Perhaps the Fourth time will be the charm....
On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, 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/CO...eB2C/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_releas...-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.w...e2667f2dee4a?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