DIYbanter - View Single Post

Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP
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 ****ed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?

But I'm, not ****ed 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.