Lindzen admitts truth
Andy Ridgwell
On a UK discussion program last night, the guru of global warming
sceptics, Dr 'Dick' Lindzen admitted the following:
1) That there has been a global warming of about 0.5 degrees C since
the mid 1800s.
2) That anthropogenic influences might be partly responsible for htis
increase.
Would any of the sceptics who entirely deny either (or both) of 1) or
2) like to comment?
Andy
----
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY
-------------
Andy Ridgwell
School of Environmental Science
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
+44 (0)1603 593115
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <349805f9...@news.uea.ac.uk>,
A.Rid...@uea.ac.ukNOSPAM (Andy Ridgwell) wrote:
>On a UK discussion program last night, the guru of global
warming
>sceptics, Dr 'Dick' Lindzen admitted the following:
>
>1) That there has been a global warming of about 0.5 degrees
C since
>the mid 1800s.
Hmmm. Approximately 1 deg F in 150 years.
>
>2) That anthropogenic influences might be partly responsible
for htis
>increase.
Hmmm. All that CO2 may have contributed only 0.25 to 0.5 deg
F warming in that same 150 year period.
>
>Would any of the sceptics who entirely deny either (or both)
of 1) or
>2) like to comment?
Few of us skeptics have denied either 1 or 2. What we *do*
deny is:
A) That man-made warming is significant, given the magnitude
of "natural" variations;
B) That the small man-made warming to date will lead to
catastrophic results.
You enviros don't seem to like it when people don't take you
seriously. This is occurring probably because you have
"cried wolf" for so long that people are starting to catch
on.
Andy Ridgwell
>Few of us skeptics have denied either 1 or 2.
Oh come on. You may not be one, but there are plenty of people posting
who deny either (or both) of these points in their entirety.
> What we *do* deny is:
>
>A) That man-made warming is significant, given the magnitude
>of "natural" variations;
>
>B) That the small man-made warming to date will lead to
>catastrophic results.
You cannot prove either, so I think that it is a bit strong to "deny"
them. Even the much-hated IPCC report talks in terms of balance of
probabilities.
Onar Aam
>>Few of us skeptics have denied either 1 or 2.
>
>Oh come on. You may not be one, but there are plenty of people posting
>who deny either (or both) of these points in their entirety.
But should skeptics be viewed as a group? Should I dismiss the consensus
stance just because there is an occasional extremist among them?
Personally I strive towards not evaluating people on the basis of their
belonging to a group, but on their statements. The fact that you don't,
tells me a whole lot about your integrity.
>You cannot prove either, so I think that it is a bit strong to "deny"
>them. Even the much-hated IPCC report talks in terms of balance of
>probabilities.
I am starting to get really, really fed up with the word "deny." It
is a word used to label a group of people. To deny means to reject
something in the face undisputable evidence. If you claim that there
is indisputable evidence for anthropogenic warming then YOU are the
one in denial. Personally I _oppose_ the upper spectrum of the IPCC
scenarios as wildly unlikely based on physical evidence, observations
of the real world. If you call that denial then you are in contempt
of the scientific process.
>Andy
Onar.
Andy Ridgwell
On 18 Dec 1997 10:50:22 GMT, in sci.environment you wrote:
>But should skeptics be viewed as a group? Should I dismiss the consensus
>stance just because there is an occasional extremist among them?
>Personally I strive towards not evaluating people on the basis of their
>belonging to a group, but on their statements.
My word, aren't you just whiter-than-white.
> The fact that you don't, tells me a whole lot about your integrity.
!
> If you claim that there
>is indisputable evidence for anthropogenic warming then YOU are the
>one in denial.
You *know* that I have not advocated that there is _indisputable_
evidence for anthropogenic warming, so what was the point of saying
this?
> Personally I _oppose_ the upper spectrum of the IPCC
>scenarios as wildly unlikely based on physical evidence, observations
>of the real world. If you call that denial then you are in contempt
>of the scientific process.
The fact that you personally find the higher global warming estimates
as unlikely is of course not denial. I don't find these estimates
quite as unlikely as you do, but I certainly accept that they are much
more unlikely than the central estimates, and basically define the
outer envelope of possible climatic response.
BTW, does this mean that you find the middle (and lower) IPCC
estimates quite possible?
You must admitt though that there are those who have posted who do
certainly deny that anthropogenic emissions could possibly have a
climatic impact and the like. I was just fishing for these nutters for
a reaction.
Onar Aam
>You *know* that I have not advocated that there is _indisputable_
>evidence for anthropogenic warming, so what was the point of saying
>this?
Because you labeled people as denialists. To be a denialist means to
deny indisputable facts. Here are some facts that are undisputable:
1) The earth has warmed some 0.3-0.6 C the last 150 years.
2) the sun has brightened 0.1-0.2% in this period.
3) CO2 concentration has increased some 30% in this period, most of
which is highly likely to human in origin.
4) The airborn fraction of CO2 emissions has decreased from 75% to 50%
in the last 30 years.
5) The lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last 20 years.
If people deny these facts then they can rightly be called denialists.
Among what are NOT indisputable facts are these:
1) Some of the observed warming can be attributed to increases
in greenhouse gases.
2) Some or all of the observed warming can be attributed to the
brightening of the sun.
3) A further increase in CO2 will lead to a warming of 1-3.5 C in
the next century.
If people dispute these facts with valid arguments then they are NOT
denialists.
>BTW, does this mean that you find the middle (and lower) IPCC
>estimates quite possible?
2 C warming quite possible? Yes, to me this is the outer rim of the
reasonably likely climate response. -0.5 C is my outer rim the other
way (due to a plausible cooling of the sun in the future). I regard
+0.5-1.5 C as the most likely range of net climate change in the next
century. Of this greenhouse gases contribute between 0 and 1 C. (I
regard Lindzen's claim of net negative feedbacks as unlikely, but a
balance between positive and negative feedbacks is in my view not
implausible.)
>You must admitt though that there are those who have posted who do
>certainly deny that anthropogenic emissions could possibly have a
>climatic impact and the like.
If they by climatic impact include ANY kind of climatic impact (i.e.
changes in precipitation, lapse rate, convection etc.) THEN they
certainly are denialists. But opposing that anthropogenic emissions
will significantly affect temperatures is ok, in my view, if they
can back up their claims.
Onar.
Michael Tobis
The silly tendency that people have to treat the entire set of people
who disagree with them as a unit is prominent on sci.environment.
