http://snipurl.com/pejk

Climate of Fear
Posted by: JeffMasters, 12:08 PM EDT on April 18, 2006
An opinion piece titled, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists
Intimidate Scientists Into Silence" appeared in the Wall Street Journal
on Wednesday, criticizing the "iron triangle" of of climate scientists,
advocates and policymakers responsible for raising the alarm over the
threat posed by global warming. The article's two main points:

1) Climate scientists who are raising alarms over global warming are
exaggerating the danger in order to get funding.

2) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant
funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry
stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate
change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis."

I'm not familiar with the scientists Dr. Lindzen discusses who have
lost their funding because they are greenhouse skeptics, and he does
not provide any quotes or references to support this point. So, to keep
this discussion shorter, I will only focus on his first argument--that
climate scientists are exaggerating the threat of global warming in
order to get funding.

Who is Richard Lindzen?
First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on
climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent
UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of
the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many
excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a
career spanning over 40 years.

Much of his recent work has focused on climate change. Dr. Lindzen
hypothesizes that global warming will not increase Earth's temperature
significantly because increases in upper-level cloud cover will result
from increased thunderstorm activity, and this increased cloud cover
will act to reflect away more incoming sunlight, cooling the planet.
This "Iris Effect" is named after the ability of the human eye to
control the amount of light entering the eye by changing the diameter
of its iris. His theory is difficult to prove or disprove, as the water
vapor-cloud feedback is one of the hardest things to get right in
climate models, and is a key source of uncertainty in them. To my
knowledge, his Iris theory has not been disproven, but is thought to be
incorrect by most climate scientists.

Dr. Lindzen continues to champion his Iris Effect theory, and has been
one of about ten famous outspoken "greenhouse skeptics" who are
skeptical of the dangers posed by climate change. He opposes the Kyoto
Protocol and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He has testified
in front of Congress multiple times, authored many opinion pieces on
the matter, and been a paid consultant for major oil and coal
companies. In Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book, The Heat is On, the author
discusses a 2-hour interview he did with Lindzen. In the interview,
Lindzen estimated that he made $10,000 per year doing consulting work,
and typically charged $2500 per day to fossil fuel interests. For
example, a trip to Washington D.C. in 1991 to testify in front of a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, a $400 million coal
consortium. Gelbspan describes Dr. Lindzen as "exceedingly gracious and
hospitable" in person, but relates several instances of unwarranted
attacks he has made on scientific opponents.

Some good points
Dr. Lindzen's essay is a typical example of greenhouse skeptic writing,
which unfortunately for me, I've read a lot of. Intermingled are
scientific truths, scientific distortions, difficult to verify
accusations, and some legitimate nuggets of complaint, all wrapped in a
fiercely emotional tirade intended to sway the emotions of the reader.
Several of Dr. Lindzen's concerns in his article are valid ones. For
instance, he complains of "repeated claims that this past year's
hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change",
which is a concern of mine, as well. A single extreme weather event, or
an even a series of extreme hurricanes in one ocean basin during a
single year, are not valid indicators of climate change. Lindzen also
criticizes the world's most prestigious scientific journals, Science
and Nature, for bias against papers by global warming skeptics. This
bias is difficult to prove or disprove, but I believe there is probably
some substance to this claim. I've seen a number of complaints that
ring true about this from the greenhouse skeptic scientists.

Some bad points
While Dr. Lindzen is an excellent scientist, the piece he wrote for the
Wall Street Journal is written in emotional, not scientific language.
The article contains oversimplifications, distortions, and errors, and
would fail the scientific peer review process needed to be published in
a scientific journal. Let's look at three of these problems:

1) Dr. Lindzen refers to the "barely discernible, one-degree increase
in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century." I
would hardly characterize our recent warming as "barely discernible."
By measures such as the significant warming of the Arctic in recent
decades, the several-week increase in the growing season and early
arrival of Spring over most of the globe in recent years, the
widespread retreat of glaciers worldwide, and the significant die-off
of coral reefs worldwide due in part to record warm sea surface
temperatures, a one-degree increase in global temperature is very
discernible.

2) Dr. Lindzen says that global warming will lead to a decrease in
extratropical cyclones. However, this is not a consensus view among
climate scientists. Some model results have shown a decrease, but other
models show that global warming will increase the intensity and
frequency of El Nino events, which would lead to an increase in
extratropical storms over the North Pacific and western U.S. Global
warming may also increase the positive phase of the North Atlantic
Oscillation (NAO) pattern, creating increased extratropical storms in
the North Atlantic and Western Europe.

3) Lindzen criticizes arguments by other researchers that global
warming will increase hurricane intensities thusly:

"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive
tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well,
and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher
temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly
a case for more
storminess with global warming."

