Global Warming

| 2 Comments
A couple of items regarding Global Warming... First (hat tip to Kim DuToit) comes a link to an entry at Coutertop Chronicle. Unfortunately, the author has done a major site revision so the original link no longer points to anything. They promise to get this fixed and I will update this entry when they do. UPDATE - beginning: Countertop wrote back with the correct URL. The article also has a bunch of links that are important: CJS Approipriations Bill -- Thomas indexed HTML and Thomas PDF text The text of the rider in question is found on page 52 of the Thomas PDF version: bq. Provided further, That section 515 of Public Law 106-554 and any regulations and guidelines promulgated under such authority shall not apply on or after the date of enactment to research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. More info on the Federal Data Quality Act And finally, how to contact your Senator and Congresscritter UPDATE - end: Here is an excerpt from the article (emphasis mine): bq. Well, Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg seems intent on eliminating science from the climate change debate. bq. Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, slipped in a last minute rider to the just passed CJS Appropriations bill that exempts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from complying with the mandates of the Data Quality Act. The DQA guarantees the use of sound science in policy making by ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of scientific information federal agencies use. If approved, NOAA would be the only agency exempt from sound science. NOAA's DQA regulations are available here. bq. NOAA, of course, oversees the National Climatic Data Center and is the lead agency in conducting research into the existence and effects of climate change. By exempting NOAA, this provision will prevent an honest evaluation of the science of climate change from occurring and ensure that future policy decisions are based not on sound science but rather on junk science. As Kim says: bq. The Federal Data Quality Act was designed to force organizations to use good data when trying to formulate, or influence public policy. I can see no reason why any organization should be exempt from its restrictions, because otherwise we could just make up the fucking data as we went along, without fear of having to actually, well, substantiate it. bq. Well, the Left has been trundling along, doing just that -- and most especially in the field of global warming / global cooling / "climate change", where Luddite environmentalists have tried to halt industrialization using, to be kind, specious data. Second item today are two articles in Tech Central Station regarding Global Warming -- the first one deals with Global Warming Models and their accuracy and track record. The second one deals with reporting and accuracy. The first article: bq. What Exactly Are the Global Warming Models Saying? It's fright month for adherents of global warming who, following upon Russia's failure to meet the Sept. 6 deadline for signing a global treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions, apparently want to scare the public at large to pressure the Bush administration to support such measures. And more -- talking about Global Circulation Models (GCM's): bq. More important, though, is that any application of GCM output to regions as small as California is not good scientific practice. Schemes are being developed currently by the scientific community to interpolate, reliably and soundly, GCM output down to regional scales. But logically, using GCM output to infer climate change for your state is like using a chain saw to do delicate wood carving. Additionally, the scenarios that would create such drastic climate change in the heartland of the USA in general necessarily must involve a drier climate as the UCS report does. bq. For every model simulation that shows California drying up, there are those that show increases in precipitation amounts for the same region under climate warming scenarios[2]. There is still a great degree of uncertainty about what the models are telling us, how to interpret what they tell us, and how they fit with current observations. To make matters even more complicated, some scientists have shown that even establishing the observational record can, in some cases, be a difficult task[3]. bq. As for Byers' contention that a warmer world would cause more violent weather, any student who takes General Circulation Theory 101 would know that an increase in global temperatures, primarily at higher latitudes and altitudes, as most assessments show, would lead to a more placid climate. bq. Why? Because such a scenario would lead to weaker equator-to-pole temperature gradients, decreasing the strength of the poleward transport of energy in the atmosphere and oceans, and resulting in basically less vigorous clashes between air masses. There are abundant studies available in the literature to show there are no general trends toward increases in severe weather occurrences such as hurricanes or tornadoes. The second article: bq. Journalistic Balancing Act? A new study published in the journal Global Environmental Change (see here for a press report) argues that, by adhering to the journalistic standard of balance when reporting on global warming, prestigious American newspapers have introduced an "informational bias" into public discussion of the issue. The trouble is that the analysis fails to take into account why we have newspapers in the first place. The authors are essentially making a case for censorship in favor of special interests. The author (Iain Murray)then cites a couple of examples and closes with the following: bq. So when the authors argue that newspapers are failing the public when they fail to reflect the supposed views of the scientific community about action, then the authors are failing to see the big picture. One of the roles of a free press in a democracy is to inform the public about policy options on which they have a voice. Restricting coverage of options based on the say so of any one group -- whether it is scientists, industry or a church -- is to sacrifice a free press on the altar of special interests. Journalistic standards are designed to protect us from that danger. Scientists, concerned or otherwise, are not aristocrats. They should be wary of those who treat them as such. Good stuff... We are at the beginning of a 400-year warming trend. Several hundred years ago, people could ice-skate on the Themes River. Nine hundred years ago, they were growing wine grapes in Greenland.

2 Comments

Link should be fixed.

Thanks for the link.

The site revision should not have impacted Kim's link to the article. Not sure exactly whats going on (it is getting a TON of hits though) but Blogger has been acting up for the last day or so.

I'm working on the problem and hope to have the link restored soon.

August 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Environment and Climate
AccuWeather
Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Climate Audit
Climate Depot
Green Trust
ICECAP
Jennifer Marohasy
MetaEfficient
Planet Gore
Science and Public Policy Institute
Solar Cycle 24
Space Weather
Space Weather - Canada
the Air Vent
Tom Nelson
Watts Up With That?


Science and Medicine
Derek Lowe
Junk Science
Life in the Fast Lane
Luboš Motl
Medgadget
New Scientist
Next Big Future
PhysOrg.com
Ptak Science Books
Science Blog


Geek Stuff
Ars Technica
Boing Boing
Don Lancaster's Guru's Lair
Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories
FAIL Blog
Hack a Day
Kevin Kelly - Cool Tools
Neatorama
Slashdot: News for nerds
The Register
The Daily WTF
TYWKIWDBI


Comics
Achewood
The Argyle Sweater
Chip Bok
Broadside Cartoons
Day by Day
Dilbert
Medium Large
Michael Ramirez
Prickly City
Tundra
User Friendly
Vexarr
What The Duck
Wondermark
xkcd


NO WAI! WTF?¿?¿
Awkward Family Photos
Cake Wrecks
Not Always Right
Sober in a Nightclub
You Drive What?


Business and Economics
The Austrian Economists
Carpe Diem
Coyote Blog


Photography and Art
Digital Photography Review
DIYPhotography
James Gurney
Joe McNally's Blog
PetaPixel
photo.net
Shorpy
Strobist
The Online Photographer


Blogrolling
A Western Heart
AMCGLTD.COM
American Digest
The AnarchAngel
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Babalu Blog
Belmont Club
Bayou Renaissance Man
Classical Values
Cobb
Cold Fury
David Limbaugh
Defense Technology
Doug Ross @ Journal
Grouchy Old Cripple
Instapundit
iowahawk
Irons in the Fire
James Lileks
Lowering the Bar
Maggie's Farm
Marginal Revolution
Michael J. Totten
Mostly Cajun
Neanderpundit
neo-neocon
Power Line
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Questions and Observations
Rachel Lucas
Roger L. Simon
Samizdata.net
Sense of Events
Sound Politics
The Strata-Sphere
The Smallest Minority
The Volokh Conspiracy
Tim Blair
Velociworld
Weasel Zippers
WILLisms.com
Wizbang


Gone but not Forgotten...
A Coyote at the Dog Show
Bad Eagle
Steven DenBeste
democrats give conservatives indigestion
Allah
BigPictureSmallOffice
Cox and Forkum
The Diplomad
Priorities & Frivolities
Gut Rumbles
Mean Mr. Mustard 2.0
MegaPundit
Masamune
Neptunus Lex
Other Side of Kim
Publicola
Ramblings' Journal
Sgt. Stryker
shining full plate and a good broadsword
A Physicist's Perspective
The Daily Demarche
Wayne's Online Newsletter

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by DaveH published on September 21, 2004 9:27 PM.

Speaking Truth to Power was the previous entry in this blog.

Ahhhh rats... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Monthly Archives

Pages

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 5.2.9