josephkk wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that
there are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine
whether a CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way
around. So, dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid
lines. I also reversed the graph so that time goes from left to
right. Today is on the right.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do
about the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw
data and expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise
precedes CO2 again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

2)
effect cannot precede cause.

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.



(skipping down....)

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may
be able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we
didn't. The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of
CO2 has prevented the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
(by some means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age.
However, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an
extremely unlikely possibility. The VERY BEST we can hope for is to
reduce emissions to zero. If we do that, then CO2 levels would
stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna happen. The most
likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at a faster
rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable
(95% certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing
year, to a point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

No, you are not.

**_I_ am.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Duh.

You are an
indoctrinated
political follower.

**If you mean to say:

I regard science as the arbiter of this present situation and have no regard
for those who reject science and embrace the supernatural, then you'd be
correct.



* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of
the costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because
the cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as
eliminating coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider
that a temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible
under some of the more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern
than a (say) doubling of electricity costs today.

And i see it quite the reverse.

**Good for you. Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves the IPCC AR4
incorrect.

Nor do i believe that the Greenland
ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).

**You may believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo you wish. I'll stick
with the scientists on this one. You may care to note that the Greenland ice
melt has accelerated in the past few years. Why do you think that is? You
may also care to note that Greenland's arable land has increased in recent
years. Why do you think that is? Given these two effects, what do you think
will cause them to cease?



* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from
the ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the
probability of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a
Y2K disaster, the modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of
man-hours of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is
not wild speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.



Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a
back of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy
consumption and greenhouse gas production per person remains
constant at today's western world levels, what would the population
of the planet need to be in order to produce a greenhouse gas
stable environment? I think you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past
and that is the figure I'll stick with.

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking
a lot
more factors.


Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K,
46 year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85
is not very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong
to survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are
amongst the most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:23:10 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

2)
effect cannot precede cause.

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs. Which when read
correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!

**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.

You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation corrected
graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then. The raw data in the IPCC graph is
increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back in time. Do read
the labels carefully. Temperture generally precedes CO2 rather
consistently (both increases and decreases).

:-))

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways. Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase. Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation. If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.
Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus. We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures. High
temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When one rises, the
other follows.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown experimentally
many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.

**Correct.


Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus,
for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused prior warmings or
high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from the Sun than Venus is.
Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant driver.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands of years.
This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It is occuring MUCH
faster that at any time in the past few hundred million years. It is the
extreme rapidity of the present warming that is causing considerable
concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As is
average temperature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

josephkk wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:23:10 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in
future.

2)
effect cannot precede cause.

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times
of high CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs. Which when read
correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!

**I suggest you examine the graphs VERY carefully.


**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The
graph clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several
times. When CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When
temperatures rise, CO2 is outgassed from the oceans, causing rising
CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. And so
on.

You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation
corrected graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then.

**I've been doing so for many years. I suggest you do likewise. It is
important that you understand the process, rather than just quickly looking
at the graphs. Incorrect assumptions can easily be made.

The raw data in the
IPCC graph is increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back
in time. Do read the labels carefully. Temperture generally
precedes CO2 rather consistently (both increases and decreases).

:-))

**Your words are almost correct. Temperature SOMETIMES precedes CO2 level
rise and SOMETIMES it lags.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures. High
temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When one rises, the
other follows.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown experimentally
many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.

**Correct.


Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus,
for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused prior warmings or
high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from the Sun than Venus is.
Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant driver.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands of years.
This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It is occuring MUCH
faster that at any time in the past few hundred million years. It is the
extreme rapidity of the present warming that is causing considerable
concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As is
average temperature.


Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.
Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known input
which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown
experimentally many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in
either factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive
feedback.

**Correct.


Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused
prior warmings or high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from
the Sun than Venus is. Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver
of temperatures on this planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It
is NOT an insignificant driver.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands
of years. This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It
is occuring MUCH faster that at any time in the past few hundred
million years. It is the extreme rapidity of the present warming
that is causing considerable concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As
is average temperature.


Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.

**Not quite. Absolute cause and effect cannot be proven for past events.
What we do have, however, is solid science that CO2 acts as a GHG. We also
have compelling evidence that rising CO2 levels and temperatures are solidly
linked. When one rises, the other follows.


Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known
input which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

**You think? You need to supply some science to show that rising CO2 levels
are not the cause of the present warming. Thus far, you've supplied nothing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures. High
temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When one rises, the
other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached. If
I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus,
for instance.

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.

Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant driver.

