From: kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:39:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci

In article <1992Jul21.234630.20540@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>You have the portrayal of Global Warming a bit skewed. Every news report
>I have ever heard on Global Warming admit that it is a theory. None of them
>say that the "gloom and doom" future is a DEFINITE possibility, they merely
>say that it IS a possibility, which all atmospheric scientists DO agree on.
>What atmospheric scientists disagree on is the amount the average global
>temperature will rise, what can happen to the climate with each degree of
>rise, and exactly what is causing the rise. All scientists agree that the
>greenhouse effect exists. All scientists agree that CO2, Methane and CFCs
>are "greenhouse gasses". Scientists disagree on the relative cause and
>effect relationship in the observed rise in average global temperature.
>

As an atmospheric scientist, I feel compelled to comment on this. 
Personally, I feel the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. However, many
other colleagues will do everything and anything to prove it is
happening. Why? Lots of research money and grants, which is how
scientists survive. 

In fact, this has caused my profession a credibility problem. There is a
fellow a few years ago who did research "proving" that an Ice Age was
coming (anyone remember this?) Suddenly, he's done an about face and
now says that global warming will occur. He swings with the current
doomsayer's!!! He also makes quite a bit of money on the lecture
circuit.

The main problem with Global Warming is that most of the conclusions
are based on computer simulations, or "models." A model APPROXIMATES
the equations of motion (in Calculus form) that describes the main
features of the atmosphere. There are numerous problems with models:

1) They are approximates, not true solutions. However, the approximations
are fairly good for up to a week, which is why weather forecasts are
generally good (though not totally accurate). After a week to 10 days, the
solutions are contaminated by chaos since the equations are nondeterministic.
This makes the atmosphere essentially unpredicatable after a week. Yet global
warming models are run for decades!!! What utter nonsense......

2) There are many features of the atmosphere that are not resolved by these
equations, especially small-scale features less than 50 miles roughly to
several hundred features (depending on which model is used). They must be
"parameterized," a fancy word for fudging. However, slightly different
parametrizations give vastly different answers such as
  
     a) The classical global warming
     b) No change at all
     c) global COOLING (because of more clouds)

Essentially, atmospheric scientists don't know what will happen

3) Since we are human, numerous programming errors have been found in these
models.

I may also add that global warming should already be occuring according to
these models. It has not.

**************************************************************

Now, everyone probably thinks I am not an environmentalist. This is not the
case. I think we should reduce emissions because of pollution. Furthermore,
we should find alternatives to gasoline, because it has gotten so damn
expensive due to the monopolies of the oil giants. Let's just do it for the
right reason, not because of a bunch of Global Warming mumbo-jumbo horseshit!

Pat Fitzpatrick
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc