The REAL Cause of Glpbal Warming
Steve
As Reported on NewsMax
Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
changes in the sun.
One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate
changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
scientist’s controversial theory.
Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars’ south pole had
been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory
in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current
warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to
the National Geographic article.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
and Mars, he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small
contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it
cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.
The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun
variations in its magnetic field.
Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it
maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic
rays from exploded stars.
The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to
milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.
"Cosmic ray intensities and therefore cloudiness keep changing because
the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays
coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth, the Danish report
by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities
were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age
that climaxed 300 years ago.
Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the
Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
intense.
jo4hn
> Sun Responsible for Global Warming
> As Reported on NewsMax>
> Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
> through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
> encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
> intense.
bullshit. As a retired rocket scientist, I know that the problem
resides in the blogosphere.
gak,
jo4hn
Just Wondering
> Steve wrote:
>
>> Sun Responsible for Global Warming
>> As Reported on NewsMax> Several scientists cited in the report believe
>> that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
>> through the Milky Way Galaxy.
>
> As a retired rocket scientist, I know that the problem
> resides in the blogosphere.
You're all wrong. Global warming is caused by all the hot air Al Gore
emits.
Bob Schmall
"... according to one scientist’s controversial theory."
One out of how many?
fredf...@spamcop.net
> Sun Responsible for Global Warming
> As Reported on NewsMax
You missplet "misreported".
>
> Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
> instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
> changes in the sun.
>
> One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
> warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate
> changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
> scientist's controversial theory.
>
> Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
> disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars' south pole had
> been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
And during the same period of time, solar irradiance has been
decreasing:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
JPL and NASA have their own web pages on the subject:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html
See also:
--
FF
Robatoy
BUNK!
ORRRRRR, as they say in Quebec--> BUNQUE!
*I* did work on the Iriqois[sic] engine heat exchanger... yea, yea.. I
know I'm an EE, it was part of my easy credits---> fluid dynamics.
The AVRO Arrow was better than anything my friends in the US had in
their day.... it was killed by Diefenbaker because it ruffled too many
feathers with the WE ARE THE BEST engineers in the US.
Assholes.
r
J T
burble a batch of BS that was snipped.
You cold have at least had the courtesy to label this off-topic.
And this is hardly the proper newsgroup, don'tcha think?
I figure the global warming is cause by all thethane generated
from all the bull shit posts about global warming. Ya little troll.
JOAT
It was too early in the morning for it to be early in the morning. That
was the only thing that he currently knew for sure.
- Clodpool
tod...@gmail.com
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....
Tim Daneliuk
>> "... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
>> One out of how many?
>
> Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
> because....
>
Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Yet when asked, you can produce no evidence to support that
absurd claim.
Now you will probably reply, saying you have already provided
that evidence, but won't tell us what it is or where to find it.
Or you'll just rant.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> Mon, Mar 5, 2007, 11:37am (EST-2) gitrd...@nospam.com (Steve) who doth
> burble a batch of BS that was snipped.
>
> You cold have at least had the courtesy to label this off-topic.
> And this is hardly the proper newsgroup, don'tcha think?
>
> I figure the global warming is cause by all thethane generated
> from all the bull shit posts about global warming. Ya little troll.
>
Well, did you really think that an article with the subject:
"The REAL Cause of Glpbal Warming"
was going to be on topic?
--
FF
Leonard Shapiro
THIS NEEDED TO POSTEDE ON A WOOD WORKING GROUP!!!
Tom Terrific
Tax.con...@comcast.net says...
> GEORGE W BUSH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL AMERICAS TROUBLES AND GLOBAL WARMING!!!
> THIS NEEDED TO POSTEDE ON A WOOD WORKING GROUP!!!
In much the same way that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a direct
result of Ron & Nancy Reagans' misguided belief that abstinence can
prevent the spread of STDs.
Leon
Anyway, for those that believe "man" is responsible for Global warming,
"Man" has influenced Mars with probes, rovers, and other stuff that has
crash landed there. Therefore man is causing global warming on Mars also.
Bob Schmall
scientist just because he fits comfortably into our personal political
ideology?
In fact, this morning's news reported that China's current explosive
growth may soon make it the world's leader in CO2 emissions. Does this
mean that we can now blame the Commies?
Yes, there may be a valid case for non-human causation, but that does
not create a dichotomy--either one or the other. Maybe there is more
than one cause for global warming and human causation is understood much
better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.
Let's get real and admit our part in the whole thing; the enormous
weight of scientific evidence points to human beings as one cause of
global warming. All we can control is ourselves, all we can correct is
what we've caused.
Bob
Bob Schmall
Pure bullshit. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.
Doug Miller
>tod...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
>> because....
>>
>thousands of his peers are right. Does it make sense to agree with one
>scientist just because he fits comfortably into our personal political
>ideology?
No more sense than supposing that scientific truth can be decided by majority
vote.
>In fact, this morning's news reported that China's current explosive
>growth may soon make it the world's leader in CO2 emissions. Does this
>mean that we can now blame the Commies?
Well, yes. Obviously.
>Yes, there may be a valid case for non-human causation, but that does
>not create a dichotomy--either one or the other. Maybe there is more
>than one cause for global warming
Probably so.
>and human causation is understood much
>better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.
Probably not.
>Let's get real and admit our part in the whole thing; the enormous
>weight of scientific evidence points to human beings as one cause of
>global warming. All we can control is ourselves, all we can correct is
>what we've caused.
One cause, perhaps... but not the only cause, nor even necessarily a
significant cause. One major volcanic eruption puts more stuff in the
atmosphere in one day than we humans can put there in ten years.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller
Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as a *substitute*
for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.
Tim Daneliuk
Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...
Just Wondering
I'd like someone to answer me this. If CO2 emissions from human
technoligical activity is a cause of global warming, and if humans were
to, not merely reduce but complete eliminate all CO2 emissions from
technological activity, what would be the net global effect on humanity?
fredf...@spamcop.net
> In article <45ed7f5d$0$27065$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Bob Schmall <rschm...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Pure bullshit. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
> >Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
> >why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
> >drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
> >earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
> >there is a concensus.
>
> Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
> overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as
> a *substitute* for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.
The news media, public, and governments _sometimes_ rely upon
consensus within a scientific field as a substitute for "overwhelming"
evidence simply because they do not understand the underlying
theory needed to evaluate the evidence.
Within a scientific field consensus is built when scientists who DO
understand the underlying theory reach similar conclusions from
that evidence. Controversy over the relationship between smoking
and various illnesses was settled within medical researchers decades
before the government and public accepted those conclusions.
Scientists, when considering scientific issues outside of their
area of specialization are not necessarily any better, and indeed
may be worse, than the public as a whole. Cold fusion comes
to mind. Need I mention the DI's list of 'scientists' who 'question'
evolution, most of who are not scientists at all and almost
none of whom are biologists or zoologists? So if you poll
scientists who do not study climatology then you may
well find that they rely on their perception of consensus
within the field of climatology.
Have you any evidence that the _climatologists_ are relying
on consensus instead of evidence?
Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
IOW, when challenged to provide something to support your accusation,
you deny making it.
How light were you feeling when you wrote:
Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists
find out the truth of things by voting on them. It is
consensus, not data, that drives this bunch.
You did not write "Gore finds out the truth by..."
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
>
> ..
>
> One cause, perhaps... but not the only cause, nor even necessarily a
> significant cause. One major volcanic eruption puts more stuff in the
> atmosphere in one day than we humans can put there in ten years.
>
Cite?
Preferably one that breaks the numbers down according to
type of 'stuff'.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
>
> >and human causation is understood much
> >better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.
>
> Probably not.
>
How do you figure that?
Don't you think that we have a pretty good handle on how much
fossil fuel is produced worldwide, and nearly as good a handle
on how much cement is produced?
Where do the uncertainties in human production of CO2 lie?
As far as the natural world is concerned, we can be a lot
less confident that nature doesn't have something hidden
from us. Consider the recent discoveries of a an undersea
CO2 lake, and arctic methane clathrates.
--
FF
Doug Miller
scientists it was who all affirmed the notion of anthropogenic global warming,
only a tiny minority actually are climatologists...
Tim Daneliuk
Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:
1) Note that the named class was those with membership in "Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group
that even you have vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists.
2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.
3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well).
I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
>
> Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
> confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
> scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
> reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.
>
And you are (quite dishonestly) arguing as if there is essentially
no material disagreement within the climatology community. You
cannot bring yourself to speak the truth: The current state of
climatology does NOT justify the claimed level of confidence of
cause/effect/end result associated with global warming. This is
not to say it never will - it might, it might not. But the incredible
levels of confidence about what causes gw, how severe it is, and what
its outcomes will be simply cannot be *demonstrated by the data at hand*,
at least not to the point of being inarguable.
This breathtaking confidence in the absence of proof is a *political*
behavior whenever it occurs, whether by trained climatologists or
trained chimps like Gore...
fredf...@spamcop.net
> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> > Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
> > confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
> > scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
> > reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.
>
> And you are (quite dishonestly) arguing as if there is essentially
> no material disagreement within the climatology community.
Please demonstrate the existence of material disagreement
within the climatology community.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."
>
> 2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
> obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
> scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
> global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.
In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.
>
> 3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
> practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)
I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.
.
>
> I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
> religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
> Lighten up...
Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.
--
FF
Leon
"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dd2dnSOKsoBcLnDY...@comcast.com...
From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
Tim Daneliuk
>> Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
>> with Reality:
>>
>> 1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
>> "Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
>> vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists
>
> False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
> is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
> of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."
Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
it does make meaningful discussion difficult.
Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.
>
>> 2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
>> obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
>> scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
>> global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.
>
> In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
> and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
> consensus, you have disagreed.
Right, but in an *entirely different* context. I have argued that that scientific
method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
discussion, hence I did not bring it up.
>
>> 3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
>> practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)
>
> I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
> would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
> but define them differently.
I will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
of words, phrases, and general semantics.
> .
>> I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
>> religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
>> Lighten up...
>
> Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
> else takes them seriously either.
I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly. I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified. IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
fredf...@spamcop.net
> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
> >> with Reality:
>
> >> 1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
> >> "Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
> >> vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists
>
> > False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
> > is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
> > of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."
>
> Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
> it does make meaningful discussion difficult.
I didn't invent any meaning you did not intend. You claimed that I
had vigorusly argued about who belongs to your "Global Warming
Orthodoxy". In fact I did not. I addressed how the media, the
public, and the
government reaches its conclusions.
>
> Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
> strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
> rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
> popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.
>
That depends on how one defines "Orthodoxy". If you define it
synonymously with "conventional wisdom then yes, there are a
multitude of such "Orthodoxies".
>
>
> >> 2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
> >> obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
> >> scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
> >> global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.
>
> > In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
> > and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
> > consensus, you have disagreed.
>
> Right, but in an *entirely different* context.
'Intelligent Design' as I recall.
> I have argued that that scientific
> method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
> to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
> the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
> the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
> of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
> a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
> progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
> new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
> deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
> discussion, hence I did not bring it up.
You used the same terminology, in the context of a different
scientific
hypothesis.
...
>
> >> 3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
> >> practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)
>
> > I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
> > would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
> > but define them differently.
>
> I will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
> of words, phrases, and general semantics.
Here I congratulate you on your progress and yet you sound
rather testy.
>
> > .
> >> I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
> >> religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
> >> Lighten up...
>
> > Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
> > else takes them seriously either.
>
> I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
> your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly.
The I took you advice and lightened up, making a joke, and you now
seem to be pissed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?
OTOH, if you think that I am now presenting a different interpretation
of those remarks than I intended when first I wrote them, maybe you
will understand why I have a similar opinion of your remarks.
It is you who makes the claim that I have an 'earth worshiping
religiosity.'
I deny it.
I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.
What is your evidence?
>
> I have not said now or ever that
> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
> position is not currently justified.
You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.
What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
be)
you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
suspect that you do not.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk
> On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
>>>> religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
>>>> Lighten up...
>>> Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
>>> else takes them seriously either.
>> I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
>> your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly.
>
> The I took you advice and lightened up, making a joke, and you now
> seem to be pissed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?
But I'm, not pissed off - this is USENET where nothing really matters.
>
> OTOH, if you think that I am now presenting a different interpretation
> of those remarks than I intended when first I wrote them, maybe you
> will understand why I have a similar opinion of your remarks.
I hadn't given it much thought.
>
> It is you who makes the claim that I have an 'earth worshiping
> religiosity.'
> I deny it.
OK, but you're kidding yourself.
>
> I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
> in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
> and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
> controversy among climatologists.
>
> What is your evidence?
The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
voice in the climatology community. But, in fact, (and you know this)
there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
>
>> I have not said now or ever that
>> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
>> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
>> position is not currently justified.
>
> You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
> My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
> conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
> composition.
But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
that:
a) GW is primarily human caused
b) It's bad
c) We can do something meaningful about it
IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
views.
>
> What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
>
>> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
>> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
>> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
>> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
>
> You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
> As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
> reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
> pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
> by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
it was believed to be so.
>
> So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
> 'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
> be)
> you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
> suspect that you do not.