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

Incidentally, in your cited graphs at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you
present the URL in a different form:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Digging under the raw data at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
I find:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
"Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations
increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400
years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite
strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide
concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during
glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected
to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls
the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the
terrestrial biosphere."
Other articles, some by the original collectors of the data, show the
same conclusion.

The problem here is that the entire IPCC house of cards is based on
the single premise, that CO2 concentration causes global warming, and
not the other way around. Were this to be properly substantiated, a
large number of the various CO2 reduction schemes could be considered
futile.

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained. In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached.

**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.

If
I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up increasing
until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that several catastrophic
phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say) 5% or so. Return to 'normal'
levels would likely take several million years.



Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance.

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.

**Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach the 94%
CO2 saturation that exists on Venus.


Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this
planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant
driver.

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

**Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that neither of us
is a climatologist. I place my faith in the climatologists to tell me about
the climate.


Incidentally, in your cited graphs at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you
present the URL in a different form:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Digging under the raw data at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
I find:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
"Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations
increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400
years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite
strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide
concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during
glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected
to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls
the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the
terrestrial biosphere."
Other articles, some by the original collectors of the data, show the
same conclusion.

The problem here is that the entire IPCC house of cards is based on
the single premise, that CO2 concentration causes global warming, and
not the other way around. Were this to be properly substantiated, a
large number of the various CO2 reduction schemes could be considered
futile.

**Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4. The IPCC very clearly states that
rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures
causes higher levels of CO2.


If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained.

**Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other influence
on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc. These events can
cause massive climate shifts.

In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

**In SOME cases, yes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached.

**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.


Yeah, I know. I'm getting dragged in again here ... So, if that is the
case, why do all the doom-mongers seek to convince us otherwise ?



If
I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up increasing
until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that several catastrophic
phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say) 5% or so. Return to 'normal'
levels would likely take several million years.


But as there is "no idea" and that is "precisely the problem", then the
alternative could just as easily be true, except it doesn't carry quite the
gravity of the "catastrophic" proposal ...





Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance.

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.

**Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach the 94%
CO2 saturation that exists on Venus.


Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this
planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant
driver.

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

**Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that neither of
us is a climatologist. I place my faith in the climatologists to tell me
about the climate.


But as was pointed out to you the other day, with good reference material
from Jeff L , there is a groundswell of increasing opinion now from other
climatologists, that what the first ones are telling us, is not quite so
clear cut and unchallengeable, as they would have us believe. Why should
what these alternative theorists are saying, be any less valid ? Why should
anyone who listens to them with a degree of credibility, automatically be
denounced as 'deniers', stupid, or fools, as you are so fond of calling them
? As you rightly point out, none of us on here is a qualified climatologist,
so we have to rely on what others tell us, and like everything in life, a
degree of judgment has to be applied, as to how reliable the information
that is being given, is. The main thing that causes me a problem on this
front, is the evangelical fervour with which the doom-mongers state their
case. You will recall that I threw in a tongue-in-cheek reference to JWs
last week. They are exactly the same as the green mist brigade. A distant
relation of mine and her husband were both JWs for many years. It was
impossible to have any kind of meaningful debate with them on the subject,
because no matter what angle you approached from, they had a pat
counter-argument, backed up by red-underlined passages in their bibles.
Worst of all, they were smug about the fact that you *could not* debate with
them, because they were always right, and no matter what differing view you
had, it only made you someone to be pitied, and converted to the faith.

And that's the way the proponents of man-made global warming come across,
which is precisely what makes me doubt their case. I know that you feel that
you are right, but it's the way that you preach the subject that wins you no
friends. Do you not wonder why, when there are many intelligent people on
here, there doesn't seem to be a single one that backs you on it ? Does that
make us all stupid or fools ? I guess from your point of view, it does ...



snip

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained.

**Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other
influence on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc. These
events can cause massive climate shifts.


You see, here we go again. The case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt
(what is it now, 3% ?) except that when there's a bit of a fly in the
ointment, suddenly it's not, and we can apparently fling in another random
statement that makes it all ok again ...



In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

**In SOME cases, yes.



Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached.

**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.


Yeah, I know. I'm getting dragged in again here ... So, if that is
the case, why do all the doom-mongers seek to convince us otherwise ?

**They're not. They are saying precisely that. They are saying (to
paraphrase):

There is a high probability (95%) that temperatures will rise to
catastophically high levels in the future.




If
I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up
increasing until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that
several catastrophic phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say)
5% or so. Return to 'normal' levels would likely take several
million years.


But as there is "no idea" and that is "precisely the problem", then
the alternative could just as easily be true, except it doesn't carry
quite the gravity of the "catastrophic" proposal ...