I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University whose
research focuses on climate change and water vapor, to comment on this.
He responded:

The rate of evaporation from the surface, which is one determinant of
the strength of a hurricane, is determined by (q*-q), the difference
between saturation specific humidity and the specific humidity. You can
convince yourself that this makes sense by thinking of the two limits:
if the air is saturated, then q*=q and evaporation is zero, which makes
sense since saturated air cannot hold any more molecules. If the air is
extremely dry, then q is about 0 and evaporation
is at a maximum, again as you'd expect.

The climate, on the other hand, is sensitive to q in the
mid-troposphere. There's not really a simple explanation for this. I
can give you a few good references if you want to check this out
further (e.g., Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water vapor feedback
and global warming. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441-475).

Lindzen's argument ignores the differences and suggests that if q*-q
decreases at the surface, then q must decrease in the mid-troposphere.
That argument is so far outside the realm of scientific reasonability
or common sense, that it's my opinion that Lindzen is acting as a
policy advocate rather than a scientist. Like most advocates, he takes
advantage of the lenient rules of policy debates (e.g., no peer review
or other vetting mechanism to test for scientific accuracy of
arguments), to make patently false scientific arguments as a way to
advance his preferred policy position (he opposes any policy to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions).

Alarmism
Dr. Lindzen claims that "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate
are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the
political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science
research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." The
words "alarm" or "alarmist" or "anti-alarmist" appear 16 times in the
editorial, and Dr. Lindzen is clearly trying to provoke an emotional
reaction against those Chicken Littles guilty of raising the alarm.

Speaking as an atmospheric scientist, I can tell you from long
experience that we are not the wild-eyed, alarmist lot that Dr. Lindzen
makes us out to be. This makes for some very dull parties (if you're
not excited about discussing quasi-geostrophic theory), when we get
together for a big bash. Very little alarming behavior takes place. (In
fact, after I dragged my wife to three straight devastatingly dull
departmental Christmas parties while I was in graduate school, she
forbade me from ever requiring her to go to another.) Atmospheric
scientists are not an alarmist lot--put us in quiet room with a window
and give us a computer and pile of data to analyze, and we'll be as
happy as a clam at high tide. Atmospheric scientists are generally not
motivated by money--they selected science as a career out of a genuine
curiosity about how the world works, plus a desire to help understand
the significant dangers posed by pollution and climate change. If more
money to do research really was a primary concern, wouldn't these
scientists stop calling for action against global warming, and instead
emphasize the uncertainties and claim that more research is needed?

Dr. Gavin Schimdt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's
accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has
frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt
to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any
empirical evidence of this, and a brief perusal of active NSF grants
related to climate change reveals a lot of interesting projects but
none that jump out as being 'alarmist'. Having sat on panels that
decide on funding allocations and as a reviewer of proposals for both
US and international agencies, my experience has been that these panels
actually do a very good job at deciding which proposals are
interesting, tractable and achievable. I have not seen even one example
of where the degree of 'alarmism' was ever a criteria in whether
funding was given. (NB. I don't regard my own grants (viewable here) as
remotely 'alarmist' and I don't have too much trouble getting funding
(fingers crossed!))"

Environmental scientists have in the past issued false alarms over
environmental problems that did not materialize as expected. However,
we should expect and tolerate some degree of false alarms, given the
uncertainty in forecasting these events. If our scientists never issue
a false alarm, then the tolerance for issuing alarms is not correct.
Would you expect the National Weather Service to stop issuing tornado
warnings when a possible tornado signature is spotted on Doppler radar,
since less than half of these signatures result in in an actual tornado
touchdown? No, some degree of false alarms must be tolerated. The NWS
forecasters are dedicated public servants, doing their job of warning
the public when their best scientific judgment indicates that there
might be a significant threat. It is no different with our climate
scientists who issue warnings on the dangers of climate change.

Skeptics commonly like to claim that atmospheric scientist "Chicken
Littles" in the 1970s warned that the next ice age was coming. While
there were some articles in the popular press about this, the
scientific literature never made such a claim. This is one of the myths
perpetuated by the greenhouse skeptics that crumbles under analysis.