It's not only lousy logic, it's also lousy demagoguery. That is, as
propaganda, it fails. It's incompetent as well as malicious. This
applies to both extremes of these debates but is the particular failing
of Mr. Nudds, whose sometimes valid points are swamped in this irresponsible
and divisive form of nonsense. I think "denialist" is his word, and I am
dismayed to see it gaining currency.
There is no requirement for two people who disagree with you to have
positions that are consistent with each other. On the other hand, such
people should as individuals try to come up with a consistent opinion.
To be sure, I am bothered by people who say things like "there is no warming,
and it was caused by volcanoes anyway". That's legalistic argument
("reasonable doubt") not strategic argument. I think "denialist" is
a silly word, but if it must stick, I'd prefer to apply it to people
who unthinkingly repeat arguments against the consensus without regard
to their mutual consistency.
This does not aply to Onar Aam and certainly not to Lindzen or Christy.
It does, it seems to me, apply to other prominent critics like Balling,
Michaels, and Jastrow, and many of the participants in the usenet discussion,
who trumpet evidence on one side of the question and downplay that on the
other, sniping at the consensus without offering a meaningful alternative.
However, I think it is extremely rude to attach a name to one's
opponents' position, and is almost invariably counterproductive to reasoned
discussion. Using a name to express contempt for one's opponents just fuels
the fire of mutual hostility. This tendency is itself far more dangerous
than global climate change. It ultimately fuels war and/or fascism, which
kill far more effectively and ruthlessly than storms and droughts.
mt
Onar Aam
While I hardly agree with Michael Tobis on every issue regarding
climate I am glad to see that he has the integrity to evaluate people
on what they say rather than by which group belonging they are
labeled with. (be they dissenters or consenters) That kind of honesty
is what brings credibility to one's attitude. For the sake of the
credibility of science I sort of hope that the consensus opinion is
correct because if isn't then more than a few will associate climate
science with the dirty stench of policy. It's attitudes like the one
Michael Tobis has displayed that can prevent that.
Onar.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <34996836...@news.uea.ac.uk>,
A.Rid...@uea.ac.ukNOSPAM (Andy Ridgwell) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 97 23:25:57 GMT, char...@hal-pc.org
>(char...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>
>
>Oh come on. You may not be one, but there are plenty of
people posting
>who deny either (or both) of these points in their
entirety.
>
>>
>>A) That man-made warming is significant, given the
magnitude
>>of "natural" variations;
>>
>>B) That the small man-made warming to date will lead to
>>catastrophic results.
>
to "deny"
>them.
Nor sir, can you. That is *exactly* the basis for my
resisting taking drastic action. Unfortunately for the
people who want to weigh in on the "safe side" of the
argument, they can't seem to understand those who want to
get a better understanding of the problem before acting.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <67b6ja$a7t$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no
>
>>You *know* that I have not advocated that there is
_indisputable_
>>evidence for anthropogenic warming, so what was the point
of saying
>>this?
>
>
>Because you labeled people as denialists. To be a denialist
means to
>deny indisputable facts. Here are some facts that are
undisputable:
>
>1) The earth has warmed some 0.3-0.6 C the last 150 years.
>2) the sun has brightened 0.1-0.2% in this period.
>3) CO2 concentration has increased some 30% in this period,
most of
> which is highly likely to human in origin.
This may be a bit misleading. Since CO2 is presently in the
range of 300-400 ppm, a 30% increase is also in the range of
the ppm level. I don't know whether or not this is
significant regarding global warming, but this type of
statistic means something totally different if the starting
point is 1% rather than 400 ppm.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <67bjd8$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>The silly tendency that people have to treat the entire set
of people
>who disagree with them as a unit is prominent on
sci.environment.
>However, I think it is extremely rude to attach a name to
one's
>opponents' position, and is almost invariably
counterproductive to reasoned
>discussion. Using a name to express contempt for one's
opponents just fuels
>the fire of mutual hostility. This tendency is itself far
more dangerous
>than global climate change. It ultimately fuels war and/or
fascism, which
>kill far more effectively and ruthlessly than storms and
droughts.
>
>mt
>
I've disagreed with in the past on your postings, but this
one "hits the nail right on the head". People tend to
forget that free speech entails disagreements, and they tend
to use labels to publicly shame their opposition. This is
unfortunate, as the first step towards dehumanizing those
who are different than yourself is giving them a label. For
examples of this, refer to the *many* racial epithets that
abound in all cultures. In effect, this sort of reaction
seems to be deeply rooted in human nature. It would be nice
to see more people become consciously aware of this, and try
to subdue this impulse where possible.
Onar Aam
>This may be a bit misleading. Since CO2 is presently in the
>range of 300-400 ppm, a 30% increase is also in the range of
>the ppm level. I don't know whether or not this is
>significant regarding global warming, but this type of
>statistic means something totally different if the starting
>point is 1% rather than 400 ppm.
The forcing of CO2 is typically referred to as a logarithmic
function of concentration, meaning that a 30% increase should
approximately result in the same amount of forcing regardless
of the concentration. This of course is only BOTE calculations.
Onar.
Rich Puchalsky
Michael Tobis (to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
: The silly tendency that people have to treat the entire set of people
: who disagree with them as a unit is prominent on sci.environment.
: of Mr. Nudds, whose sometimes valid points are swamped in this irresponsible
: dismayed to see it gaining currency.
It is indeed wrong to lump everyone who disagrees with you together. However,
when people are arguing from ideology rather than logic, it is usually an
ideology that is common to a group of people. I think it is accurate in
these cases to give the ideology a name. And if particular people show
by their arguments that they are arguing from the ideology, I see no
reason not to refer to them as adherents to it.
If you consider "denialism" to be an ideology, then I think that it makes
sense to refer to individuals as denialists. Of course, not all who
disagree with consensus science disagree for ideological reasons, and they
should not be lumped into the category without cause.
: I think "denialist" is
: a silly word, but if it must stick, I'd prefer to apply it to people
: who unthinkingly repeat arguments against the consensus without regard
: to their mutual consistency.
Denialist is no more or less silly than many other non-flattering political
words; the strongest argument I've heard against its use is that it's
already been taken for use in describing those who deny the existence of the
Holocaust.
: However, I think it is extremely rude to attach a name to one's
: opponents' position, and is almost invariably counterproductive to reasoned
: discussion.
But denialists do not deal in reasoned discussion.