>
My "substantive objection" is that science as we understand it today
cannot be used to justify the jump from correlation to causation as
to human action; that it cannot be used to justify these breathtaking
leaps that describe the end of the world as we know it due to GW; that
it cannot be used to justify the argument that mankind can materially
ameoliorate GW (whatever causes it) by changing behavior.
Just Wondering
>>technoligical activity is a cause of global warming, and if humans were
>>to, not merely reduce but complete eliminate all CO2 emissions from
>>technological activity, what would be the net global effect on humanity?
>>
>
>
> From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
>
>
CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct,
what would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its
behavior enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required
to achieve that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop
using fossil fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute
energy source, or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century
technology? Would climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to
mankind? What effect would it have on agriculture? On transportation?
On communications? On modern-day creature comforts? What effect
would the necessary reduction in technology have on mankind? Would the
average standard of living improve, or degrade? Would more people get
proper nourishment, or would more starve to death? What effect on the
spread of disease, etc.?
Leon
>>
>>
> That's one group's assessment of the theoretical change on atmospheric
> CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct, what
> would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its behavior
> enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required to achieve
> that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop using fossil
> fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute energy source,
> or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century technology? Would
> climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to mankind? What effect
> would it have on agriculture? On transportation? On communications? On
> modern-day creature comforts? What effect would the necessary reduction
> in technology have on mankind? Would the average standard of living
> improve, or degrade? Would more people get proper nourishment, or would
> more starve to death? What effect on the spread of disease, etc.?
I think if we reduced the CO2 emissions TODAY, all of the believers of
Global Warming would be whining about other problems tomorrow. Like how do
I get to work, why does my telephone not work, etc.
Tim Daneliuk
We'd also hear questions like:
Why can't I fly in my private jet to lecture everyone else on how to live?
Why can't I heat my huge mansion(s) while writing screeds about what others should do?
How come the planet is still experiencing very slight warming?
Why is the economy collapsing?
Why is the average life expectancy declining?
How come I can't get a good steak any more?
Why are the farmers all broke?
How come there are famines in the developed West for the first time ever?
The greatest danger to civilization as we know it is not global warming. It is
collectivist political ideology mated with a specious extrapolation of known
climate science. People like Gore, for instance, (who epitomizes this) are not
just wrong, they are a menace to free people everywhere...
fredf...@spamcop.net
> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> <SNIP>
>
> > I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
> > in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
> > and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
> > controversy among climatologists.
>
> > What is your evidence?
>
> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
> voice in the climatology community.
How about if you just _name_ someone?
FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
> But, in fact, (and you know this)
> there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
> in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
> we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
include his first name or to reference something
he has written?
A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
critics'.
Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
of interest here.
And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
hypothesis.
That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
that publicity is substantive.
Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
for myself.
>
>
>
> >> I have not said now or ever that
> >> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
> >> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
> >> position is not currently justified.
>
> > You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
> > My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
> > conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
> > composition.
>
> But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
> that:
>
> a) GW is primarily human caused
> b) It's bad
> c) We can do something meaningful about it
>
> IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
> views.
I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.
But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.
> ...
> > What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
>
> >> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
> >> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
> >> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
> >> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
>
> > You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
> > As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
> > reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
> > pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
> > by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
>
> And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
> it was believed to be so.
>
In
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/2426e2667f2dee4a?dmode=source&hl=en
you wrote:
"That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "
You went on to add:
"The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
injection
into the carbon cycle."
I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:
" I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly "
I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
when you made it.
> > So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
> > 'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
> > be)
> > you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
> > suspect that you do not.
>
> My "substantive objection" is that science as we understand it today
> cannot be used to justify the jump from correlation to causation as
> to human action; that it cannot be used to justify these breathtaking
> leaps that describe the end of the world as we know it due to GW; that
> it cannot be used to justify the argument that mankind can materially
> ameoliorate GW (whatever causes it) by changing behavior.
That is not an objection to the argument for "Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere being causal for global warming."
As I have written several times, the argument for increasing CO2
levels in the atrmosphere being causative for global warming is based
on spectroscopy and the law of conservation of energy. It is NOT
based on correlation.
That argument is not original to myself, it is the argument used to
predict global warming back in the early 1970's. It was valid then
and remains valid today.
I can lead you through it, step by step, if you like.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dd2dnSOKsoBcLnDY...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> <rschm...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Let's get real and admit our part in the whole thing; the enormous weight
> >>>of scientific evidence points to human beings as one cause of global
> >>>warming. All we can control is ourselves, all we can correct is what
> >>>we've caused.
>
> >> One cause, perhaps... but not the only cause, nor even necessarily a
> >> significant cause. One major volcanic eruption puts more stuff in the
> >> atmosphere in one day than we humans can put there in ten years.
>
> > I'd like someone to answer me this. If CO2 emissions from human
> > technoligical activity is a cause of global warming, and if humans were
> > to, not merely reduce but complete eliminate all CO2 emissions from
> > technological activity, what would be the net global effect on humanity?
>
> From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
Wow! That's HUGE!
The present concentration is about 380 ppm and the
observed rate of increase over the last 50 years has
been about 1.5 ppm/a. That rate is a bit steeper
in recent years, but still not much in excess of 0.5%/a.
So you've heard that if humans quite producing CO2
altogether it would reverse the observed trend and
send CO2 concentration plummetting downward
at four times the rate at which it rose over the last
50 years, right?
The implication of those figures is that nature is
reabsorbing about 80% of the anthropogenic CO2
so that, in the short run at least, stability can be
achieved by a modest reduction to 80% of the
present rate. That's encouraging.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
In the future you might remind me. In the instant
case, you were informing for the first time. I wasn't
aware of such a list.
And I quite agree that it is no more indicative of
truth than the list of Steves.
--
FF
Leon
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1173297245.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
>
> Wow! That's HUGE!
Considering that 98% would still be produced by breathing and other things
that cannot be stopped, that is teny tiny. Not 2% per year, Every year
would only be 2% less to give up life as we all know it.
fredf...@spamcop.net
> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
Oh, damn, I should not have been so optimistic.
Here are some figures for data through 1996:
http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html
>From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)
Naturally emitted : 150
Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)
Total emitted: 157
Total absorbed: 154
Net change: +3
Which is less than half of the estimate of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
That estimate many be low, however:
At
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/fa04-catalyst-forest-carbon-sequestration.html?print=t
It is estimated that there is an annual contribution
of 6 Gt/a of anthropogenic CO2 from deforestation
alone, and another 6.5 Gt/a from fossil fuel burning.
I don't think they include cement production which would
be another Gt/a or so. Anthropogenic sinks of CO2
which I would guess is mostly agriculture by irrigation,
are small, but not nonexistant, perhaps recovering as much
as 5% of that emitted.
