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

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

On 22/02/2012 2:37 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> 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.

It's the unpredicted effects that concern me. As an example:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/falling-clouds-could-counter-global-warming-20120222-1tmpw.html

If the climate scientists keep making predictions that turn out to be in 
conflict with subsequent observations it reduces their credibility and 
gives the skeptics the opportunity to spread FUD.

You have to be very careful with predictions, especially when they deal 
with the future.

(joke)

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
email:   brd at iimetro.com.au
website: www.drbrd.com



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2113/4823 - Release Date: 02/21/12