Look back at some old posts by masters of the sci.env correction -- people
who could correct an ignorant person and really make it stick so that the
person didn't persist. Try some of Parson's old posts, for instance. You
will see, in addition to an admirable command of the facts and a clear use
of language, a strong element of intellectual authority. I doubt that
the people who are "convinced" have been convinced by reasoned discussion,
because they hardly ever bother to read the source material or learn enough
to reason from it. Now, this type of effective correction didn't use words
like "denialist", and was indeed more successful than posts that do. So
I think that you are right that use of the word may be counterproductive,
but I don't think that you have the right reason.
: Using a name to express contempt for one's opponents just fuels
: the fire of mutual hostility. This tendency is itself far more dangerous
: than global climate change. It ultimately fuels war and/or fascism, which
: kill far more effectively and ruthlessly than storms and droughts.
Now this is pretty questionable. I have to see anyone seriously claim that
Usenet flaming leads convincingly to "war and/or fascism". AS a slippery
slope argument, it's not very convincing.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <67cic4$l7l$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no
I don't personally think that this passes the "common sense"
test. However, if it *does*, you of course realize what
this implies. It means that the "biggest bang" relative to
temperature increase occurs close to the start of any big
increases in CO2 concentration. Since there probably isn't
enough petroleum to continue using it in an exponential
fashion, one would expect the rate of temperature rise to
slow as more CO2 was emitted, because a linear rate of
temperature increase would require an exponential rate of
CO2 (fossil fuel burning) increase.
The very small temperature increase in the last 150 years,
during which time there was a hugh increase in CO2
emissions, bodes well for those who do not think that the
sky is falling (assuming that your statement is correct).
By the way, I'm not familiar with your acronym. What is
BOTE?
Onar Aam
>I don't personally think that this passes the "common sense"
>test.
It's not common sense. It's an idealized forcing of
CO2 as a function of concentration.
>However, if it *does*, you of course realize what
>this implies. It means that the "biggest bang" relative to
>temperature increase occurs close to the start of any big
>increases in CO2 concentration.
Correct. The 53% increase in CO2-equivalents so far should
correspond to 60% of the warming of a CO2 doubling. If all of
the warming this century is 1 C (which includes all feedbacks
minus aerosols). Then a doubling should give 1.7 C warming. So if
CO2 level doubles in the next 110 years the total amount of
CO2-equivalent increase will be 115%, which should amount to
1.9 C warming. Again this is just BOTE calculations, and we know
for certain that not all of the warming is due to anthropogenic
greenhouse gases. Between 0.2 and 3 W/m^2 forcing is due to direct
and indirect solar forcings. Hence the actual warming is likely to
be less than 0.2 C/decade.
>By the way, I'm not familiar with your acronym. What is
>BOTE?
Back of the envelope.
Onar.
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
In article <67cs4s$mdd$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>,
on 19 Dec 1997 04:11:08 GMT,
ri...@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>Michael Tobis (to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: The silly tendency that people have to treat the entire set of people
>: who disagree with them as a unit is prominent on sci.environment.
>[...]
>: of Mr. Nudds, whose sometimes valid points are swamped in this irresponsible
>: and divisive form of nonsense. I think "denialist" is his word, and I am
>: dismayed to see it gaining currency.
>
>It is indeed wrong to lump everyone who disagrees with you together. However,
>when people are arguing from ideology rather than logic, it is usually an
>ideology that is common to a group of people. I think it is accurate in
>these cases to give the ideology a name. And if particular people show
>by their arguments that they are arguing from the ideology, I see no
>reason not to refer to them as adherents to it.
To extent that skepticism about global warming has a common
thread, I would say it is self-interest. People believe what it is
convenient for them to believe. If you are reluctant to make sacrifices
to prevent global warming, it is convenient for you to believe that
global warming is not a serious problem and you will tend to do so.
Rich Puchalsky continued:
>If you consider "denialism" to be an ideology, then I think that it makes
>sense to refer to individuals as denialists. Of course, not all who
>disagree with consensus science disagree for ideological reasons, and they
>should not be lumped into the category without cause.
Inventing a "denialist" ideology consisting of the belief that
adding CO2 to the atmosphere may not cause significant warming and then
claiming global warming skeptics are arguing from a common ideology
because they are all "denialists" seems like circular reasoning to me.
James B. Shearer
Andy Ridgwell
>I've disagreed with in the past on your postings, but this
>one "hits the nail right on the head". People tend to
>forget that free speech entails disagreements, and they tend
>to use labels to publicly shame their opposition. This is
>unfortunate, as the first step towards dehumanizing those
>who are different than yourself is giving them a label. For
>examples of this, refer to the *many* racial epithets that
>abound in all cultures. In effect, this sort of reaction
>seems to be deeply rooted in human nature. It would be nice
>to see more people become consciously aware of this, and try
>to subdue this impulse where possible.
Extremely worthy piece you have there St. Charliew.
Funny, but it was only the other day on a different newsgroup, that in
relation to one of my postings (specifically the use of the word
"anthropogenic") you said:
>It's a 5 syllable word for "man-made". Apparently, enviros
>think a good dose of jargon helps convince people.
I seem to recall an appropriate saying; something about buildings made
of glass and sizable lumps of crystalline material I think ...
That is unless I have misunderstood your use of the term "enviros". It
could of course be a right and propper scientific term, not at all
related to the label used "to publicly shame their opposition" of the
same spelling.
Bandy
-----
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY
Andy Ridgwell
>I've disagreed with in the past on your postings, but this
>one "hits the nail right on the head". People tend to
>forget that free speech entails disagreements, and they tend
>to use labels to publicly shame their opposition. This is
>unfortunate, as the first step towards dehumanizing those
>who are different than yourself is giving them a label. For
>examples of this, refer to the *many* racial epithets that
>abound in all cultures. In effect, this sort of reaction
>seems to be deeply rooted in human nature. It would be nice
>to see more people become consciously aware of this, and try
>to subdue this impulse where possible.
A very brief trawl of some of the posting by his Holiness, Saint
Charliew of Calcutta, beautifies the world with the following sacred
writings of Our Great Moral Guide:
"Many of the envirowackos wouldn't know logic, science, or facts, if
they (logic, etc.) fell on them!"
" I have in fact said very similar things some months ago, and was
severely chastised by other enviro types, who argued for *no* change
whatsoever!"
"That is what I am hoping some of the more rabid enviros will define
for me."