A Public Relations Campaign?
Dr. Lindzen's article appeared at about the same time as similar op-ed
pieces by syndicated columnists Robert Novak (April 3) and George Will
(April 2). A large number of additional anti-global global warming
editorials have appeared in the opinion pages of many newspapers in the
past week, including the Washington Times, Detroit News, and Arizona
Star. Given Dr. Lindzen's history of accepting consulting money from
the fossil fuel industry, it would be no surprise if his article was
paid for by the fossil fuel industry as part of an orchestrated public
relations campaign that included the appearance of all these op-ed
articles. I am sure the industry is very concerned about the recent
media attention on global warming that has hurt their position.
Scientific studies published this year showed unexpectedly large
amounts of melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. A cover
story last month in Time magazine headlined, "Be Worried. Be Very
Worried", warned that we may be at the "tipping point" for
uncorrectable climate change. A episode of 60 Minutes reported that
scientific reports on climate change written for Congress were being
modified by a White House chief of staff, who changed key phrases of
the reports to make climate change appear less threatening (the staffer
in question has since resigned to go work for Exxon Mobil). James
Hansen of NASA and many scientists working for NOAA and NASA have
complained of being gagged by the Bush Administration on climate change
issues in recent months. It would be an obvious move for the fossil
fuel industry to mount a PR campaign this month to try to push back.

The fossil fuel industry has spent tens of millions of dollars on many
such campaigns in the past. The most notorious of these campaigns was
launched in 1991, when the Information Council on the Environment
(ICE), a creation of a group of utility and coal companies, launched a
PR campaign whose goal was to "reposition global warming as theory
rather than fact". The campaign targeted "older, less-educated men" and
"young, low-income women" in electoral districts who had a
congressperson on the House Energy Committee. The PR campaign hired
four "greenhouse skeptic" scientists--Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer,
Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso--to generate op-ed pieces, broadcast
appearances, and newspaper interviews. Gelbspan writes: "The plan was
clever if not accurate. One newspaper advertisement prepared by the
ICE, for example, was headlined: 'If the earth is getting warmer, why
is Minneapolis getting colder?' (Data indicate that Minneapolis has
actually warmed between 1 and 1.5 degrees Celsius in the last
century.)" Another print ad featured a cowering chicken under the
headline "Who Told You the Earth Was Warming...Chicken Little?"

Environmental groups do their share of public relations campaigns, as
well. One recent estimate I saw put the spending of the five major
environmental groups on climate issues at about $2.1 million per year
(Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned
Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation). Exxon Mobil alone
spends over $1 milion per year to fund think tanks like the Competive
Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshal Foundation that generate
frequent anti-global warming reports (Gelbspan, 2004).

Flashback to 1974
On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the
University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper
warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause
serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They calculated that if
CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year
until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7
percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the
amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface,
greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric
ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially
causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone
loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the
time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed
over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan,
1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists
paid by conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory.
Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in
the scientific community, these handful of skeptics, their voices
greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful
corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying
imposition of controls on CFCs for over a decade. Scientists who
advocated CFC controls were accused of being alarmists out to get
research funding. One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole
area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get
them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan,
1989).

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars
running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975,
claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The
chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a
science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical
Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz,
issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was
a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news
stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry
and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune
magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky,
1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!"
was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various
newspaper headlines.

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations
firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in
1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the
International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on
pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them
"doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated
so far is a number of theories."

Sound familiar?

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will
be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a
significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that
if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are
probably not going to avoid it." The very next year, all the "Chicken
Little" scientists were proved right, when the Antarctic ozone hole was
discovered. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's
protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than
Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone
depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica
were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the
skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase
out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to
address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had
stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were
awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee
credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential
environmental disaster.

Conclusion
According to Wikipedia's biography of Richard Lindzen:

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that
Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20
years will in fact be lower than they are now." Climatologist James
Annan, who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will
increase, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan offered to pay 2:1
odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen
would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor.
No bet occurred.

I would agree with Dr. Lindzen, there is about a 50:1 chance that
global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they
are now. This would most likely occur as a result of a major volcanic
eruption that would put up enough stratospheric aerosol dust to cool
the climate for a few years. The effect would be temporary, and the
Earth would go on warming as before once the dust dissipates.

Climate scientists are not alarmists out to get research funding. They
are raising the alarm because they see a genuine major threat to the
planet. Dr. Lindzen's voice needs to be considered, because he is a
good scientist looking at the same data as the "alarmist" scientists,
and is coming up with a different conclusion. But consider that his
voice, and voices of the 10 or so famous "greenhouse skeptics", are in
the extreme minority. Their voices are greatly amplified by the public
relations machinery of the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians
sympathetic to them. Thus, it seems like there is more of a scientific
controversy than there really is. As a society, we need to decide--do
we do the same thing we did for the ozone depletion crisis? Do we take
the 50:1 odds, betting on the dark horse because some very loud voices
are urging us to do so? Or is it smarter to bet on the favorite?

