wrote:
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.


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/CO...eB2C/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_releas...-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.




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. "

'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