[LINK] Propaganda, manipulation and the abuse of media [Was: IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes/Science under attack]

[Richard Chirgwin]

One point I will make, Bernard; the earliest predictions far predate the 
observation of AGW.

The observation of the behaviour of CO2 in air dates back to Lord 
Kelvin's era - I can't remember the name of the scientist - and the 
earliest hypothesis that warming could result from it is of similar age.

Today's predictions of *consequences* may or may not be accurate. They 
may be wrong in either direction, predicting too great a consequence or 
too small. However, scientists are now observing things predicted ten or 
fifteen years ago; I find such articles with 1990s dates with no 
particular effort.

Yes, the extremely complex systems that try to predict (say) 
catastrophic storm frequency as a consequence of warming are based on 
models which may or may not be accurate, but the "macro" level 
observation - that CO2 is trapping heat, the amount of heat trapped, and 
the consequent warming we're observing - is well-tested and is 
conforming pretty well to prior predictions.

Cheers,
RC

On 22/02/12 1:01 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> Two things:
>
> 1. the backfire effect
> http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
>
> The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason
> Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence
> that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position
> even more strongly.
>
> 2. I'm not a climate scientist but I do claim to know a quite a bit
> about modelling.
>
> The models the climate scientists use for their predictions are very
> suspect. They are a) linear (the world is non-linear) and b) they are
> incomplete (they leave out potentially critical effect).
>
> This means, to me, that the climate change predictions are not to be
> trusted. That does not mean that I doubt global climate change, but I do
> doubt that we understand the impact of human activity. Climate change
> may well be happening faster and more dangerously than the climate
> scientists predict.
>
> The only sensible course to me is to do as little damage to the
> environment as possible.
>
> Just MHO.
>