We got very lucky with the ozone hole. The lifetime of CFCs in the
atmosphere is a few tens of years, and the quick action to eliminate
emissions has kept ozone destruction from reaching severe levels.
Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds of years, and 25% of
what we add stays there essentially forever. By the time it is obvious
we are severely damaging the planet, it will be too late to avoid much
of the damage.

Jeff Masters

My next blog will be Thursday or Friday, to give people time to comment
on this one.

For further reading
The climate scientists who run realclimate.org have an interesting
discussion on the op-ed piece by Dr. Lindzen, as well the one by George
Will and Robert Novak. I also wrote an opinion piece titled, The
Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, which presents a more complete comparison
of how the skeptics attacked the science of ozone depletion and
succeeded in delaying CFC emission controls for many years.

References

Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry
writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.

Gelbspan, Ross, The Heat is On, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

Gelbspan, Ross, Boiling Point, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Roan, Sharon L., Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global
Emergency, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.

H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://snipurl.com/pejk

Climate of Fear
Posted by: JeffMasters, 12:08 PM EDT on April 18, 2006
An opinion piece titled, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists
Intimidate Scientists Into Silence" appeared in the Wall Street Journal
on Wednesday, criticizing the "iron triangle" of of climate scientists,
advocates and policymakers responsible for raising the alarm over the
threat posed by global warming. The article's two main points:

1) Climate scientists who are raising alarms over global warming are
exaggerating the danger in order to get funding.

2) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant
funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry
stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate
change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis."

I'm not familiar with the scientists Dr. Lindzen discusses who have
lost their funding because they are greenhouse skeptics, and he does
not provide any quotes or references to support this point. So, to keep
this discussion shorter, I will only focus on his first argument--that
climate scientists are exaggerating the threat of global warming in
order to get funding.

Who is Richard Lindzen?
First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on
climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent
UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of
the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many
excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a
career spanning over 40 years.

Much of his recent work has focused on climate change. Dr. Lindzen
hypothesizes that global warming will not increase Earth's temperature
significantly because increases in upper-level cloud cover will result
from increased thunderstorm activity, and this increased cloud cover
will act to reflect away more incoming sunlight, cooling the planet.
This "Iris Effect" is named after the ability of the human eye to
control the amount of light entering the eye by changing the diameter
of its iris. His theory is difficult to prove or disprove,

In Climatology all theories are difficfult (impossible) to prove or
disprove.

as the water
vapor-cloud feedback is one of the hardest things to get right in
climate models, and is a key source of uncertainty in them. To my
knowledge, his Iris theory has not been disproven, but is thought to be
incorrect by most climate scientists.

Dr. Lindzen continues to champion his Iris Effect theory, and has been
one of about ten famous outspoken "greenhouse skeptics" who are
skeptical of the dangers posed by climate change. He opposes the Kyoto
Protocol and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He has testified
in front of Congress multiple times, authored many opinion pieces on
the matter, and been a paid consultant for major oil and coal
companies. In Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book, The Heat is On, the author
discusses a 2-hour interview he did with Lindzen. In the interview,
Lindzen estimated that he made $10,000 per year doing consulting work,
and typically charged $2500 per day to fossil fuel interests. For
example, a trip to Washington D.C. in 1991 to testify in front of a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, a $400 million coal
consortium. Gelbspan describes Dr. Lindzen as "exceedingly gracious and
hospitable" in person, but relates several instances of unwarranted
attacks he has made on scientific opponents.

Some good points
Dr. Lindzen's essay is a typical example of greenhouse skeptic writing,
which unfortunately for me, I've read a lot of. Intermingled are
scientific truths,

such as . . .

scientific distortions,

such as . . .

difficult to verify
accusations, and some legitimate nuggets of complaint, all wrapped in a
fiercely emotional tirade intended to sway the emotions of the reader.
Several of Dr. Lindzen's concerns in his article are valid ones. For
instance, he complains of "repeated claims that this past year's
hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change",
which is a concern of mine, as well. A single extreme weather event, or
an even a series of extreme hurricanes in one ocean basin during a
single year, are not valid indicators of climate change. Lindzen also
criticizes the world's most prestigious scientific journals, Science
and Nature, for bias against papers by global warming skeptics. This
bias is difficult to prove or disprove, but I believe there is probably
some substance to this claim. I've seen a number of complaints that
ring true about this from the greenhouse skeptic scientists.

Some bad points
While Dr. Lindzen is an excellent scientist, the piece he wrote for the
Wall Street Journal is written in emotional, not scientific language.
The article contains oversimplifications, distortions, and errors, and
would fail the scientific peer review process needed to be published in
a scientific journal. Let's look at three of these problems:

1) Dr. Lindzen refers to the "barely discernible, one-degree increase
in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century." I
would hardly characterize our recent warming as "barely discernible."
By measures such as the significant warming of the Arctic in recent
decades, the several-week increase in the growing season and early
arrival of Spring over most of the globe in recent years, the
widespread retreat of glaciers worldwide, and the significant die-off
of coral reefs worldwide due in part to record warm sea surface
temperatures, a one-degree increase in global temperature is very
discernible.