"The more rabid enviros have been screetching that the earth has too
many humans."
" I'm willing to bet that the sky will not fall, but if I'm wrong, the
enviro-nuts will get their way."
Obviously, Charliew The Exhalted One could not possibly be using these
unholy "labels", as they are abhorrent to his very Nature, so these
posts must be being made by The Evil One, in our Charliew's most
scantified name.
Charliew, I think that your great teachings are wasted on us un-saved
mortals inhabiting this newsgroup. Perhaps I might so bold as to
suggest that you direct all you future postings to a more suitable
group such as alt.humbug?
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <349d85b8...@news.uea.ac.uk>,
A.Rid...@uea.ac.ukNOSPAM (Andy Ridgwell) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 97 00:09:54 GMT, char...@hal-pc.org
>(char...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>
>>I've disagreed with in the past on your postings, but this
>>one "hits the nail right on the head". People tend to
>>forget that free speech entails disagreements, and they
tend
>>to use labels to publicly shame their opposition. This is
>>unfortunate, as the first step towards dehumanizing those
>>who are different than yourself is giving them a label.
For
>>examples of this, refer to the *many* racial epithets that
>>abound in all cultures. In effect, this sort of reaction
>>seems to be deeply rooted in human nature. It would be
nice
>>to see more people become consciously aware of this, and
try
>>to subdue this impulse where possible.
>
>
>Funny, but it was only the other day on a different
newsgroup, that in
>relation to one of my postings (specifically the use of the
word
>"anthropogenic") you said:
>
>>It's a 5 syllable word for "man-made". Apparently,
enviros
>>think a good dose of jargon helps convince people.
>
>I seem to recall an appropriate saying; something about
buildings made
>of glass and sizable lumps of crystalline material I think
..
>
"enviros". It
>could of course be a right and propper scientific term, not
at all
>related to the label used "to publicly shame their
opposition" of the
>same spelling.
>
And where am I trying to publicly shame you by giving you
the label "enviro"? Where am I trying to dehumanize you?
If that was my agenda, I would have used the well known
Nudds technique:
enviro-whacko
extreme
insane
stupid
doesn't care about children or future generations
denialist
etc.
Note that when someone calls me a conservative, I don't
particularly object, even though this is admittedly a label.
However, I *do* object when they call me a conservative
extremist, due to the bad connotation involved. Apparently,
you have a different opinion.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <349dbc61...@news.uea.ac.uk>,
A.Rid...@uea.ac.ukNOSPAM (Andy Ridgwell) wrote:
(cut)
>Charliew, I think that your great teachings are wasted on
us un-saved
>mortals inhabiting this newsgroup. Perhaps I might so bold
as to
>suggest that you direct all you future postings to a more
suitable
>group such as alt.humbug?
>
I'll consider it. BTW, it's nice to see someone other than
Nudds using his techniques. You have learned them well.
Andy Ridgwell
>And where am I trying to publicly shame you by giving you
>the label "enviro"? Where am I trying to dehumanize you?
Hell, personally I'm not particularly bothered.
However, I thought that it was a bit rich that you should get on your
high horse (by all accounts an animal so high that you are in danger
of being knocked unconcious by the moon) and produce "The Gospel
According To St. Charliew" on the theme of the morals of not labeling
people, when you are probably the most prolific "labeler" on this
newsgroup.
Sir, I feel that you are so full of humbug that you may not fit
through your own front door in future.
Andy
Harold
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:07:34 GMT, A.Rid...@uea.ac.ukNOSPAM (Andy
Ridgwell) wrote:
>On a UK discussion program last night, the guru of global warming
>sceptics, Dr 'Dick' Lindzen admitted the following:
>
>1) That there has been a global warming of about 0.5 degrees C since
>the mid 1800s.
>
>2) That anthropogenic influences might be partly responsible for htis
>increase.
>
>Would any of the sceptics who entirely deny either (or both) of 1) or
>2) like to comment?
And who are these people? These skeptics? It would be my opinion
that this is entirely consistent, and accurate.
While correlations are not proof, the variations in solar luminosity
explain only a portion of the data on warming. The rest could be
natural variation, anthropogenic influences, or errors in the
measurements.
Do you think this proves that there is global warming?
Regards, Harold
----
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each
of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective, and being honest."
--- Dr Stephen Schneider
Robert Parson
In article <67bjd8$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis <to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>The silly tendency that people have to treat the entire set of people
>who disagree with them as a unit is prominent on sci.environment.
>It's not only lousy logic, it's also lousy demagoguery. That is, as
>propaganda, it fails. It's incompetent as well as malicious. This
>applies to both extremes of these debates but is the particular failing
>of Mr. Nudds, whose sometimes valid points are swamped in this irresponsible
>and divisive form of nonsense. I think "denialist" is his word, and I am
>dismayed to see it gaining currency.
I used to think that Nudds was engaging in a deliberate parody, because
his manner so closely resembles the classic dittohead's Argument from
Ideology. Scott uses "Conservative" in exactly the way that Rush uses
"Liberal" - as a label to discredit the opposition from the outset.
------
Robert
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Because you labeled people as denialists. To be a denialist means to
: deny indisputable facts. Here are some facts that are undisputable:
: 1) The earth has warmed some 0.3-0.6 C the last 150 years.
: 2) the sun has brightened 0.1-0.2% in this period.
: 3) CO2 concentration has increased some 30% in this period, most of
: which is highly likely to human in origin.
: 4) The airborn fraction of CO2 emissions has decreased from 75% to 50%
: in the last 30 years.
: 5) The lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last 20 years.
While 1-4 are not indispute, 5 is not only in dispute, it is wrong.
Both MSU and Radiosonde show warming once the disruptive effects of
volcanic emissions are removed from the data.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: If people deny these facts then they can rightly be called denialists.
: Among what are NOT indisputable facts are these:
: 1) Some of the observed warming can be attributed to increases
: in greenhouse gases.
: 2) Some or all of the observed warming can be attributed to the
: brightening of the sun.
: 3) A further increase in CO2 will lead to a warming of 1-3.5 C in
: the next century.
Oh gosh, #1, is most certainly indisputable. #2. and #3., are not
really disputable either.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: But should skeptics be viewed as a group?
Skeptics in general or global warming denialists?
Skeptics are very much different that denialists.
Global warming denialists can be viewed as a group because they share
many common characteristics, the most common of which is blind
ignorance, the acceptance of political dogma over evidence, the denial
of well established facts, etc.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Personally I strive towards not evaluating people on the basis of their
: belonging to a group, but on their statements.
