vuksan je napisal(a):

 BC, daj mi samo eno "užitno" teorijo politične motiviranosti teh znanstvenikov.

 Poglej lucko kajfez bogataj. Njen profil, ugled, vabijo jo vedno pred mikrofon, ko je kaj povedati o topli gredi. A zenska je samo biolog. Ce se jutri izkaze da toplogredni efekti niso pomemben faktor, postane spet niko i nista.

In, znanstveniki so glede efekta tople grede razdeljeni, ne vem ce ravno pol/pol, a imas veliko skupino ljudi - znanstvenikov, ki trdi, da so njihovi pro-climate-change kolegi nekoliko prevec zagreti v veri in premalo zagreti za preiskovanje dokazov.

Ne gre za zaroto. Gre za to, da so nekateri tako zelo prepricani da se zemlja segreva zaradi clovekovega vpliva, in so prepricani da bo to tako velika katastrofa, da vcasih na kaksno oko tudi zamizijo pri nasprotnih dejstvih. To pa ni prav.

Sedaj nimam casa, a ce bo, imel ti najdem eno prezentacijo, kjer so lepo dokumentirani poskusi prikrojevanja dokazov za to, da je bila sprejeta ena od pomembnejsih resolucij o globalnem segrevanju. Zagovorniki teorije jo navajajo kot absoluten in avtoritativen dokaz, da vsi znanstveniki (razen podkupljenih, a ne) trdijo da je globalno segrevanje dejstvo in da je posledica cloveskih aktivnosti.

V realnosti pa so bila mnenja znanstvenikov zelo deljena ko se je tista (politicna) resolucija sprejemala in rezultat je bil nekako tako kot levica:ostali na letosnjih slovenskih volitvah. Vendar so nasprotnike porinili v ozadje, da ne omenjamo, da je vsak, ki si drzne podvomiti o tem (pa magari na podlagi lastnih nasprotujocih izracunov) takoj proglasen za placanca energetskega lobija.

Aja, in se en mocen razlog kje je motivacija za politicno propagiranje globalnega segrevanja: nerazvitim drzavam je seveda v interesu, da razvite upocasnijo svoj tempo (da ne bomo ravno direktno rekli, da je marsikateremu politiku globalno segrevanje prirocna gorjaca za udrihanje cez brezbozne ZDA).

Al Gore je najprej delal kampanjo proti Bushu kot predsedniski kandidat. Cisto upraviceno. No, potem ko je zgubil, jo je pac prenesel v mednarodno areno, in tam imajo taksne zadeve fantasticen odmev. In ne si delati utvar, drzave podpisnice kyota pac upajo, da bodo razvite drzave, predvsem pa ZDA, prisilile, da si obesijo se kaksno vreco na rame, da bo napredek malo pocasnejsi, in one same bolj konkurencne. Prosim lepo, najdi podpisnice kyotskega protokola in malo poglej, v koliko drzavah mislis da jih res briga za okolje...

PS.

http://www.financial...f98f416e71< /a>

(sploh tale del:

On July 6, the panel issued a 155-page report, which managed the delicate feat of accepting virtually all the criticisms of the Hockey Stick while still saying polite things about it. A European climate scientist, who understood the balancing act, wrote us afterwards to point out it was the most severe criticism of the Hockey Stick nowadays possible.

Si predstavljas? Zgodbic kot taka je se precej. Se pravi, iz politicnih razlogov niso pustili razsuti tistega modela, ki je sluzil za mahanje s klimatskimi spremembami, ceprav so znanstveniki nasli v njem toliko lukenj, da je popolnoma neverodostojen. In se nekaj: avtorji originalne hokejske palice se (oz. so se ) trmasto upirali razkritju metode, po kateri so prisli do izracunov . To je v znanosti en velik NO-NO in samo politikom se imas zahvaliti, da niso kekcev ze zdavnaj fuknili skoz vrata.

Se to:

The NAS panel drew attention to other recent studies claiming that the 20th century was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. We've attempted to replicate these other studies as well, only to run into one obstacle after another in identifying data and methods -- similar to the problems that led to the original congressional questions about the Mann study. In one case, the authors even refused to identify the sites from which data was collected for their study!

...

It was news in 2001 when the IPCC claimed with confidence that the 1990s were the warmest in 1,000 years. The real news from the NAS is that it disagreed and withdrew any claim to confidence prior to 1600. At the NAS press conference, the panel was asked about "overselling" of the warmest-in-a-millennium claim and whether any lessons could be learned. Panel chairman Gerry North noted that the Mann paper was very recent when this claim was made and observed that it was "very dangerous to pull one paper out of the literature fresh before it's had time to season." However, the panel did not comment on IPCC procedures that invited this problem. The IPCC lead author who selected Mann's reconstruction for prominent display in the review of millennial temperature history was none other than Mann himself. At the time, he was a fresh and ambitious PhD, an odd choice to write the "consensus" review of climate history.

....
When asked at the press conference about lessons that could be learned, panelist Kurt Cuffey said the prominent use of the Hockey Stick graphic by the IPCC sent "a very misleading message." He said the over-selling did not come from the "science community," but from the "interaction of part of the science community with the broader public discourse and in particular with the way the [Mann et al.] reconstruction was used by the IPCC in the 2001 report." But haven't we been told that the IPCC is the "science community?" If a knowledgeable observer such as Cuffey distinguishes the two, blaming the IPCC while defending the "science community," shouldn't we be trying to figure out exactly how the IPCC process ended up sending out a "very misleading message?" And if the process has not been fixed -- and there is no evidence that it has -- how do we know that the IPCC won't send another equally "misleading" message in the upcoming Fourth Assessment report?