2) Dr. Lindzen says that global warming will lead to a decrease in
extratropical cyclones. However, this is not a consensus view among
climate scientists. Some model results have shown a decrease, but other
models show that global warming will increase the intensity and
frequency of El Nino events, which would lead to an increase in
extratropical storms over the North Pacific and western U.S. Global
warming may also increase the positive phase of the North Atlantic
Oscillation (NAO) pattern, creating increased extratropical storms in
the North Atlantic and Western Europe.

3) Lindzen criticizes arguments by other researchers that global
warming will increase hurricane intensities thusly:

"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive
tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well,
and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher
temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly
a case for more
storminess with global warming."

I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University whose
research focuses on climate change and water vapor, to comment on this.
He responded:

The rate of evaporation from the surface, which is one determinant of
the strength of a hurricane, is determined by (q*-q), the difference
between saturation specific humidity and the specific humidity. You can
convince yourself that this makes sense by thinking of the two limits:
if the air is saturated, then q*=q and evaporation is zero, which makes
sense since saturated air cannot hold any more molecules. If the air is
extremely dry, then q is about 0 and evaporation
is at a maximum, again as you'd expect.

The climate, on the other hand, is sensitive to q in the
mid-troposphere. There's not really a simple explanation for this. I
can give you a few good references if you want to check this out
further (e.g., Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water vapor feedback
and global warming. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441-475).

Lindzen's argument ignores the differences and suggests that if q*-q
decreases at the surface, then q must decrease in the mid-troposphere.
That argument is so far outside the realm of scientific reasonability
or common sense, that it's my opinion that Lindzen is acting as a
policy advocate rather than a scientist. Like most advocates, he takes
advantage of the lenient rules of policy debates (e.g., no peer review
or other vetting mechanism to test for scientific accuracy of
arguments), to make patently false scientific arguments as a way to
advance his preferred policy position (he opposes any policy to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions).

Alarmism
Dr. Lindzen claims that "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate
are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the
political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science
research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." The
words "alarm" or "alarmist" or "anti-alarmist" appear 16 times in the
editorial, and Dr. Lindzen is clearly trying to provoke an emotional
reaction against those Chicken Littles guilty of raising the alarm.

Speaking as an atmospheric scientist, I can tell you from long
experience that we are not the wild-eyed, alarmist

It's your wild-eyed trust in computer models that the problem here.

lot that Dr. Lindzen
makes us out to be. This makes for some very dull parties (if you're
not excited about discussing quasi-geostrophic theory), when we get
together for a big bash. Very little alarming behavior takes place. (In
fact, after I dragged my wife to three straight devastatingly dull
departmental Christmas parties while I was in graduate school, she
forbade me from ever requiring her to go to another.) Atmospheric
scientists are not an alarmist lot--put us in quiet room with a window
and give us a computer and pile of data to analyze, and we'll be as
happy as a clam at high tide. Atmospheric scientists are generally not
motivated by money

Yeah, right.

--they selected science as a career out of a genuine
curiosity about how the world works, plus a desire to help understand
the significant dangers posed by pollution and climate change. If more
money to do research really was a primary concern, wouldn't these
scientists stop calling for action against global warming, and instead
emphasize the uncertainties and claim that more research is needed?

No, if you properly emphasize the real uncertainties you'd be properly
ignored.


Dr. Gavin Schimdt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's
accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has
frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt
to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any
empirical evidence of this,

We have no empirical evidence of AGW, and look at the hysteria you
climatologists have caused as a direct result of omitting mention of
the very low certainty/accuracy/confidence of the climate models.


and a brief perusal of active NSF grants
related to climate change reveals a lot of interesting projects but
none that jump out as being 'alarmist'. Having sat on panels that
decide on funding allocations and as a reviewer of proposals for both
US and international agencies, my experience has been that these panels
actually do a very good job at deciding which proposals are
interesting, tractable and achievable. I have not seen even one example
of where the degree of 'alarmism' was ever a criteria in whether
funding was given. (NB. I don't regard my own grants (viewable here) as
remotely 'alarmist' and I don't have too much trouble getting funding
(fingers crossed!))"

Environmental scientists have in the past issued false alarms over
environmental problems that did not materialize as expected.

Yes, alarmist scientists have a track record of zero.


However,
we should expect and tolerate some degree of false alarms, given the
uncertainty in forecasting these events. If our scientists never issue
a false alarm, then the tolerance for issuing alarms is not correct.
Would you expect the National Weather Service to stop issuing tornado
warnings when a possible tornado signature is spotted on Doppler radar,
since less than half of these signatures result in in an actual tornado
touchdown? No, some degree of false alarms must be tolerated.

This is not a good excuse for witholding mention of the very
low--closer to zero percent than even 1
percent--accuracy/certainty/confidence of the result of the GCM models.


snip

Jim

"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
ups.com...

H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://snipurl.com/pejk
....
Dr. Gavin Schimdt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's
accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has
frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt
to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any
empirical evidence of this,

We have no empirical evidence of AGW, and look at the hysteria you

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

climatologists have caused as a direct result of omitting mention of
the very low certainty/accuracy/confidence of the climate models.

I believe the technical term you are alluding to is "monkey's toenails",
"Climatologists are omitting mention of the very low monkey's toenails of
the climate models."


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck wrote:

"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
ups.com...

H2-PV NOW wrote:
http://snipurl.com/pejk
...
Dr. Gavin Schimdt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's
accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen
has frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm
is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet
to see any empirical evidence of this,

We have no empirical evidence of AGW, and look at the hysteria you

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

climatologists have caused as a direct result of omitting mention of
the very low certainty/accuracy/confidence of the climate models.

I believe the technical term you are alluding to is "monkey's
toenails", "Climatologists are omitting mention of the very low
monkey's toenails of the climate models."



The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics is
constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a thing, but
it is minor and natural variability is more important. Now it has changed
to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but unforeseen nonlinearities in
the climate system will mitigate all of the bad changes caused by altering
the radiative balance of the planet. In contrast, the position of the
serious scientists working on anthropogenically induced climate change has
been relentlessly constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will
warm, possibly by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate
system is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for large-
scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning of fossil
fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:



The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics is
constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a thing, but
it is minor and natural variability is more important. Now it has changed
to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but unforeseen nonlinearities in
the climate system will mitigate all of the bad changes caused by altering
the radiative balance of the planet. In contrast, the position of the
serious scientists working on anthropogenically induced climate change has
been relentlessly constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will
warm, possibly by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate
system is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for large-
scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning of fossil
fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit any
mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?

"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
ups.com...

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit any
mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?

Do you think it is ethical for sock puppets such as yourself to pollute
sci.environment with deliberate misinformation and other falsehoods?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Jim McGinn wrote:
William Asher wrote:



The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics is
constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a thing, but
it is minor and natural variability is more important. Now it has changed
to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but unforeseen nonlinearities in
the climate system will mitigate all of the bad changes caused by altering
the radiative balance of the planet. In contrast, the position of the
serious scientists working on anthropogenically induced climate change has
been relentlessly constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will
warm, possibly by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate
system is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for large-
scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning of fossil
fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit any
mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?

You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.

SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.

In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.

Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.

SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.

FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/spec...0/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...9?OpenDocument

Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_ar...vironment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).

http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"

http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".

http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".


News
Also, The Koch Pipeline Co., LP, another subsidiary of Koch Industries,
had agreed to pay some $35 million in fines and penalties for
violations of the ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=14430 - 16k

News
Koch hit with record Clean Water Act fine. HOUSTON - The Koch
Pipeline Co., ... of Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, KS, has agreed
to pay some $35 million ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=11149 - 16k

Forbes.com: Forbes Faces: The Koch Brothers
In September 1999, Koch Industries paid $8 million in damages after a
.... It was forced to pay a $35 million settlement for 300 separate oil
spills in six ...
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/04/0104faces.html - 27k

Forbes.com: Forbes World's Richest People 2001
Brothers Charles and David run Koch Industries, the $35 billion oil
.... mishap in its Corpus Christi refinery; the company agreed to pay a
$20 million fine. ...

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/...pe =Person&am...
- 70k

StealthPacs.org | Overview of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE ...
CSE co-founder David H. Koch is a member of Cato's board of
directors.13 Koch ... of Koch Industries, an oil and gas company that
paid a $35 million fine in ...
http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?Org_ID=162 - 31k

July/August 2002 - Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club
In January, Koch Industries agreed to pay about $35 million for
violations of the Clean ... but also to pay a $1 million fine for
air-pollution violations. ...
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp - 41k

David H. Koch - SourceWatch
Koch Industries received a $30000000.00 criminal fine in March 2000:
.... for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a penalty of
$35 million. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=David_H._Koch - 14k

The Center for Public Integrity
The owners of Koch Industries, the nation's second wealthiest privately
owned business, the brothers were recently given a $35 million federal
fine in ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=508 - 35k