How about the statements repeated by Conservative John Alway and his
denialist brethren? "There is no evidence of global warming."
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: Few of us skeptics have denied either 1 or 2. What we *do*
: deny is:
Actually most of you do. Your recent abandonment of the hard line
denialist position not withstanding, we still see your ignorant
conservative brethren continuing to deny both 1 and 2.
char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: A) That man-made warming is significant, given the magnitude
: of "natural" variations;
So your objection is no longer about the reality of global warming,
but on the consequences. Problem is, no one knows what the precise
consequences will be, yet little Charliew has faith that damage will be
minimal.
I don't recommend gambling the fate of the world on the basis of
blind, ignorant, faith.
char...@hal-pc.org wrote:
: You enviros don't seem to like it when people don't take you
: seriously. This is occurring probably because you have
: "cried wolf" for so long that people are starting to catch
: on.
Charliew doesn't seem to understand that the majority of Americans are
on our side. If this were not the case, no progress on the
environmental front would have been made.
---
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now
doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same
thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress,
the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the
Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry
directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything
suffered by any minority in history." - Pat Robertson - 1993 interview
Molly Ivins.
--
<---->
Onar Aam
>: 5) The lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last 20 years.
>
> While 1-4 are not indispute, 5 is not only in dispute, it is wrong.
>Both MSU and Radiosonde show warming once the disruptive effects of
>volcanic emissions are removed from the data.
Ok, that statement should have been "The lower atmosphere has not warmed
_significantly_ in the last 18 years" which means that the change is too
small to assess any statistically significant trend (be it positive or
negative). It's well within climate variability. Also, estimating the
effects of volcanos involves uncertainties. Therefore such a subtraction
cannot be done without introducing noise into the data.
>(Onar Aam) wrote:
>: If people deny these facts then they can rightly be called denialists.
>: Among what are NOT indisputable facts are these:
>
>: 1) Some of the observed warming can be attributed to increases
>: in greenhouse gases.
>: 2) Some or all of the observed warming can be attributed to the
>: brightening of the sun.
>: 3) A further increase in CO2 will lead to a warming of 1-3.5 C in
>: the next century.
>
> Oh gosh, #1, is most certainly indisputable.
No, we know that climate will have to yield to the man-made perturbation
but we don't know how, and how much.
>#2. and #3., are not really disputable either.
Note that #2 is a stronger statement than #1. In #1 I say "some" whereas
in two I say "some or all." There is strong evidence that solar forcing
has caused nearly all of the warming in the last 150 years. However, this
finding is still in dispute. #3 is by far the most uncertain and disputable
of these statements. Current warming trend from 1979 to 1997 suggests a
warming of 0.5-1 C the next century.
Onar.
Onar Aam
>(Onar Aam) wrote:
>: Personally I strive towards not evaluating people on the basis of their
>: belonging to a group, but on their statements.
>
> How about the statements repeated by Conservative John Alway and his
>denialist brethren? "There is no evidence of global warming."
If Alway means that there is no evidence of warming whatsoever then he
is wrong. The sun has probably heated the earth quite a bit in the last
century. But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
observations.
Onar.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <67nqtb$o3$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no (Onar
>>: 5) The lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last 20
years.
>>
>> While 1-4 are not indispute, 5 is not only in dispute,
it is wrong.
>>Both MSU and Radiosonde show warming once the disruptive
effects of
>>volcanic emissions are removed from the data.
>
And naturally, we can assume that no "disruptive" vocanic
eruptions will occur in the future. Isn't it nice how the
global warming proponents get to choose which outliers to
eliminate from the data?
Scott Nudds
Robert Parson (rpa...@spot.colorado.edu) wrote:
: I used to think that Nudds was engaging in a deliberate parody, because
: his manner so closely resembles the classic dittohead's Argument from
: Ideology. Scott uses "Conservative" in exactly the way that Rush uses
: "Liberal" - as a label to discredit the opposition from the outset.
Turn about is fair play, don't you think Mr. Parson?
Robert Parson
In article <67omhg$r8c$1...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
No. "An eye for an eye will leave us all blind and toothless."
Think - why is it that so many respected posters who agree with much of
what you say have ended up either excoriating you or killfiling you?
Observe:
Jan Schloerer, in <4l5rf1$l...@rigel.rz.uni-ulm.de> :
: It is not quite that bad. At this moment, only slightly over
: ten percent of all sci.env postings on our news server stem,
: allegedly, from Scott Nudds. 85 of 794, to be precise.
: In the 1970s there was a computer program called Eliza.
: If you brought up something its script didn't anticipate,
: say, grizzly bears, a psychologist-version of Eliza might
: have answered "I am not interested in grizzly bears,
: let's talk about your mother."
: Is Scott Nudds a sophisticated descendant of Eliza ?
Andrew Taylor, in <4siu1g$4...@staff.cs.su.oz.au> :
: I've no idea what Mr Nudds said, he's in my killfile, in fact he's
: the only person in my killfile.
Bob Grumbine, in <4vvpbj$1...@access5.digex.net>, responding to me:
> My observation is that people who try to disagree patiently with
> Scott Nudds get treated in the same fashion as people who yell at him.
: And this was why I killfiled him. Between being a heavy poster,
: arguing by vigorous assertion, being impervious to outside observation,
: and the name calling, there wasn't much point to wading through his
: posts.
Bruce D. Scott, <50hsbb$2b...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> :
: Scott Nudds, I often agree with your posts, but to dance on someone's
: grave like you are doing is absolutely disgraceful. You should have
: thought before doing that, and then again when reminded that it is out
: of order.
: You have permanently diminished yourself, sir. And in many more eyes
: than just mine.
Think about it. Is this your goal, to drive away the people who are
generally acknowledged to be among the most knowledgeable and most
respected posters on the newsgroup? If so, I congratulate you upon
your success. In my judgement you have done more than any single
person to ruin this newsgroup. Granted it was in pretty bad shape
before you showed up, but you performed the coup de grace.
------
Robert
Onar Aam
>And naturally, we can assume that no "disruptive" vocanic
>eruptions will occur in the future. Isn't it nice how the
>global warming proponents get to choose which outliers to
>eliminate from the data?
