On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk 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.w...e=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