The molecular weight of CO2 is about 1.86 times the
mean molecular weight of air so if anybody has a figure
handy for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere we can
do a reality check against the observed increase of
~1.5 ppm v/v per year.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk
> On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>>> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>> <SNIP>
>
>>> I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
>>> in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
>>> and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
>>> controversy among climatologists.
>>> What is your evidence?
>> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
>> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
>> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
>> voice in the climatology community.
>
> How about if you just _name_ someone?
>
> FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
> 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists. This is, of course,
a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying
exists.
>
>> But, in fact, (and you know this)
>> there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
>> in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
>> we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
>
> Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
> with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
> include his first name or to reference something
> he has written?
I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.
There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
look for it and send it along if I find it.
Then there is this site:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
their money is dirty" list. BUT, they point to primary
research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
severity, and consequences.
Then there's this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant. We don't know
enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.
>
> A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
> to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
> It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
> a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
> notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
> critics'.
And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
invalid. Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
that if he's lying, his university position will be
in jeopardy sooner or later.
> Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
> Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
if nothing else.
> disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
> were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
> someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
> to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
> none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
rational voices.
> not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
> concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
> on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
> of interest here.
>
> And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
> at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
> hypothesis.
And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
to look for the contrarian voices.
>
> That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
> like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
> for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
> that publicity is substantive.
>
> Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
> causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
> for myself.
THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
my intention in both statements is obviously identical.
>
> You went on to add:
>
> "The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
> age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
> injection
> into the carbon cycle."
This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
we are not currently in an ice age.
>
> I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:
>
> " I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> GW was not established incontrovertibly "
>
>
> I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
> when you made it.
No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
say it this way:
CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
of GW, though many scientists believe the data point that way.
CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.
I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.
>
>>> So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
>>> 'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
>>> be)
>>> you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
>>> suspect that you do not.
>> My "substantive objection" is that science as we understand it today
>> cannot be used to justify the jump from correlation to causation as
>> to human action; that it cannot be used to justify these breathtaking
>> leaps that describe the end of the world as we know it due to GW; that
>> it cannot be used to justify the argument that mankind can materially
>> ameoliorate GW (whatever causes it) by changing behavior.
>
> That is not an objection to the argument for "Increasing CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere being causal for global warming."
It is not, nor did I claim it to be. That paragraph is a precis - a
summary - of my overall 'substantive objection' to the popularization
of the GW concerns and the consequently deep beliefs that call for
action not justified by the science.
>
> As I have written several times, the argument for increasing CO2
> levels in the atrmosphere being causative for global warming is based
> on spectroscopy and the law of conservation of energy. It is NOT
> based on correlation.
>
> That argument is not original to myself, it is the argument used to
> predict global warming back in the early 1970's. It was valid then
> and remains valid today.
On it's face, I am suspicious. The 'predictions' about global warming
have been almost universally wrong, at least insofar as they comment
on the degree and severity of the process. Are you suggesting there
are circa 1970s predictions that materially match the actually observed
warming of the past 3 decades? That's a paper I'd really like to read.
>
> I can lead you through it, step by step, if you like.
Please do, because - if I am to believe some of the other threads here on
the topic - there is recent ice core evidence that warming precedes
CO2 buildup which is quite at odds with your line of thinking.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Tim Daneliuk
Assume this is all true as presented - I have no way of knowing whether the measurement/calculation
models used are correct.
Here's the billion dollar question: It is BAD? It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
I'm merely proposing a thought experiment) that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say, deforestation, exactly to create an
environment conducive to ... forest growth.
Unknown
>,;On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>,;> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>,;> > On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>,;> >> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>,;> >>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>,;> >> <SNIP>
>,;> <SNIP>
>,;
>,;>
>,;> > I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
>,;> > in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
>,;> > and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
>,;> > controversy among climatologists.
>,;>
>,;> > What is your evidence?
>,;>
>,;> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
>,;> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
>,;> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
>,;> voice in the climatology community.
>,;
>,;How about if you just _name_ someone?
>,;
The bulk of the government support goes to those on the band wagon.
Try Google and search for "Global Warming Hoax" and "Global Warming
Fraud" to find opposing views from some reputable sources, e.g.:
Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric Science and director of
the Earth System Center at the University of Alabama,
Of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most
credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's
doing serious research on the subject.
S. Fred Singer, (President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project University of Virginia) author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, who
points to the positive side of the melting Arctic:
Pat Michaels, the University of Virginia (Professor of Environmental
Sciences) climatologist and author of Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media
.
Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford,
and a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution.
Paul Knappenberger of the University of Virginia, says of the claims
made by the science academies that, "What is missing is the scientific
assessment of the potential threat. Without a threat assessment, a
simple scientific finding on its own doesn't warrant any change of
action, no matter how scientifically groundbreaking it might be."
Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Swingman
> Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
> expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
> criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
>
> Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
(sic) speaks at Rice University".
Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".
'nuff said ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
Lee Michaels
"Swingman" wrote
> "Unknown" wrote in message
>
>> Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
>> expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
>> criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
>>
>> Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
>
> But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
> (sic) speaks at Rice University".
>
> Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".
>
Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?
I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.
J. Clarke
My two favorite definitions of "expert"--"somebody 500 miles from home
with a briefcase" and "an 'ex' is a has-been, a 'spurt' is a drip under
pressure."
I enrolled for an economics course once--the professor was a seedy
little guy in a brown suit about 30 years old that did not appear to
have been pressed or mended in 20, and I saw him drive off that
afternoon in a car that was older than I was that was mostly rust except
for the holes. He spent most of the first lecture telling us how
important he was and how most of us were going to fail the class and how
he had tenure and there wasn't anything any of us could do about it and
on and on. Several of the students, recently back from Vietnam, debated
holding a blanket party for the twit. Personally I just dropped the
course.
Now, whenever I tell that story, some moron comes up with "intelligence
doesn't have anything to do with income", to which my response is that
the guy is supposed to be an expert on _money_. If he knows so much
about it how come he's never managed to acquire any?
When I went to get him to sign the drop form and he saw what I was
dropping my advisor told me about a convention he had recently attended
where an economist spent a hour and filled three boards with equations
deriving the formula for compound interest, like that was some important
new result.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Martin
>My two favorite definitions of "expert"--"somebody 500 miles from home
>with a briefcase" and "an 'ex' is a has-been, a 'spurt' is a drip under
>pressure."
The second was (almost) Jack Train on "Does the Team Think" (195x?)
Tim Daneliuk
Nice diversion. Now address the issue with Bill Gray who is an indisputable
expert in atmospheric science and declares GW to be an outright hoax:
Tim Daneliuk
> How about if you just _name_ someone?
