Discover Magazine and AGW

[ajmplanner]

Discover Magazine has long been a promoter of AGW.  Almost every issue has a pro global warming article.  Finally fed up, I sent a letter to the editor ( it wan't published) complaining about the one-sided exposition of the theory.  Apparently several others wrote in with similar complaints and one of those letters was published (September 2009 issue).  The editor's (Corey S. Powell, Science Editor and Adjunct Professor of Science Journalism at NYU) response:

"Indeed we did handpick the members of our climate roundtable.  We selected widely respected researchers representing four distinct aspects of climate science.  The fact that their views largely coincide accurately represents the overwheming consensus within the scientific community.  Packing our panel with dissenters simply to create the appearance of debate would be neither honest nor illuminating.  The broad conversation that followed did not lend itself to a technical discussion of computer climate models, which is why Ken Caldeira pointed interested readers to the Web site realclimate.org.  It is worth noting, however, that forecasting long-range global climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term, local weather effects, much as it is simpler to calculate the path of electric current through a set of circuits than it is to anticipate the route of an individual electron. (Just look at your computer for eveidence that such modeling really works.)  Science is often counterintuitive in that way, which is why we solicit the opinions of experts who have spent their entire careers striving to understand the complex operation of the earth's climate."

[ From Wikipedia: "Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon/climate system.
Caldeira's work was featured in a November 2006 article in The New Yorker, entitled "The Darkening Sea."[1] In 2007, he contributed two op-ed pieces on the subject of global warming to The New York Times.[2][3] He was named a "Hero Scientist of 2008" by New Scientist magazine.]


Any comments?  The editor obviously believes that "the debate  is over" so why listen to opposing points of view.  I sometimes get the feeling we are shoveling sand against the tide.  AGW proponents, Gore and his lobby, and the IPCC  have the public media by the short hairs.  Perhaps a response to the editor from a respected scientist on this forum might have a shot a getting published.  Probably not-but it may be worth a try.

[Doug Danhoff]

I too have discontinued the magazine and no longer view the channel.  I have better things to waste my time (what I have of it) on...like watching grass grow, or counting how many stars I can see in the evening.

[JohnWho]

Quote: "It is worth noting, however, that forecasting long-range global climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term, local weather effects, much as it is simpler to calculate the path of electric current through a set of circuits than it is to anticipate the route of an individual electron. (Just look at your computer for eveidence that such modeling really works.)..."

Uh, I wish I were a real scientist so I could discuss the accuracy of this analogy. 

Don't electric circuits have clear, restrictive pathways? 

Have we found those clear restrictive pathways in the patterns that produce our climate?

Also, is a "long-range global climate trend" what will happen over the next 10 years?  How long is "long-range"? 

Just wondering.

[Sunsettommy]

I think the writer has it backwards on weather forecasting and I think the analogy is absurd because there is no comparative connection between the two at all:

Quote:"It is worth noting, however, that forecasting long-range global climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term, local weather effects, much as it is simpler to calculate the path of electric current through a set of circuits than it is to anticipate the route of an individual electron. (Just look at your computer for eveidence that such modeling really works.)..."

Short range forecast is normally 1-3 days and long range is 7-10 days.

The renowned IPCC "long range" climate PROJECTIONS were way off for THIS decade,around .20C increase was the projected range.

I think 1-3 day weather forecast is much more reliable.

;D

[Mike Davis]

I worked with mechanical circuits and can say that you need to understand the short term before you can see the big picture. I had others who claimed to know the big picture while being lost by not understanding the steps needed to get from point a to b. If they can not understand the butterfly effect then global climate is PFM. I think I see some butterflies in west Aferica flapping so expect some tropical disturbances and if enough get together we can see a hurricane due to 3rd phase harmoncs in the MJO.

[mcclane]

i guess if all the AGW believers jumped off a high cliff, then the consensus would dictate the editors on that magazine would also follow suit. ???