. There is no
danger this lobby will influence the scientists. But they don't need
to. It is the influence on the media that is so poisonous." B May 'Under-informed, over here' Guardian Jan 2005

http://www.guardian....

 

 

More like thousands of Skeptics

You have more skeptics then you do authors of the IPCC, you have more skeptics then you do council members of the scientific bodies that made those statements, you have more skeptics then the presidents science advisor.

Skeptical Scientists:

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark