"DESMODUS" wrote in message ...
Its the World Met office thats gone wonky not the weather !

Evidence?

Apparently there
are plans to cut their budget so they feel the need to cobble together some
******** to justify their existence

Evidence?

-DESMODUS

Sadly, nothing at all justifies your existence.

David Ball wrote:

On 04 Jul 2003 14:58:26 GMT, "Claire W. Gilbert"
wrote:

I don't know if you are inexperienced or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
heh, heh, no. Bo knows meteorology.


Let's also keep what the WMO had to say in some kind of
perspective, shall we? A heat-wave in India that had a high mortality
rate? How is that different from the heat-wave last year there? Or the
year before? Or the year before? Something that happens every year can
hardly be called unprecedented, now can it.

More life-saving air-conditioners for India, and nuclear plants
to run 'em, sez I!

-dl

"David Ball" wrote in message
...

It's one
thing have anecdotal evidence that something is happening and quite
another to identify and satisfactorily prove cause and effect.

Nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is the basis for systematic observations.
Those who decry it are not really knowledgable about how science is built or
what science is. They know a set of procedures and they call that
"science."

You and others who write like you are setting up straw men. It is not
possible to show "cause and effect" as if weather were a simple laboratory
experiment. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Claire W. Gilbert

On 05 Jul 2003 02:30:25 GMT, "Claire W. Gilbert"
wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
.. .

It's one
thing have anecdotal evidence that something is happening and quite
another to identify and satisfactorily prove cause and effect.

Nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is the basis for systematic observations.
Those who decry it are not really knowledgable about how science is built or
what science is. They know a set of procedures and they call that
"science."

Terrific! You've identified something is happening. Now tell
me exactly what it is? And please, no hand-waving arguments. I'll ask
the question again: have you seen some scholarship that proves a
definitive link between the tornado outbreaks in May in the US and
climate change? If so, please provide a citation.
What you are doing would be akin to noticing that when the sun
goes down, local temperatures typically start to fall. In your
science, that's all you need: an observation. After that, you can make
up what the cause is as you go along. It could be the loss of
insolation or it could be an amazing show of will-power from your Aunt
Molly's pet sheep, Henrietta.
Sorry, but the science I learned was a wee bit more involved.
Data requires careful analysis. One does not leap from data to
conclusion without taking the necessary steps in between to make sure
that the conclusions are correct.
The WMO press release makes note of the extreme weather around
the world, but makes no conclusions other than that it could have
climate change footprint. Given the state of the science that is
entirely appropriate. What the media have done with it, and what you
are attempting to do with it, is inappropriate. It is not supported by
the current science.


You and others who write like you are setting up straw men. It is not
possible to show "cause and effect" as if weather were a simple laboratory
experiment. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

No, Madam, I expect a little more rigorous approach to my
science. I don't know where you got your PhD or what discipline it is
in, but clearly you skipped the part about having evidence and taking
a proper systematic approach to dealing with it. I can also make the
distinction between a press release and a legitimate study.

"Claire W. Gilbert" wrote in message
...

"David Ball" wrote in message
...

It's one
thing have anecdotal evidence that something is happening and quite
another to identify and satisfactorily prove cause and effect.

Nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is the basis for systematic observations.

Annecdotal evidence and systematic observations can tie tomatoe consumption
with the phases of the moon. Correlation is not causation. You need a
mechanism. Without a clear causal chain you are just plaing with numbers,
not doing science. The only value of annecdotal evidence is to prompt a
search for the mechanism by suggesting hypothetical links.


Those who decry it are not really knowledgable about how science is built
or
what science is. They know a set of procedures and they call that
"science."

You are apparently ignorant of scientific process.


You and others who write like you are setting up straw men. It is not
possible to show "cause and effect" as if weather were a simple laboratory
experiment. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is, to some degree true. Because of the multivariate and semi-chaotic
nature of weather and climate it is very hard to find causal factors. We may
never have an adequate causal mechanism, and yet we CAN do modelling studies
which illuminate that the link IS present. Kind of touchy feely but it can
amount to proof with enough studies. Kind of like mathematical proofs
provided by exhaustive testing of all possibilities. You see it, you
acknowledge it, and a half hour later you are hungry for more. Just not
satisfying.

In article ,
"Claire W. Gilbert" wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=421166

The unprecedented warning takes its force and significance from the fact
that it is not coming from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but from an
impeccably respected UN organisation that is not given to hyperbole (though


"Impeccably-respected UN organisation" is an oxymoron.


environmentalists will seize on it to claim that the direst warnings of
climate change are being borne out)


Anything to keep their attention away from the utter annihilation of
the Marsh Arabs and one of the most delicate ecosystems on earth.