Here are more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Swingman
"Ol Pete" wrote in message
> Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
> find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.
http://examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news03.txt
Just Wondering
He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
The 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology
stopped, the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal,
eventually stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.
Just Wondering
>
> ... my advisor told me about a convention he had recently attended
> deriving the formula for compound interest, like that was some important
> new result.
>
We derived that formula in my engineering economics class. As I recall,
it took my professor about 10 minutes and less than half a page of paper.
Doug Miller
There isn't much to it, that's for sure. I remember working it out on my own
as a college freshman. Used about half a page of paper, alright... but it did
take me more then ten minutes... maybe fifteen.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Swingman
> Your post was certainly misleading.
First you couldn't find the subject of the post and had to be led to it, now
the post is "misleading"??
LOL ... apparently only to a dumb ass.
A "professor of economics" whose "research focuses on the economics of
global climate change", preaching "global warming".
Yeah, buddy ... real "science" in action, with no self-interest there!
NuWaveDave
"Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hdmdnRlr2bku8m3Y...@giganews.com...
>
> "Ol Pete" wrote in message
>
>> Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
>> find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.
>
> http://examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news03.txt
Ah! Now there's a world-class publication, unlike that liberal POS rag
Houston Chronicle!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
Leon
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>>
> He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
> 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
> the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
> stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.
Correct. Not a continued 2% decrease per year, 2% of the total today and
the total every day after.
Swingman
"NuWaveDave"wrote in message
> Ah! Now there's a world-class publication, unlike that liberal POS rag
> Houston Chronicle!
Couldn't have expressed it better myself.
They're so "balanced" that when Molly died, they went ahead and killed
O'Reilly too. ;)
fredf...@spamcop.net
> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:md2dnW_6k6ZJ4W3Y...@comcast.com...
>
>
> > He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
> > 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
> > the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
> > stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.
>
> Correct. Not a continued 2% decrease per year, 2% of the total today and
> the total every day after.
Huh? I don;t see how that statement agrees with Mr
Wondering;s statement that the concentration would
eventually stabilize at 98% of its present concentration
(372 ppm).
Do I have it right here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/5fbd19e429695aca?dmode=source&hl=en
There are some estimates that CO2 from human deforestation [1]
is nearly as high as from fossil fuel use. If that is true, or
close, the rate of rise could be reversed (in the short term)
just by ending deforestation and through reforestation even if we
went on burning fossil fuels at the present rate. In the long run
we'd also have to stop fucking up the ocean.
[1] (I'm not clear if that is just from the burning part of slash and
burn or if it also includes the difference in rate of uptake between
a rain forest and a pasture littered with termite mounds and farting
cattle)
--
FF
Bruce Barnett
> Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
From http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
The real consensus is quoted and sourced here . However,
Lindzen will often cite Benny s study which the peer review
journals Science and Nature refused to publish. Peiser then
released a press release saying there was a conspiracy against
his work.. The study claimed that there are 32 peer review
journals that refute climate change. However, when Tim
Lambert and William M. Connolley reviewed the abstracts he
found the following results:
[table deleted]
A quick look at Connolley's results shows that Peiser's study
is seriouly flawed. Only one of the papers disagreed with the
consensus and it wasn't even peer reviewed. Therefore Benny
found ZERO peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the
scientific concensus. Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt
with carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration has only one
purpose which is to fight global warming. So how Benny Peiser
came to the conclusion that a paper on carbon sequestration
refutes global warming is a bit of a mystery. Benny Peiser's
work has been refuted on numerous other sites as well. William
Connolley and many others debunked Peiser's study on May 6th,
2005 and Peiser admitted his mistakes on March 19, 2006.
Despite his study being refuted by numerous people, Peiser
continues to use his discredited study to say a scientific
consensus regarding climate change doesn't exist.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Mark & Juanita
Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they still
would not reach a conclusion"
Unknown source
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fredf...@spamcop.net
> ...
> > "Unknown" wrote in message
>
> >> Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
> >> expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
> >> criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
>
> Nice diversion. Now address the issue with Bill Gray who is an indisputable
> expert in atmospheric science and declares GW to be an outright hoax:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
That's not a very good start. Declaring something to be a hoax is
an accusation that its supporters are engaged in deliberate mis-
conduct, or have been deceived by others who are.
This has happened, Piltdown man, or the supposed studies
proving the efficacy of the "See spot run" method of teaching,
or Lysenkoism (which you might have some passing familiarity
with) for example.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> On 7 Mar 2007 09:40:00 -0800, fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> The bulk of the government support goes to those on the band wagon.
Exxon and Mobile's money is just as green.
> Try Google and search for "Global Warming Hoax" and "Global Warming
> Fraud" to find opposing views from some reputable sources, e.g.:
When I am looking for reputable sources I make it a point to
NOT include perjoratives in the search keys.
E.g. there are apparently valid arguments that the fluoridation
of public drinking water can cause some problems. I would
not expect to find any using the search terms "fluoridation
communist conspiracy".
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> ...
> >http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html
>
> >>From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)
>
> > Naturally emitted : 150
> > Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)
>
> > Total emitted: 157
>
> > Total absorbed: 154
>
> > Net change: +3
>
>
>
> Assume this is all true as presented -
> I have no way of knowing whether the measurement/calculation
> models used are correct.
Perhaps you noticed that 150 has only two significant digits.
The same was true of the original table: 150,000 (megatonnes)
So if I had done the arithmetic correctly the calculated net
change would have been 10, not 3. Instead, I arbitrarily
did the arithmetic as if it had three sigfigs like the number
for uptake, 154 Gt/a. That made the answer agree with
other sources that indicate an increase of 2.6 to 3.7 Gt/a.
That's problem when working with figures that are dumbed
down for the public.
>
> Here's the billion dollar question: It is BAD?
I can give you some reasons why it is.
> It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
> I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
> that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
> encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
> deforestation, exactly to create an
> environment conducive to ... forest growth.
So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
hypothesis?
Here is some food for thought. Consider the null
result, thus far, from the Seti program. They
have surveyed candidate stars over a considerable
volume of space with a sensitivity capable of detecting
a civilization leaking radio/tv radiation at a strength
comparable to our commercial broadcasting, and
anything with the strength of our military radar out
to a considerable distance beyond.
There are three obvious explanations:
Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.
That third possibility is sobering.
For some of us.
--
FF
Doug Miller
>There are three obvious explanations:
[for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]
>Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
>capable of our technology to get started in the
>first place, or most of those that do are shy
>about accidentally or deliberately making their
>existence known, or they don't last long after
>making it to our level of technology.
A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.
