[LINK] the weather makers

[Kim Holburn]

On 2007/Apr/08, at 10:31 AM, Stewart Fist wrote:
> I also agree that many professional climate deniers owe their  
> public stance
> to the generous funding of the energy industry.  But that doesn't  
> make every
> 'denier' automatically corrupt.
>
> Despite the fact that scientists and lay people holding unpopular  
> sceptical
> views on this, constantly get told they are idiots - there are  
> plenty of
> top-class independent scientists who hold a position very similar  
> to mine.
>
> 1. I agree that if the consensus of metereological opinion is that  
> the earth
> is warming, then we have to accept their evidence and act on it.   
> But we
> have the right to ask: Ddo they really know?  Have they measured in a
> consistent and accurate way?
>
> 2. I don't agree that this means they know what has caused the  
> temperature
> increases -- this is opinion or speculation, based on some good  
> evidence
> probably (but not overwhelming).  I want to know how they define  
> what are
> the proportional contributions of man-made and natural causes.  I  
> don't
> think this is anything more than educated opinion -- and some good  
> scientist
> disagree with the majority.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325955.900-fake- 
fights-are-not-helping-climate-science.html

> Fake fights are not helping climate science
>
> * 20 March 2007
> * Alan Thorpe

> Few areas of science have implications as momentous as those of  
> climate change. Much is riding not only on ensuring that the  
> science is as accurate as possible but also on getting the  
> political and social response right. Given the high stakes, it is  
> hardly surprising that scientists' methods and conclusions are  
> coming under considerable scrutiny. This is as it should be. After  
> all, scepticism is fundamental to the scientific method.
>
> Scepticism is one thing; cynicism and conspiracy-theorising are  
> quite another. These are the hallmarks of a recent attempt to  
> discredit the widely accepted theory that human-made carbon dioxide  
> emissions are causing global warming. A loose affiliation of  
> scientists and writers is pushing the alternative idea that  
> fluctuations in solar activity provide a better explanation for the  
> rise and fall in the temperature of Earth's atmosphere over the  
> past few centuries.
>
> Their basic argument goes something like this. When the cosmic rays  
> that constantly bombard Earth from outer space hit water vapour  
> rising from the oceans, they cause clouds to form in the atmosphere  
> which shield the planet from solar radiation and cause it to cool.  
> The sun's magnetic field dampens the effect of cosmic rays, so  
> reducing cloud cover and causing Earth to heat up. Thus an active  
> sun makes for a warmer planet - a correlation these scientists  
> claim is borne out by the records.
>
> Readers in the UK may have seen the most recent incarnation of this  
> theory in the Channel 4 television programme The Great Global  
> Warming Swindle, broadcast last week. The programme questioned not  
> only the mainstream of global warming science but also the  
> integrity of the researchers involved in it. As I am the head of  
> the major funder of climate science in the UK, the Natural  
> Environment Research Council (NERC), such accusations of bias,  
> lying and prejudice were bound to catch my attention.
>
> First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or  
> absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better  
> explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2  
> and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently  
> wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a  
> significant role. The climate system is complex and it is likely  
> that many factors affect it, cosmic rays among them. But to claim  
> they are a major influence is disingenuous. There is far greater  
> evidence suggesting CO2 is the major cause of warming.
> "To claim that cosmic rays are a major influence is disingenuous"
>
> Another claim made by the sceptics relates to the observation that  
> in the long-term history of Earth's climate, variations in  
> atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have lagged behind variations in  
> the temperature of the atmosphere. Therefore, they say, the theory  
> that human-produced greenhouse gases are the cause of current  
> warming must be wrong.
>
> Not so. True, the historical rhythm of major ice ages and  
> interglacial periods is set by Earth's orbital variations, known as  
> Milankovitch cycles, not by levels of greenhouse gases. However,  
> these cycles in turn trigger feedback effects - such as increases  
> or decreases in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - which amplify the  
> change in temperature.
>
> There is no question that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere,  
> the warmer the planet becomes. It is not the only mechanism for  
> warming, but it is a prominent one. We are adding CO2 and other  
> greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in a way that has never happened  
> before. The physics of how these gases cause warming by trapping  
> the sun's radiation within the lower atmosphere - the greenhouse  
> effect - is well established and it is no surprise that  
> temperatures have been rising over the past 40 years. What's more,  
> from the comprehensive models that climate scientists have built  
> up, it is clear that only human-made greenhouse gases can explain  
> this warming. Other factors, such as solar variations, have been  
> found to be insignificant in comparison.
>
> This debate is not just about science. Implicit in the sceptics'  
> message is the suggestion that scientists are lying about the role  
> of CO2 in climate change. The impression given is that this is a  
> conspiracy; that climate scientists are deliberately trying to  
> mislead the public, either to affect policy because of their  
> private political motivations or to be more successful in  
> attracting research funding.