Now, subtracting volcanos means to say that they don't really
affect long term climate, and I am in favor of such a view
because it implies that our climate is very stable. Rather than
being projectiles that forever change the momentum of the
climate they are mere perturbations which briefly skew the
system out of equilibrium before it quickly returns to its
stable state. The very fact that this happens over and over and
over again means that climate is pretty robust with regards to
perturbations: it has compensatory mechanisms which counteract
the perturbations. This is a view of the climatic system that I
am content with. Therefore I think it is ok to subtract volcanos
out of the temperature record. HOWEVER, I don't think that doing
this when we're still in coming out of a large eruption is correct
when assessing trends. Such subtractions must necessarily introduce
uncertainties into the data, making trends dubious. We need to wait
at least 5 years before we assess the volcano-free state of the
climate.
Onar.
char...@hal-pc.org
In article <67pvd6$6mb$2...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no
I'm glad you took the time to point this out. If the
outliers are truly "transient", it shouldn't take long to
see the trend that their removal has hinted at. However, if
there are enough volcanic eruptions over time to continue
interferring with the data, we may be fooling ourselves by
continuing to insist that the outliers always be removed
from the data set.
Onar Aam
>However, if
>there are enough volcanic eruptions over time to continue
>interferring with the data, we may be fooling ourselves by
>continuing to insist that the outliers always be removed
>from the data set.
Not really. Precisely because climate rebounds to its original
state after a while the volcanos have little effect on long term
trends whether you leave them in or weed them out. It's only in
short trend periods such as current MSU that volcanos can fool
us.
Onar.
John Alway
on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
>> How about the statements repeated by Conservative John Alway and his
>>denialist brethren? "There is no evidence of global warming."
>If Alway means that there is no evidence of warming whatsoever then he
>is wrong. The sun has probably heated the earth quite a bit in the last
>century. But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
>that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
>This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
>observations.
Obviously I don't deny there has been warmning. But it is always
important
to specify when that was, because these global warming fear mongers want us
to believe there is something horrific occurring because of man. The
global has
warmed up 0.5C from the 1800s into the early part of this century. Since
then
there has been no clear trend . And it's also obvious I'm not a
"conservative".
...John
Onar Aam
> Obviously I don't deny there has been warmning. But it is always
>important
> to specify when that was, because these global warming fear mongers want us
>
> to believe there is something horrific occurring because of man. The
>global has
> warmed up 0.5C from the 1800s into the early part of this century. Since
>then
> there has been no clear trend .
John, you _know_ that this is dubious statistics at best. If you run a 60 year
filter on the data you find a consistent warming trend of about 0.02-0.04
C/decade in the last 150 years. But you're right about the attribution though.
It's unlikely that a major part of this warming trend is due
to increased greenhouse gases.
Onar.
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam)
: >If Alway means that there is no evidence of warming whatsoever then he
: >is wrong. The sun has probably heated the earth quite a bit in the last
: >century. But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
: >that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
: >This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
: >observations.
John Alway wrote:
: Obviously I don't deny there has been warmning.
So now even Alway has jumped from the sinking ship of global warming
denialism.
As of 5 days ago, I don't think I remember a day going by where Alway
did not proclaim that there was "no evidence of global warming".
Now he publicly admit that the globe is warming.
In typical Extremist Conservative Libertarian/Rayndite form, Alway is
probably engaging in newspeak, and has probably redefined the meaning of
the term "global warming" to mean something other than a warming globe.
John Alway wrote:
: The global has warmed up 0.5C from the 1800s into the early part of
: this century. Since then there has been no clear trend.
This is amusing. Alway who has publicly stated that all observed
temperature fluctuation is explained by natural temperature variation -
meaning that any observed change in temperature has not risen outside of
the noise floor, now claims that a smaller warming signal taken over a
smaller time scale was observed before the middle of this century.
Alway is clearly abusing statistics here or admitting to another
error. If as he has claimed in earlier posts that the current warming
trend is within the noise floor, then clearly the smaller variation he
claims is observabe before the middle of the century can not be visible
since it would be even more deeply obscured by the noize.
Alway's abandonment of his former (and recent) denialist positions
tells us that even the most rabid extremists who dogmatically oppose the
reality of global warming have now been overwhelmed by the bulk of
evidence that supports the theory.
Unfortunately, Extremists like Alway who are motivated by dogma rather
than evidence or logic, cope with their failure by modifying as little
of their dogma as possible to make it compatible with the evidence they
have been forced to accept.
Seldom do they fully abandon the disproven fantasies. Often they
choose to isolate themselves from others, growing old and increasingly
grumpy as the extent of their great personal failure grows more evident
by the month.
Often they become violent toward others as they attempt to blame other
people for their own self lothing.
Extremists like Alway who already show in their posts, a hate for
others provide particularly good examples of the process.
I suspect in several years we will be hearing about his untimely
death, or imprisonment for some violent crime.
I've seen it all before.
--
<---->
Onar Aam
>(Onar Aam)
>: >If Alway means that there is no evidence of warming whatsoever then he
>: >is wrong. The sun has probably heated the earth quite a bit in the last
>: >century. But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
>: >that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
>: >This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
>: >observations.
>
>John Alway wrote:
>: Obviously I don't deny there has been warmning.
>
> So now even Alway has jumped from the sinking ship of global warming
>denialism.
I am starting to really hate the term Global Warming. It's connotation in
the media and everywhere else the name of the hypothesis that the earth
will experience catastrophic warming from a slight increase in greenhouse
gases. Therefore you will find that most people who say they don't believe
in Global Warming mean that they don't believe in the coming cataclysm.
Therefore it is extremely annoying to have you and others (who use the
term in exactly the same meaning when it suits you) point to charts showing
an increase in global temperature and shout "Look! Global Warming! You
denialist you!" This is creating a disagreement that does not exist. Most
skeptics (myself including) have no problems accepting that there has been
a temperature increase (global warming) in the last 150 years. This does
however NOT mean that they believe in humanmade catastrophic warming
scenarios (Global Warming (tm) ) as used in the media). Either you really
are unaware of the different connotations or you are deliberately trying
to create differences that don't exist.
> In typical Extremist Conservative Libertarian/Rayndite form, Alway is
>probably engaging in newspeak, and has probably redefined the meaning of
>the term "global warming" to mean something other than a warming globe.
There are two meanings of the word, the scientific connotation (an
increase in temperature) and the media connotation (humanmade catastrophic
greenhouse warming). These are NOT the same thing.
>John Alway wrote:
>: The global has warmed up 0.5C from the 1800s into the early part of
>: this century. Since then there has been no clear trend.