The Center for Public Integrity
The brothers own Koch Industries, the nation's second wealthiest
privately owned business, which was recently given a $35 million
federal fine in connection ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=537 - 61k
[ More results from www.publicintegrity.org ]

Endgame Directory of Transnational Corporations
A federal judge in Austin, TX, has approved a record $35 million civil
fine against Kansas-based Koch Industries, ending lawsuits involving
about 300 oil ...
http://www.endgame.org/dtc/k.html - 47k

EMS Pipeline Services - Regulatory Compliance
Those who fail to comply face penalties, which are already reaching
record highs, including a $35 million fine for Koch Industries. ...
http://www.emspipeline.net/compliance/index.asp - 19k

The Clear and Present Danger of the Sociopathic Insanity of David ...
The owners of KOCH INDUSTRIES, the nation's second wealthiest privately
owned business, the brothers were recently given a $35 million federal
fine in ...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html - 71k

Organized Crime Ring - Killer Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy
Not surprisingly, the industry has lavished more than $440 million
over the past six ... and Koch and Ashcroft settled the lawsuit for a
$20 million fine, ...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html - 67k

Environmental Defense - Press Release: Environmental Defense Says ...
Today's proposed fine compares unfavorably to the $35 million fine the
US Environmental Protection Agency levied against Koch Industries, Inc.
in January of ...
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...ContentID=1230 -
23k

Jim McGinn wrote:

William Asher wrote:

The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics
is constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a
thing, but it is minor and natural variability is more important.
Now it has changed to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but
unforeseen nonlinearities in the climate system will mitigate all of
the bad changes caused by altering the radiative balance of the
planet. In contrast, the position of the serious scientists working
on anthropogenically induced climate change has been relentlessly
constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will warm, possibly
by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate system
is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for
large- scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning
of fossil fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit
any mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?

I don't know of any serious scientists that have done that. Do you have
specific cites of scientists working under grants from say the National
Science Foundation who are doing basic research on climate dynamics that
have done such a thing?

While there has been some hysteria from environmentalists, most of the more
rational assessments I have seen (e.g., the IPCC reports on *possible*
consequences) have not been particularly shrill. Which is not to say their
aren't climate change apocalyptics out there, just that reputable
scientists tend to be far more balanced than you want to believe. So you
need to come up with a better way to get your point across than asking
silly straw-man questions than display a somewhat infantile understanding
of the problem.

Ok, that was a little unfair. Here's what I mean. It's not like
predicting that altering the radiative balance of the planet could have
large effects on climate involves heretofore unknown physics. It's all
meteorology 101, radiation transfer 101, and chemistry 101. Saying there
is no need to be concerned because numerical models are crude and sometimes
inaccurate is silly given that it is our understanding of the underlying
physical and chemical principles, which are well understood and over which
there is essentially no debate, that suggest there could be a significant
problem and it is this understanding, not the model outputs per se, that
are driving the modeling studies to begin with. (Still with me after
that?)

Personally, I don't think anything we do will make any difference at all.
We are all too entrenched in the way we use energy for anything other than
an metaphorical 2x4 upside of the head to make any impact on our behavior.
But for heavens sake lets argue the real issue, which is not that the
potential for significant deleterious affects of anthropogenic climate
change is small or nonexistent, but rather that none of us want to give up
our cushy high-energy-use lifestyles. If personal comfort weren't involved
in remediating climate change, we wouldn't be having this debate. If you
want to air-condition all of Florida in August to a comfy 68 F and drive a
car that gets 10 mpg by all means do so. But don't try to rationalize it
by saying you can do that without repercussions because the science of
anthropogenic climate change is all wrong.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:

William Asher wrote:


The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics
is constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a
thing, but it is minor and natural variability is more important.
Now it has changed to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but
unforeseen nonlinearities in the climate system will mitigate all of
the bad changes caused by altering the radiative balance of the
planet. In contrast, the position of the serious scientists working
on anthropogenically induced climate change has been relentlessly
constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will warm, possibly
by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate system
is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for
large- scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning
of fossil fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit
any mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?


I don't know of any serious scientists that have done that. Do you have
specific cites of scientists working under grants from say the National
Science Foundation who are doing basic research on climate dynamics that
have done such a thing?

While there has been some hysteria from environmentalists, most of the more
rational assessments I have seen (e.g., the IPCC reports on *possible*
consequences) have not been particularly shrill. Which is not to say their
aren't climate change apocalyptics out there, just that reputable
scientists tend to be far more balanced than you want to believe. So you
need to come up with a better way to get your point across than asking
silly straw-man questions than display a somewhat infantile understanding
of the problem.

