Cliff Mass: You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!

Cliff Mass is a professor at a Sate University here, I believe the University of Washington. He wrote a book: The Weather of the Pacific Northwest. The other day, on Public Television,he gave a very interesting lecture regarding the types of local weather patterns and their causes. However, he wrapped up with a quick and dirty condescending discussion of Man-Made-Global-Warming (mmgw). Condescending because, although he obviously had not made a detailed study of the issues, he gave us the same old lines: yes it is real, us scientists say so. You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!

He says we should picture CO2 as a blanket around the Earth. OF COURSE it is warming, he assures us. He does not say, and may not know, what a thread-bare blanket it is. Science is nothing without magnitudes -- measured with NUMBERS -- What a concept.

His discussion consisted of a few statements and a few charts. It was interesting that his pages showing the coming warming were printed in darker and darker shades of red. His graph, employed a highly skewed choice of scale to show that CO2 concentration on earth's atmosphere has grown from a tiny, tiny line at the bottom of the chart straight up, up, up -- It shoots up off the page lake a rocket launched into the stratosphere. In fact the CO2 concentration has increased over 50 or so years from about 300 parts per million to a little over 400 per million. (I believe those are the approximate claimed figures.) So with a different choice of scale, the graph would appear to not even move. The change would not even be visible. Obviously, a choice of scale somewhere in between would be appropriate. Scientists know this; they often spend a few minutes lecturing on the proper choice of scale to convey information on a graph properly. I have never heard a scientist explain how to choice a scale that would be persuasive of a disputed issue. Real scientists go out of their way to develop and sympathetically address the opposing point of view; they do not intentionally misrepresent it. This scientist is a fraud.

By the way, they are constantly telling us that we cannot draw conclusions about climate, which is a very long term phenomenon, from observations over a short period of time. Why then does the CO2 change over a few decades matter? (Because it is caused by industrialization, they will say, and that is something new.) That it is caused by industrialization is a hypothesis yet to be proved. In any case, it is significant that they have not measured the concentrations every 50 years for the last 10,000 years. I do not think they could measure that. They may have connected the dots of many (questionable) observation in ice cores, which have gaps of hundreds if not thousand of years. They assume that past concentrations are continuous and smooth because there was no industrialization to cause spikes in the concentrations. That is, they are assuming as true that which is to be proved. (Which is to say they are self-deluded, dishonest fools.)