>
> This is amusing. Alway who has publicly stated that all observed
>temperature fluctuation is explained by natural temperature variation -
>meaning that any observed change in temperature has not risen outside of
>the noise floor, now claims that a smaller warming signal taken over a
>smaller time scale was observed before the middle of this century.
As far as I could see Alway was not talking about trends, but absolute
changes. I disagree that no warming trend can be seen. The earth has
warmed about 0.2-0.4 C/century. However, it's pretty obvious that the
human fraction (if there is one) of this warming has not risen above
noise level. Most of this warming is attributable to the sun.
> Alway is clearly abusing statistics here or admitting to another
>error.
I think you are reading Alway like the devil reads the bible.
> Alway's abandonment of his former (and recent) denialist positions
>tells us that even the most rabid extremists who dogmatically oppose the
>reality of global warming have now been overwhelmed by the bulk of
>evidence that supports the theory.
Again another crackpot statement.
Onar.
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
: that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
Nonsense. Nothing of the kind is implied. "Global Warming" refers to
increasing average global temperature and that is all. The <Cataclysm>
exists only in the minds of denialists who wish the attach the concept
so that they can apply the gloom and doom ploy.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
: observations.
Actual observations show warming, which is precisely what is
predicted. That's what is called <evidence> Mr. Aam.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: There is strong evidence that solar forcing
: has caused nearly all of the warming in the last 150 years. However, this
: finding is still in dispute.
Poor evidence. Strong evidence would be direct measurement over a
reasonably long period say 100 years, of increasing solar output. No
such measurements exist.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
charliew wrote:
: And naturally, we can assume that no "disruptive" vocanic
: eruptions will occur in the future. Isn't it nice how the
: global warming proponents get to choose which outliers to
: eliminate from the data?
Charliew doesn't seem to understand that if you are looking for the
effects of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, on temperature, you
must correct for effects that confound the data.
On another topic, Charliew objects to the filtering of the data on the
grounds that we may be saved from future increases in global temperature
by perpetual volcanic eruption.
This has less probability of happening as being saved by space aliens.
--
<---->
Onar Aam
>(Onar Aam) wrote:
>: But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
>: that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
>
> Nonsense. Nothing of the kind is implied.
Are you honestly saying that all this fuzz in the media, the IPCC and
the meeting in Rio and Kyoto has nothing to do with the humanmade
cataclysmic warming? Even _you_ can't believe that. If you ask anyone
on the street or even in the senate what they associate with "Global
Warming" you will consistently replies like "greenhouse effect",
"fossil fuels", "extreme weather."
> The <Cataclysm>
>exists only in the minds of denialists who wish the attach the concept
>so that they can apply the gloom and doom ploy.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that your ONLY agenda is to educate people
who deny the reality of a temperature increase in the past and that there
will be no cataclysm due to warming in the future!? What's the big deal
about these socalled denialists if you don't think there is no pending
threat of cataclysm? Are you just doing it for fun!? I've never seen
anyone invent as many fictious agendas as you, Scott. It seems like your
life would be meaningless if you didn't have an agenda to attend to.
>(Onar Aam) wrote:
>: This hypothesis is to some degree backed up by models, but not by actual
>: observations.
>
> Actual observations show warming, which is precisely what is
>predicted. That's what is called <evidence> Mr. Aam.
When I said "this hypothesis" I referred to the hypothesis that the
earth has and will experience dreadful warming from CO2 increase. Sure,
there has been some warming in the past, but not in any way as much as
predicted by the GCMs. The fact that you are uncapable of distinguishing
_degrees_ of warming suggest that you are blind to evidence.
Onar.
Onar Aam
No, but sunspots have been counted since the early 17th century, and cosmic
radiation has been measured since the early 50s. Both are correlated to
solar activity.
Onar.
Scott Nudds
: >(Onar Aam) wrote:
: >: But Global Warming (tm) tends to be the name of the hypothesis
: >: that anthropogenic greenhouse gases will produce cataclysmic warming.
: >
: > Nonsense. Nothing of the kind is implied.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Are you honestly saying that all this fuzz in the media, the IPCC and
: the meeting in Rio and Kyoto has nothing to do with the humanmade
: cataclysmic warming?
Correct. Every report I saw, every statement I read that was made at
Kyoto was in reference to potential damage resulting from the warming to
come.
What planet were you watching the coverage from Onar?
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: If you ask anyone
: on the street or even in the senate what they associate with "Global
: Warming" you will consistently replies like "greenhouse effect",
: "fossil fuels", "extreme weather."
One can only hope. I saw an interview on the street done in the U.S.
in the early 90's. When asked, about 60% of the people interviewed
didn't know what "AIDS" was.
: > The <Cataclysm>
: >exists only in the minds of denialists who wish the attach the concept
: >so that they can apply the gloom and doom ploy.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Wait a minute. Are you saying that your ONLY agenda is to educate people
: who deny the reality of a temperature increase in the past and that there
: will be no cataclysm due to warming in the future!?
Whether there is "cataclysm" will depend on the extent of the warming,
and this will depend on how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere.
Extremists focus on the "cataclysm", but reasoned people like myself
don't need imminent "cataclysm" to prompt them to action. Particularly
when the actions contemplated have additional benefits not related to
global warming.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: What's the big deal
: about these socalled denialists if you don't think there is no pending
: threat of cataclysm?
I don't like liars. I particularly don't like paid liars.
"It is interesting to watch the proponents of of the ozone-CFC theory
squirm when under scientific attack. They resort to evasion,
double-talk, and often outright prevarication." - Dr S. Fred Singer -
Washington Times, December 28, 1994.
--
<---->
Onar Aam
>(Onar Aam) wrote:
>: Are you honestly saying that all this fuzz in the media, the IPCC and
>: the meeting in Rio and Kyoto has nothing to do with the humanmade
>: cataclysmic warming?
>
> Correct. Every report I saw, every statement I read that was made at
>Kyoto was in reference to potential damage resulting from the warming to
>come.
Twisting my words again. We're talking about the same thing.
> Whether there is "cataclysm" will depend on the extent of the warming,
>and this will depend on how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere.
Well, that's true, but I think the evidence shows pretty clearly that
we have to dump more than the known fossil fuel reserves into the
atmosphere to warm the planet significantly.
> Extremists focus on the "cataclysm", but reasoned people like myself
>don't need imminent "cataclysm" to prompt them to action.