The Geneva-based body, to which the weather services of 185 countries
contribute, takes the view that events this year in Europe, America and Asia
are so remarkable that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately.


The "nothing extraordinary is happening that justifies our perpetual
tax-funded hysteria" conclusion was a less popular view among the
delegates, who know where their bread is buttered.


The extreme weather it documents, such as record high and low
temperatures, record rainfall and record storms in different parts of the
world, is consistent with predictions of global warming.


It's consistent with rain-gauges and thermometers being in a lot more
places now than a hundred years ago.

punt

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Ian St. John" wrote in message
. ..

"Claire W. Gilbert" wrote in message
...

"David Ball" wrote in message
...

It's one
thing have anecdotal evidence that something is happening and quite
another to identify and satisfactorily prove cause and effect.

Nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is the basis for systematic
observations.

Annecdotal evidence and systematic observations can tie tomatoe
consumption
with the phases of the moon. Correlation is not causation. You need a
mechanism. Without a clear causal chain you are just plaing with
numbers,
not doing science. The only value of annecdotal evidence is to prompt a
search for the mechanism by suggesting hypothetical links.

It is bad enough have David spouting that BALLocks, without you parroting
it as well!

It is not ********. It is a principle on which science is based. I learned
it in university. It is not my fault that you apparently failed to learn the
basics.


The scientific method is to produce hypotheses,

No. The scientific method is to observe the world, and note
patterns(correlations). Then produce hypothesis(mechanisms) that might
explain these patterns or correlations, and seek to prove the mechanism. The
mechaniism will usually have other effects secondary to the observed ones
and the finding of these secondary effects can be strong evidence that the
mechanism is in fact in operation, expecially if no other mechanism would
produce similar results.

then to devise experiments with which to test them.

Science does not demand experiments. Only observation. Sometimes there is no
way to experiment. In other cases the equivalent to an experiment is
observed ( such as the temperature drop following a volcanic eruption ) that
are impossilbe for man to generate.

If the tests are met, then the theory is upheld.

Or if the hypothesised mechanism can make a prediction that can be observed.

In
this case the hypothesis is that if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, global
temperature will rise.

Assumption. Global average temperatures, both in time ( one year ) and in
space ( over the planet ).

Record temperatures are being recorded throughout the world.

Record temperatures are peak and nothing in global warming makes predictions
that the peak values will increase. In fact, since the global warming must
be averaged over all the planet, nothing in regional extremes is connected
to the global warming theory. You would have to introduce another theory
tying increases in global average temperatures to local regional extremes.

Therefore the theory that CO2 causes global warming is upheld.

Rather, the measurement of the global average temperature and it's rise
shows that global warming is occuring. The local extrema are not relevant
and prove nothing.

Note I did not say proved, because you cannot prove any theory.

I have no objection to the normal usage of 'proof' as the dominant consensus
of the experts in the field.

David's
claim that higher temperatures don't prove global warming, is just a straw
man!

No. Higher peak temperatures do not prove global warming. Higher global
average temperatures, after dissecting their causal mechanisms ( solar,
aerosol, and ghgs) do prove global warming.

No one is saying they prove the theory. We are saying they uphold
the theory, which they DO!

They neither deny nor uphold the global warming theory. It does not predict
peak values or regional climate.


Note also the fundamental point that meteorology and especially
climatology
are not experimental sciences in the true sense.

As noted, science does not demand experiment.

We cannot raise CO2 levels
and keep everything else constant, to measure the effect of CO2. Any
earth
scientist knows that. You are taught it in the first lesson of the first
year
at college.

And yet their is a science of meteorology, etc. Therefore science is not
exclusively by expeirement. One can merely observe as the system changes and
deduce the mechanisms of that change. This is very much the way that many
such fields work such as particle physics and astronomy.

David may be a qualified meteorologist, but that mean it is
impossible for him to get simple facts like that wrong. It is just that it
is
impossible to get him to admit it!

Why would he admit that you are wrong? Try getting a clue Alistaire. You are
making way too many mistakes in your arguments here.


I appeal to you Ian, to look and see just what David is doing.

I do. I agreee with him that there is no causal connection provable. At
least not yet.

I posted a
message saying that the North West Passage would be open this summer.
He changed that thread into an argument about the difference between
association and correlation. How is that going to add even one ice floe
to the NWP? His agruments are complete non sequiturs.

Not really . I was going to post a correction to it to note that correlation
is association but association is not necessarily correlation but held off
figuring you were having too many points demolished as it is. David is
correct in that regional climate change, and local meterology is the
dominant 'cause' of weather and weather extremes.


He is just a charlatan with a very loud voice. Surely you can see that?
The
fact that he always gets the last word is purely because he never gives up
or has the wit to see he is wrong.

