| |
VK3ABK > ENERGY 18.06.05 09:28l 79 Lines 4232 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 49227_VK3DSE
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Global Warming Criticism.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0BEL<ZL2BAU<VK3AYM<VK3DSE
Sent: 050618/0445Z @:VK3DSE.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC #:49227 [Narre Warren] FBB7.00i
From: VK3ABK@VK3DSE.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC
To : ENERGY@WW
Hello again 'beardless' scientists.
(This may be a resend, but I have no record that it was sent last week. Also
I would like to recommend a bulletin that I have just read from David, G3EBT,
GUDLAD Re: Andrew ZL4AJS. Nice to see some credit given to Andrew. So, this
may be overdue, but just to comment and then to watch for more from Andrew.)
This bulletin is in response to a recent one, "Re: ZL4AJS and Nuclear Energy"
but I found it was about me!
The bulletin was from Wayne, M5WJF, who seems to be getting a bit too serious
about his opinions on climate change. I may have upset him when I suggested
that environmental scientists wear beards, and possibly he has one. But it
does seem that those who are most opinionated about 'climate change', (I use
the current modification of "global warming" that was originally thrust upon
us by 'experts' and the news media) need to have some form of distinction, be
it a beard or wave placards and march in protest, or even invade property and
often cause damage. The whole show has become a circus and very profitable
for news papers and television producers.
Last week, a television feature on our ever-eager-to-educate 'alternative'
channel, was a 'Cutting Edge' program 'The End Of The World As We Know It'
from the UK, told us that we are doomed and that we deserve it. This is how
we learn about the cause of the strange global weather of recent years. Any
subjective observations and measurements are ignored, and anyway, would be
inconclusive to say the least. There is by no means "...a vast majority of
scientific consensus..." as claimed, among other opinions, and the host of
media stories of what is happening and why, are just that---'stories'. It
is 'fashionable' to claim "Glabal Warming" is with us, and we are to blame.
Ask yourself, who is writing this? Look for a 'by line', or a tag line of,
say, Knight Ridder, KRN, Reuters, AAP etc., and be warned! And ask, why is
this being posted on the internet, and by whom. From comments I have seen in
packet bulletins, much of the 'net information is propoganda of some sort,
usually from the left of centre, and someone selling a product (an idea).
I have just read a book, in which the author suggests that speed of light
need not be limited as we have been told. The writer was unable to get a
journal to publish his theory, so he managed to finance a book. He devoted
many pages of his book to criticism of, and insults to, journal editors.
He also criticised English universities, although he graduated from them,
and even criticised an Australian university faculty, after a three week
visit and rejection. His book may or not be authentic; I couldn't tell!
But how many authors are 'right', and how many publish and get a bit wrong.
Wayne concludes (to me) with...
"If you could add any real science to the debate(s) I feel it would be much
more appropriate than your present contributions."
Ouch! That was another whack with a "blunt instrument"!!
I'm all for 'scientific method'; I worked with it for 26 years until early
retirement. I know what it means, and how it works. I don't believe it can
be applied to the problem of weather conditions that involve thousands of
years of Earth's geological history. Nor do I believe that we can 'experiment'
with changing wind, rain, and temperature conditions, when there are so many
variables. We just can't get reproducible results. The 'scientific method
demands theory *and* experiment; theory backed by reproducible observation.
Our laboratory is too big, too unstable and too untidy to do good science.
Re-read Andrew's bulletins, and try to understand his opinions. He has the
advantage of most of us in that he is young and uncluttered with knowledge.
Like a good programmer, he has a fresh mind and doesn't know *too much*!
If you know it all, you will not have room for the anything new. Comments
on Andrew's bulletins have ranged from mild rebuke to insulting jibes. He
is forthright and has interesting views that are difficult to fault without
the conclusive evidence that some would demand.
I believe that we should 'THINK' for ourselves and try to use reliable data.
73. Dick. VK3ABK.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