Ok, that was a little unfair. Here's what I mean. It's not like
predicting that altering the radiative balance of the planet could have
large effects on climate involves heretofore unknown physics. It's all
meteorology 101, radiation transfer 101, and chemistry 101. Saying there
is no need to be concerned because numerical models are crude and sometimes
inaccurate is silly given that it is our understanding of the underlying
physical and chemical principles, which are well understood and over which
there is essentially no debate, that suggest there could be a significant
problem and it is this understanding, not the model outputs per se, that
are driving the modeling studies to begin with. (Still with me after
that?)

Personally, I don't think anything we do will make any difference at all.
We are all too entrenched in the way we use energy for anything other than
an metaphorical 2x4 upside of the head to make any impact on our behavior.
But for heavens sake lets argue the real issue, which is not that the
potential for significant deleterious affects of anthropogenic climate
change is small or nonexistent, but rather that none of us want to give up
our cushy high-energy-use lifestyles. If personal comfort weren't involved
in remediating climate change, we wouldn't be having this debate. If you
want to air-condition all of Florida in August to a comfy 68 F and drive a
car that gets 10 mpg by all means do so. But don't try to rationalize it
by saying you can do that without repercussions because the science of
anthropogenic climate change is all wrong.

And that's funny, because with modern technology, they don't have to
give up their cushy lifestyles, if anything, their lifestyles are going
to get better. They are just too ignorant of physics, engineering and
technology to realize it. They've been dumbed down to uselessness.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

William Asher wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:

William Asher wrote:

The thing that is striking is that the position of the GCC-skeptics
is constantly evolving. First, it was there was no such thing as an
anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Then, it was: there is such a
thing, but it is minor and natural variability is more important.
Now it has changed to well, rising CO2 does have an effect, but
unforeseen nonlinearities in the climate system will mitigate all of
the bad changes caused by altering the radiative balance of the
planet. In contrast, the position of the serious scientists working
on anthropogenically induced climate change has been relentlessly
constant for at least 30 years, that the planet will warm, possibly
by as much as a few degrees Celsius, and because the climate system
is completely nonlinear the ultimate consequences of this warming
are not definitively known but will more than likely be at the least
unpleasant for mankind.

Does anyone really believe that if society had any alternatives for
large- scale energy generation that were as lucrative as the burning
of fossil fuels this debate would have gone on for more than 5 years?

Do you think it is ethical for scientists to inform of us the
catastrophic consequences that result from their GCMs and then omit
any mention of the extremely low certainty/confidence/accuracy of any
particular model run?

I don't know of any serious scientists that have done that.

That's funny, I've been unable to find even one instance where the
results of a GCM have been reported/presented and the
certainty/confidence/accuracy also was reported/presented. I wonder
why it is I'm having such a hard time finding even one such instance?

Do you have
specific cites of scientists working under grants from say the National
Science Foundation who are doing basic research on climate dynamics that
have done such a thing?

Any and all.

While there has been some hysteria from environmentalists,

My guess is that 80 to 95% of this hysteria never would have happened
if scientists had properly reported the very low
certainty/confidence/accuracy of any result of a GCM (notably, those
that indicate significant, potentially catastrophic, global warming).

most of the more
rational assessments I have seen (e.g., the IPCC reports on *possible*
consequences) have not been particularly shrill.

Marketing.

Which is not to say their
aren't climate change apocalyptics out there, just that reputable
scientists tend to be far more balanced than you want to believe.

I sometimes think people mistake balance for vagueness and vice versa.

So you
need to come up with a better way to get your point across than asking
silly straw-man questions than display a somewhat infantile understanding
of the problem.

I think an even an infant can comprehend the importance of properly
informing the public.

Ok, that was a little unfair. Here's what I mean. It's not like
predicting that altering the radiative balance of the planet could have
large effects on climate involves heretofore unknown physics.

Uh, yeah.

It's all
meteorology 101, radiation transfer 101, and chemistry 101.

Purportedly, and if only, in some instances, in theory.

Saying there
is no need to be concerned because numerical models are crude and sometimes
inaccurate is silly

So, let me get this straight. Are you saying it is silly to
report/present the certainty/confidence/accuracy of any result of a GCM
(notably, those that indicate significant, potentially catastrophic,
global warming)? Are you telling us that full disclosure is silly?

given that it is our understanding of the underlying
physical and chemical principles, which are well understood and over which
there is essentially no debate, that suggest there could be a significant
problem and it is this understanding, not the model outputs per se, that
are driving the modeling studies to begin with. (Still with me after
that?)

It's as if you are saying that since climatologists have scientifically
noble intentions that this adds up to an excuse for not properly
informing the public.

Jim