I gather you looked in a mirror to generate this paragraph? The description
is of you. However, between the two of your David is more correct in terms
of science. This does not mean that we should not view such conditions as
warning in terms that unusual conditions are increasing and this may
indicate a basis such as GW. What it means is that you cannot say you can
PROVE that the conditon is due to global warming.

And he seems to have more time to
waste here than anyone else. Since he is paid by the Canadian taxpayer,
I would have thought that might concern you too! Anyway I have wasted
enough time composing this reply.

Way too much time as it says nothing you have not tried to claim before. To
make your case you must uncomver and be prepared to describe the causal
links.


Cheers, Alastair.

(Trewth Seeker) wrote in message . com...


Indeed, you and your ignorant brethren can go away now -- the WMO report
blows you to smithereens.

Where are the Smithereens? I hope it's not raining there. Is it? What
are WMO's Weapons of Missed Omnibuses? Works Mysteriously
Occasionally? Does one have to make reservations?

Is that why USAns no longer travel by airplane? Is it cheaper, faster
or what? What if you do not wish to go to the Smithereens? For
instance, what if you wanted to go to Gaberdeen for example?

Are we talking tourist class here? Will it be Mardi Gas if the clots
who push the rubbish out at the Untied Nations don't get their
research grants before the school hols are over? How would you get
back? Listen to the echo of the report perhaps. Does it suck?

What if it's garbled and useless like the rest of that monument to
humanity?

Mike18XX wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Claire W. Gilbert" wrote:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=421166

The unprecedented warning takes its force and significance from the fact
that it is not coming from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but from an
impeccably respected UN organisation that is not given to hyperbole (though


"Impeccably-respected UN organisation" is an oxymoron.


environmentalists will seize on it to claim that the direst warnings of
climate change are being borne out)


Anything to keep their attention away from the utter annihilation of
the Marsh Arabs and one of the most delicate ecosystems on earth.


The Geneva-based body, to which the weather services of 185 countries
contribute, takes the view that events this year in Europe, America and Asia
are so remarkable that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately.


The "nothing extraordinary is happening that justifies our perpetual
tax-funded hysteria" conclusion was a less popular view among the
delegates, who know where their bread is buttered.


The extreme weather it documents, such as record high and low
temperatures, record rainfall and record storms in different parts of the
world, is consistent with predictions of global warming.


It's consistent with rain-gauges and thermometers being in a lot more
places now than a hundred years ago.

punt

And here is where I admit that I never read the original article. Not
that it is a scientific work or has any point or merit that I might
consider useful. The plain fact that it is from the UN is a big enough
blot to render it valuless.

Did it say anything about the monstrous way that agriculture has
changed the way the weather behaves or about the way our rivers are
controlled?

Not that I am interested it's just that for reasons best known to
themselves global warmers seem to think that the sun gets hotter
without our knowing it. Or is that just my uneducated, hidebound,
misanthropic pessimism showing through my carefully guarded herbacious
borders?

Idiot. Science is building testable theories upon observations.
Observations can come from many sources, and tests can also come from many
sources.

"David Ball" wrote in message
...
On 05 Jul 2003 02:30:25 GMT, "Claire W. Gilbert"
wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
.. .

It's one
thing have anecdotal evidence that something is happening and quite
another to identify and satisfactorily prove cause and effect.

Nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is the basis for systematic observations.
Those who decry it are not really knowledgable about how science is built
or
what science is. They know a set of procedures and they call that
"science."

Terrific! You've identified something is happening. Now tell
me exactly what it is? And please, no hand-waving arguments. I'll ask
the question again: have you seen some scholarship that proves a
definitive link between the tornado outbreaks in May in the US and
climate change? If so, please provide a citation.
What you are doing would be akin to noticing that when the sun
goes down, local temperatures typically start to fall. In your
science, that's all you need: an observation. After that, you can make
up what the cause is as you go along. It could be the loss of
insolation or it could be an amazing show of will-power from your Aunt
Molly's pet sheep, Henrietta.
Sorry, but the science I learned was a wee bit more involved.
Data requires careful analysis. One does not leap from data to
conclusion without taking the necessary steps in between to make sure
that the conclusions are correct.
The WMO press release makes note of the extreme weather around
the world, but makes no conclusions other than that it could have
climate change footprint. Given the state of the science that is
entirely appropriate. What the media have done with it, and what you
are attempting to do with it, is inappropriate. It is not supported by
the current science.


You and others who write like you are setting up straw men. It is not
possible to show "cause and effect" as if weather were a simple
laboratory
experiment. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

No, Madam, I expect a little more rigorous approach to my
science. I don't know where you got your PhD or what discipline it is
in, but clearly you skipped the part about having evidence and taking
a proper systematic approach to dealing with it. I can also make the
distinction between a press release and a legitimate study.