Renata
-snip-
>
>Here is some food for thought. Consider the null
>result, thus far, from the Seti program. They
>have surveyed candidate stars over a considerable
>volume of space with a sensitivity capable of detecting
>a civilization leaking radio/tv radiation at a strength
>comparable to our commercial broadcasting, and
>anything with the strength of our military radar out
>to a considerable distance beyond.
>
>There are three obvious explanations:
>Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
>capable of our technology to get started in the
>first place, or most of those that do are shy
>about accidentally or deliberately making their
>existence known, or they don't last long after
>making it to our level of technology.
>
>That third possibility is sobering.
>
>For some of us.
Another possibility, from a book I'm reading.
There's an omni-not-so-benevolent intelligence out there that listens
for, as the book put it, the yapping dog in the yard (RF in space) and
when found, comes by and "shoots" it. In the book, they blew up our
sun. Book is, "Variable Star" by Robert A. Heinlein and Spider
Robinson. Pretty good read. Not done yet so I can't tell you how it
ends.
Renata
fredf...@spamcop.net
> In article <1173416916.783422.77...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >There are three obvious explanations:
>
> [for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]
>
> >Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
> >capable of our technology to get started in the
> >first place, or most of those that do are shy
> >about accidentally or deliberately making their
> >existence known, or they don't last long after
> >making it to our level of technology.
>
> A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
> technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
> example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
> transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.
>
By that point such a civilization _could_ deliberately broadcast
to its potential if slightly less advanced neighbors at very little
societal cost. We have done so briefly, and may do so again.
So your example fits into the second category of what I call
'shy' civlizations.
A fourth case could be the Prime Directive.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Yes. I tend to doubt that such a "super paranoid" or "super nasty"
civilization would survive its own advanced technology. Vulcans
would have an evolutionary advantage over Klingons. But I suppose
if they also had some sort of Borg-like "super collectivist"
imperative
as well, they might survive.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
<spamhater123+U070308224...@grymoire.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt
> with carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration has only one
> purpose which is to fight global warming.
I though that Carbon sequestration was a natural process, not a
purposeful action.
Am I mistaken?
If not, it may be studied by people for any number of reasons,
both scientific and nefarious, right?
--
FF
Jeff
> On Mar 5, 1:13 pm, Bob Schmall <rschm...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Steve wrote:
> > > Sun Responsible for Global Warming
> > > As Reported on NewsMax
>
> > > Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
> > > instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
> > > changes in the sun.
>
> > > One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
> > > warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate
> > > changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
> > > scientist's controversial theory.
>
> > > Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
> > > disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars' south pole had
> > > been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
>
> > > Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory
> > > in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current
> > > warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to
> > > the National Geographic article.
>
> > > "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
> > > and Mars, he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small
> > > contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it
> > > cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.
>
> > > The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun
> > > variations in its magnetic field.
>
> > > Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it
> > > maintains that the Earth's climate is strongly influenced by cosmic
> > > rays from exploded stars.
>
> > > The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
> > > cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to
> > > milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by
> > > Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on
> > > Environment & Public Works, on the committee's Web site.
>
> > > "Cosmic ray intensities and therefore cloudiness keep changing because
> > > the sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays
> > > coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth, the Danish report
> > > by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
>
> > > Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities
> > > were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age
> > > that climaxed 300 years ago.
>
> > > Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the
> > > Earth's climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
> > > through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
> > > encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
> > > intense.
>
> > "... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
> > One out of how many?
>
> Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
> because....
One scientist *can* be right but if that scientist's opinion is
anathema to the general consensus of the related field - in this case
climatology - then it would probably not be a good idea to formulate
public policy around the lone figure.
For the record: I don't think climatologists have an adequate model
around which to construct policy. Global warming - although *very*
popular in this group - still requires a great deal of work before we
can adequately assess the situation. Are we dealing with a minor
annoyance or a catastrophe? I'll agree to higher costs in order to
avoid the latter. The former? Not so much.
fredf...@spamcop.net
> [I wish google would include the message-id in this line
> in addition to the headers but you (most of you, at least)
> can check the headers if you really must know which
> article, FF]...
I replied to this about a day and a half ago, and when
I could not find the follow-up yesterday I replied again.
I still cannot find either follow-up. The second time
I made sure that Google returned a 'success' message
Other replies posted last night are there..
Maybe the articles are stuck in a buffer somewhere.
My apologies if two replies (or none) eventually show
up.
I'll wait a bit longer before making a third attempt.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:56:33 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>
>
>
>
> >"Swingman" wrote
...
>
> >> Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".
>
> >Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?
>
> >I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.
>
> Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they still
> would not reach a conclusion"
> Unknown source
I think it was Harry Truman who said all economists should
have one arm amputated so that they would stop saying,
"But on the other hand..."
--
FF
Just Wondering
Doug Miller
Perhaps, but I don't see it quite that way. Your description implies intent to
remain undiscovered and undiscoverable; I think my example is a separate case,
where the lack of RF emissions is simply a byproduct of advancing technology,
with no intent either way regarding discoverability.
>
>A fourth case could be the Prime Directive.
:-)
J. Clarke
But the goats wouldn't. Or were you wishing them on women?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Tim Daneliuk
> On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
>> ...
>> It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
>> I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
>> that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
>> encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
>> deforestation, exactly to create an
>> environment conducive to ... forest growth.
>
> So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
> hypothesis?
No, it the "the planet may actually exhibit feedback towards
quiescence" hypothesis. Hardly a remarkable idea ...
Tim Daneliuk
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
>> How about if you just _name_ someone?
>
> Here are more:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
And still more - an hourlong documentary that interviews a number of honest-to-goodness
climatologists squarely in opposition to the current theories in the scientific 'mainstream'
(you know, that orthodoxy that does not exist):
fredf...@spamcop.net
Planets that do not, most likely do not harbor life.
--
FF
Swingman
Al Gore's GW half-truth's/pseudo science.
Can they demand an Oscar back?
fredf...@spamcop.net
On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, TimDaneliuk<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, TimDaneliuk<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >>>> fredfigh...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, TimDaneliuk<tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >>>> <SNIP>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>> I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
> >>> in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
> >>> and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
> >>> controversy among climatologists.
> >>> What is your evidence?
> >> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
> >> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
> >> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
> >> voice in the climatology community.
>
> > How about if you just _name_ someone?
>
> > FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
> > 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
>
> Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists.
Splorf!
Of course not.
>This is, of course,
> a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
> good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
> I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
> that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying exists.
As you will recall, you were responding to:
"FWIW, I don't know the names of any
prominent scientists who 'support' the
global warming hypothesis either."
That is because all of the scientists whom
I know by name and whom I also know
'support' global warming, are among my
personal friends and associates. None
of whom, I assume you have ever heard of.
Thus, THEY are not 'prominent'.
I don't give a rat's ass about the prominence of
the sources you present. I care about what
they have to say.
But don't let that spoil the enjoyment you
get from misconstruing my sentence to falsely
imply that I was presenting some sort of
fallacious argument.
Oh, your assertion that I claimed there were
no dissenting scientists is also false. What
*I* claimed was that you had not demonstrated
that. That claim was true.
But again, I'm sure it is much more fun to
make something up.
>
> >> But, in fact, (and you know this)
> >> there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
> >> in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
> >> we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
>
> > Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
> > with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
> > include his first name or to reference something
> > he has written?
>
> I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
> Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
> entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
> summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
> and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
> of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
> but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
> Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
> that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
> journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
> and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
> it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
> in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.
>
> There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
> that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
> severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
> look for it and send it along if I find it.
>
> Then there is this site:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
Volume 10, number 12 and it's a weekly
so there are a lot of back issues to go
through looking for something to cast
doubt on the hypothesis.
>
> Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
> and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
> their money is dirty" list.
As you know, I have no such list.
I rely on information content.
> BUT, they point to primary
> research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
> the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
> severity, and consequences.
>
Can you point me to a back issue that does that?
In particular, can you point me to anything that
disputes the accepted values for the increase
in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 20th century?
Can you point me to anything that disputes
that anthropogenic CO2 is being produced at
a rate that exceeds that observed rise in
concentration?
Because, if both of those are true, anthropogenic
global warming is inevitable, absent some other
process with an opposite effect, right?
> Then there's this:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
>
> Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
> Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant.
Consensus is alway irrelevant to truth.
> We don't know
> enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.
>
Which is a term you still haven't defined.
>
>
> > A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
> > to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
> > It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
> > a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
> > notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
> > critics'.
>
> And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
> invalid.
I disagree.
Note that I made no reference to the source
of his funding.
> Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
> that if he's lying, his university position will be
> in jeopardy sooner or later.
Obviously I have no need to make fallacious
arguments as you are happy to make them
up yourself and falsely attribute them to me.
>
> > Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
> > Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
>
> A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
> if nothing else.
More like a waste of time, much like arguing with
you.
>
> > disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
> > were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
> > someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
> > to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
> > none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
>
> Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
> in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
> ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
> why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
> rational voices.
Rather he is exaggerating beyond what
is known to argue for what needs to be
done based on what is known.
Being a politician he is used to persuading
people and knows that there are numerous
people who will not be persuaded by a good
argument but will be persuaded by a bad one.
He has now problem making those bad ones,
understanding that the people who ARE
persuaded by the good arguments will not
change their minds. A politician doesn't care
_why_ people support him.
Now, I don't recall that you have ever said that
you have reached a conclusion on the global
warming hypothesis yourself. So I won't claim
that you have made the mistake of thinking that
because a person makes a fallacious argument,
the premise he purports to support MUST be
false. But I think that a lot of people have made
that mistake.
>
> > not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
> > concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
> > on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
> > of interest here.
>
> > And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
> > at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
> > hypothesis.
>
> And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
> to look for the contrarian voices.
>
And in another article or two you presented a few.
Somebody else did us the courtesy of attempting
to discredit them. I'll add that one, Fred Singer
has evidently 'changed sides' though he seems
to be arguing that human influence has not been
significant.
Dr Singer appears to be fond of presenting a
contrarian view to a number of issues about
which a consensus has developed, perhaps
being somewhat analogous to Halton Aarp or
Fred Hoyle, though evidently not as well-liked.
>
>
> > That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
> > like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
> > for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
> > that publicity is substantive.
>
> > Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
> > causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
> > for myself.
>
> THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
> with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
> Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
> scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
> of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
> to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
> was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
> were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
> good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> I have not said now or ever that
> >>>> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
> >>>> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
> >>>> position is not currently justified.
> >>> You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
> >>> My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
> >>> conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
> >>> composition.
> >> But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
> >> that:
>
> >> a) GW is primarily human caused
> >> b) It's bad
> >> c) We can do something meaningful about it
>
> >> IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
> >> views.
a) No. I am far from convinced that there
is unambiguous evidence of recent global
warming. I am convinced that global warming
is inevitable if present trends continue.
b) Global warming has potential for catastrophic
consequences. The Methane clathrates in
particular have the potential to extinguish
human life.
c) Yes. And more than is commonly realized.
In particular we have been doing something
about it for the last 50 years without realizing
it.
>
> > I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
> > I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
> > avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
> > as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.
>
> > But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
> > Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.
That offer still stands.
>
> >> ...
> >>> What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
> >>>> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
> >>>> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
> >>>> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
> >>>> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
> >>> You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
> >>> As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
> >>> reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
> >>> pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
> >>> by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
> >> And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> >> GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
> >> it was believed to be so.
>
> > In
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/2426e2667f2dee4a?d...
> > you wrote:
>
> > "That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
> > in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "
>
> 'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
> incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
> in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
> don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
> my intention in both statements is obviously identical.
>
Fine.
Both statements are wrong.
It is incontrovertibly established that increasing
atmospheric CO2 is causative of global warming.
>
>
> > You went on to add:
>
> > "The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
> > age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
> > injection
> > into the carbon cycle."
>
> This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
> we are not currently in an ice age.
>
Indeed, I didn't snip it for fear you might have
thought it was in someway meaningful.
>
>
> > I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:
>
> > " I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> > GW was not established incontrovertibly "
>
> > I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
> > when you made it.
>
> No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
> discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
> To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
> say it this way:
No, I addressed exactly what you said and now
you are claiming that you meant something that is
very different.
You denied that increasing atmospheric CO2
was causative of global warming. Adding the
word 'primary' as a qualifier corrects your earlier
error.
That one word makes the difference between
a statement that is false and one that is true.
You may think that truth and falsity are
'very small semantic differences', but I do not.
>
> CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
> of GW,
Now you add the words 'sole or primary', again
correcting your earlier error.
Those are not subtleties, small semantic differences,
or nuances. Those words have meaning and their
use makes as much difference as using or omitting
a trivial little three-letter word like 'not'.
Understand?
> though many scientists believe the data point that way.
> CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
> be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
> taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
> of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
> causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.
False again.
It doesn't matter how the CO2 gets into the
atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is
causative of global warming.
Your reference to the warming since the end
of the last ice age is non sequitor. You are
making the mistake of assuming that to prove
that something is causative of warming,
warming must be observed.
That is simply not true.
Consider a familiar example, the laboratory
constant temperature bath. The bath is a
tank of water into which a coil of tubing is
inserted. Coolant, typically cold tap water,
is run continuously through the coil. A heater,
usually a thermostatically controlled electrical
resistance heater is also placed in the bath
and there is also an agitator to keep the water
mixing.
If the various parameters are adequately
matched the bath will maintain a (near)
constant temperature. The cooling coil
is indisputable causative of cooling the
bath, and the heater is is indisputably
causative of heating the bath DESPITE
the fact that no temperature change is
observed. Those we know from basic
Physics. If we attempt to prove either
merely by observing the water bath and
while ignoring basic Physics we cannot
for each is a factor that confounds our
observation of the effect of the other.
Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is similarly
indisputably causative of global warming. That
follows from the basic Physics that establishes
the greenhouse effect. It we attempt to prove that
by observation, while simultaneously ignoring
all we already know from Physics, we cannot
for there are many, many confounding factors
to contend with.
Your attempts (not just yours, but everybody's,
including Al Gore's) to use geological records to
prove or disprove that increasing CO2 is causative
of global warming is non sequitor. How does it
feel to make the same mistakes as Al Gore?
>
> I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
> have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.
>
You have said two completely different things.
One was correct, the other not.
Increasing concentrations of atmospheric
carbon dioxide are indisputably causative
of global warming. No person who understands
the greenhouse effect can honestly deny that.
That is why it is so important to correct you
on that.
--
FF
Bud Frawley
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!
he proved global warming from people driveing suvs guess where? in
the good old U S of A! I hope you like liveing under water because
that's where you're gonna be a a few year's if the republiCON loon's
get there way!
In article <1174626154.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
fredf...@spamcop.net says...
J. Clarke
> I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
> which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
> getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
> LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
> to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
> G-E!thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!
Lemme guess--you had the same spelling teacher as Dan Quayle.
> he proved global warming from people driveing suvs guess where? in
> the good old U S of A! I hope you like liveing under water because
> that's where you're gonna be a a few year's if the republiCON loon's
> get there way!
Maybe he is, I'm looking forward to having waterfront property in a few
years.
<global warming garbage snipped>
Will
farting.
fredf...@spamcop.net
FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley <bfraw...@aggregate.com> replied:
> I guess younever heard of al gore?
You are correct.
I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
>
> THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
> with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
> Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
> scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
> of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
> to primary sources.
This may come as a shock to you but the journals
support themselves by selling subscriptions and
reprints. Some do carry advertisements, but their
circulation is too small for advertising revenues
to be a major income stream.
That may be a good thing, as it allows the
journals to maintain editorial independence.
Imagine, if you will, the chilling effect on academic
publication if the journals had to rely on grants
from government, industry and philanthropists.
Consider how Reader's Digest quit carrying
anti-smoking articles and the New York Times
quite carrying advertisements for programs
to help people stop smoking after RJ Reynolds
bought up some of their major advertisers like
del Monte and Nabisco.
> I thought this was not the case, but
> was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
> were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
> good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
>
I do agree that scientific publication is an
area in which collectivism has its merits.
Fortunately that collectivist spirit s manifest
in the United States in institutions called libraries.
While I am fortunate to have access to an
excellent science library within waling distance
of my home, most readers have ready access
to one or more major University Libraries.
I have never found a University Library that was not
open to the public.
--
FF
Bud Frawley
fredf...@spamcop.net says...
what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!
Say What?
[snip]
>> I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
>> named Al Gore.
>
> what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
> POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
> real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
> they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
> before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
> science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
> even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
> my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
> proveing you were home schooled!
Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that? That
was his claim. He is truly brilliant.
J. Clarke
There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
the methane coming out of them will still cause it.
Say What?
> Say What? wrote:
>> Bud Frawley wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
>> That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.
>
> There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
> coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
> the methane coming out of them will still cause it.
Well, then couldn't we at least give it a try? Who knows, maybe the
methane wouldn't be quite as bad... <g>
Bud Frawley
No...@NotYou.com says...
ya right! thank's for proveing murder's the tipicle republiCON"S
solution for everything! I bet you do'nt even go to jail from when
your fat cat daddy bribes the judge!maybe you'll get country club
prison with your fat cat friend's! ya that's really paying for your
crime!give me a break!
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
>I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
>which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
>getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
>LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
>to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
>G-E!
World of difference between going *to* college and attending college. Al
did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and divinity
school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either. Somehow,
I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.
> thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
>In article <i8aNh.2942$Kd3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
Well, look's like Stinky's back.
Tim Daneliuk
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:36:01 -0500, Bud Frawley <bfra...@aggregate.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
>> which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
>> getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
>> LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
>> to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
>> G-E!
>
> World of difference between going *to* college and attending college. Al
> did the former, for a while. Flunked out of both law school and divinity
> school. His grades as an undergrad weren't all that great either. Somehow,
> I don't think he spent a lot of time in science classes.
You know, I've heard this repeatedly (and would love some proof by
citation), but ... it makes absolutely no difference even if entirely
true. The electorate hasn't the attention span to dissect even a mildly
complex issue, nor does it have even the basic science skills to spot
exaggeration on Gore's scale. The simple fact is that the media twits
have won the battle for the voting "mind". Substance is essentially
irrelevant and "presence" is all one needs. Coupled with the feverish
moaning of the Hollyweirdos, Western politics is steadily going the same
direction of the "news": It is becoming "Reality" TV, which is neither
real nor true.
It is instructive that what people "believe" about GW (as if belief
mattered at all) divides itself almost exactly along left-right
political lines. Facts, analysis, peer review, and reason itself are now
the red-headed step children of politics - the ultimate form of
"entertainment" fiction.
Meanwhile in China, India, and the former Eastern Bloc nations, children
are learning math, science, and engineering. Their counterparts here in the
West are largely learning to drink excessively, complain about how
little they have, and demand that government do "more" for them in
response to their plight. The politicians respond in one of two ways:
The political Right remains mostly stupid and the political Left is
flatly dangerous. Do the math (those of you who still can) and guess
where this takes us in just a few decades.
The West was built upon the pillars of reason, individual liberty, and
personal responsibility. That took a good 1000 years or so. Sadly, the West is
being destroyed in just a generation or two by the very beneficiaries of
those ideas. We have seen the enemy and he is us.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Ken Johnsen
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:15dhd4-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
Unquestionably Confused
Whatever else he is, I guess Al Gore's a hypocrite, no?
The Story of Two Houses
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING
TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH
BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system
uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes
into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of
the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York
Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an
inconvenient truth."
BTW, if you find this incredible, just DAGS using the obvious search
terms and you'll find it all too true.
Mark & Juanita
<kjohnsen...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>Well Said Tim
>
BTW, Tim, you might find the following of interest.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c>
Here are some references to Gore's academic record:
<http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm>
<http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm>
... snip