What!? Are you calling nervous, spasmic overreaction reasoned? Let me
remind you that you are responding to a _potential_ threat which 1)
is not supported by substantial evidence, 2) it doesn't hurt waiting
10-20 years for science to converge and 3) if it in the end turns
out to substantial then the feeble things we are doing now will have
little effect on the outcome.
Onar.
char...@hal-pc.org
However, don't forget that action now will appease liberal Democrats Bill
Clinton and Al Gore! After all, we certainly don't want science to get in
the way of policy! ;-)
Scott Nudds
char...@hal-pc.org (char...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: However, don't forget that action now will appease liberal Democrats Bill
: Clinton and Al Gore!
For a short time. But the proposed cuts will be completely
insufficient, and this issue will be revisited soon enough.
It's going to be fun to watch american conservatives slit their
collective throats on this issue.
Does God tell you to hate Charliew?
Scott Nudds
: > Whether there is "cataclysm" will depend on the extent of the warming,
: >and this will depend on how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Well, that's true, but I think the evidence shows pretty clearly that
: we have to dump more than the known fossil fuel reserves into the
: atmosphere to warm the planet significantly.
Really? Why don't the worlds scientists agree with you Onar? Can you
provide one reference from a scientific journal in which this conclusion
is reached?
On the other hand, we find literally thousands of statements of this
kind in the scientific literature.
"Professor Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
La Jolla, California, is one of the world's respected authorities on
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas now confirmed -- beyond
reasonable doubt -- to have contributed to the rise in global average
temperatures of one degree Celsius over the past century." - Ehsan
Masood - Nature Magazine Science Update 1997
: > Extremists focus on the "cataclysm", but reasoned people like myself
: >don't need imminent "cataclysm" to prompt them to action.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: What!? Are you calling nervous, spasmic overreaction reasoned?
What!? Are you calling reasoned response, nervous, spasmic
overreaction?
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: Let me
: remind you that you are responding to a _potential_ threat which 1)
: is not supported by substantial evidence,
Don't lie like that Onar.
Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1987 = 15.32)
1907 ...........*
1917 ............*
1927 ...............................*
1937 .......................................*
1947 .......................................*
1957 ......................................*
1967 ................................*
1977 .........................................*
1987 .................................................*
1997 .........................................................*
1997 - Hottest year on record
Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: 2) it doesn't hurt waiting 10-20 years for science to converge
The science has already converged enough. The consensus view supports
warming. Further waiting 20 years will do damage since fossil
consumption will have increased dramatically by then making it far more
difficult to make the required reductions in fossil fuel consumption.
The current cuts are small enough that they can still be done within a
"no regrets" policy composed mainly of efficiency improvements.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: 3) if it in the end turns out to substantial then the feeble things we
: are doing now will have little effect on the outcome.
They purchase time. And put in place the agreements that must be made
for reductions to come. There is reaction time in every decision.
Waiting 20 years to react means waiting 25 - 30 years for action.
--
<---->
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1987 = 15.32)
>
> 1907 ...........*
> 1917 ............*
> 1927 ...............................*
> 1937 .......................................*
> 1947 .......................................*
> 1957 ......................................*
> 1967 ................................*
> 1977 .........................................*
> 1987 .................................................*
> 1997 .........................................................*
> 1997 - Hottest year on record
>
> Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year
Still can't tell us what caused the warming in the first 100 years of
your data Mr Nudds? Oh I see, how convenient, you eliminated the first
70 years of data so no one could get confused. Good try Mr Nudds.:)
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: >
: > Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1987 = 15.32)
: >
: > 1907 ...........*
: > 1917 ............*
: > 1927 ...............................*
: > 1937 .......................................*
: > 1947 .......................................*
: > 1957 ......................................*
: > 1967 ................................*
: > 1977 .........................................*
: > 1987 .................................................*
: > 1997 .........................................................*
: > 1997 - Hottest year on record
: >
: > Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year
David Gossman (gcia...@gci.cncoffice.com) wrote:
: Still can't tell us what caused the warming in the first 100 years of
: your data Mr Nudds? Oh I see, how convenient, you eliminated the first
: 70 years of data so no one could get confused. Good try Mr Nudds.:)
And you still don't seem to understand that since the signal was
dominated by noise during that period, the cause can not be stated.
Undoubtedly it is a combination of random fluctuation and CO2 induced
warming offset by areosol cooling.
I thought you were smart enough to understand these things Gossman.
Apparently I am going to have to downgrade my opinion of you.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> : Scott Nudds wrote:
> : >
> : > Year Global Temperature index. (1867 = 14.42) (1987 = 15.32)
> : >
> : > 1907 ...........*
> : > 1917 ............*
> : > 1927 ...............................*
> : > 1937 .......................................*
> : > 1947 .......................................*
> : > 1957 ......................................*
> : > 1967 ................................*
> : > 1977 .........................................*
> : > 1987 .................................................*
> : > 1997 .........................................................*
> : > 1997 - Hottest year on record
> : >
> : > Error approx. 0.07 C' in any year
>
> David Gossman (gcia...@gci.cncoffice.com) wrote:
> : Still can't tell us what caused the warming in the first 100 years of
> : your data Mr Nudds? Oh I see, how convenient, you eliminated the first
> : 70 years of data so no one could get confused. Good try Mr Nudds.:)
>
> And you still don't seem to understand that since the signal was
> dominated by noise during that period, the cause can not be stated.
> Undoubtedly it is a combination of random fluctuation and CO2 induced
> warming offset by areosol cooling.
Can't say why you eliminated the first 70 years and can't tell us what
was going on in the first 100 years! Your "noise arguement" is getting
a bit old considering you just posted the last 18 years in another post
and argued that warming was clearly seen in that data set. Why do you
keep contradicting yourself Mr Nudds? PS By eliminating the first 70
years doesn't the data you present, by your arguement above, become
statistically meaningless?:) Although I am not certain, the statistical
"above the noise arguement" that you keep using appears to be related to
attempts to correlate temp increase with CO2 increases - not evaluate
wether or not a temperature increase had occurred. Given that, I will
again ask what is the temp increase in the first 100 years of your
original set of data from? Your inability to answer such a simple
question or honestly say that you don't know continues to discredit
anything else you say.
>
> I thought you were smart enough to understand these things Gossman.
> Apparently I am going to have to downgrade my opinion of you.
Given your past posts and name calling how could you possbly do that?:)