**Indeed. There is a chance that CO2 levels may not reach catastrophic
levels. Just as I could drive from Sydney to Melbourne at 200kph and, maybe,
I might not be involved in an accident, or be picked up by the police along
the way. Anything is possible. I would estimate that there is a 95%
probability that I would be either involved in an accident, or picked up by
the police.






Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit,
causing the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance.

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.

**Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach
the 94% CO2 saturation that exists on Venus.


Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on
this planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an
insignificant driver.

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

**Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that
neither of us is a climatologist. I place my faith in the
climatologists to tell me about the climate.


But as was pointed out to you the other day, with good reference
material from Jeff L , there is a groundswell of increasing opinion
now from other climatologists,

**No, there is not any kind of "groundswell" that you speak of. There are a
handful of people who are, like Spencer, religious nutters and/or are
employed by the fossil fuel lobby, that dispute the vast majority of
climatologists data.

that what the first ones are telling
us, is not quite so clear cut and unchallengeable, as they would have
us believe.

**I have ALWAYS been quite clear in stating that science tells us that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming we are experiencing and that
the confidence level is around 95%. That tells us that there is a 5%
uncertainty in the facts. Therefore, it is open to challenge.

Why should what these alternative theorists are saying,
be any less valid ?

**Because none have been able to explain the warming and the rapidity of
that warming. None have been able to discredit the IPCC AR4. PARTS of AR4
(around 4 pages out of 1,600-odd) have been open to criticism. That's it.
And, to the enormous credit of the IPCC, faults have been rectified when
found.

Why should anyone who listens to them with a
degree of credibility, automatically be denounced as 'deniers',
stupid, or fools, as you are so fond of calling them ?

**People who have failed to read the IPCC AR4 and want to become involved in
the discussion, deserve to be called whatever is deemed appropriate. It is
intellectually bankrupt to argue against a theory, without first
understanding that theory. THAT is just logical.

As you rightly
point out, none of us on here is a qualified climatologist, so we
have to rely on what others tell us, and like everything in life, a
degree of judgment has to be applied, as to how reliable the
information that is being given, is.

**Precisely. The guys at the IPCC are the best climatologists on the planet.
They are not influenced by religion or the fossil fuel industry. They are
independent.

The main thing that causes me a
problem on this front, is the evangelical fervour with which the
doom-mongers state their case. You will recall that I threw in a
tongue-in-cheek reference to JWs last week. They are exactly the same
as the green mist brigade. A distant relation of mine and her husband
were both JWs for many years. It was impossible to have any kind of
meaningful debate with them on the subject, because no matter what
angle you approached from, they had a pat counter-argument, backed up
by red-underlined passages in their bibles.

**Incorrect. It is quite easy to point out the logical inconsistencies with
their belief system. I've done so many times.

Worst of all, they were
smug about the fact that you *could not* debate with them, because
they were always right, and no matter what differing view you had, it
only made you someone to be pitied, and converted to the faith.

**Again, not in my experience. Most go away, whimpering. One went away,
promising to think about my words. ALL lack a decent education. And that is
no different to AGW theory. Without an education (IOW: without first reading
IPCC AR4) then it is pointless trying to discuss things.


And that's the way the proponents of man-made global warming come
across, which is precisely what makes me doubt their case.

**What makes you doubt the case, is the fact that you have not taken the
time to educate yourself in the facts.

I know
that you feel that you are right,

**No. The IPCC is within 95% of being right.

but it's the way that you preach
the subject that wins you no friends.

**I don't give a ****. This is serious. I have argued with friends about
AGW. Some share my viewpoint and others do not. NONE of those that do not
share my view have taken the time to read AR4. Most parrot the usual bunch
of scurrilous and nonsensical claims made by the deniers.

Do you not wonder why, when
there are many intelligent people on here, there doesn't seem to be a
single one that backs you on it ?

**That means nothing. And you know it.

Does that make us all stupid or
fools ? I guess from your point of view, it does ...

**No. What mystifies me is how people who are clearly intelligent, refuse to
read the most important document relating to AGW theory and yet argue
against the very thing they have failed to read. Weird.




snip

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in
producing global warming, then the historical high temperatures at
high temperatures should have been maintained.

**Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other
influence on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc.
These events can cause massive climate shifts.


You see, here we go again. The case is proven beyond all reasonable
doubt (what is it now, 3% ?)

**95%.


except that when there's a bit of a fly
in the ointment, suddenly it's not, and we can apparently fling in
another random statement that makes it all ok again ...

**Taking words out of context is rather shabby. However, I will take the
time to explain the issue. We are discussing why CO2 levels (and
temperatures) did not skyrocket during past warming events. The reasons may
or may not be related to today.




In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

**In SOME cases, yes.



Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.

**Take the time to read AR4.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:29:54 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached.

**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.

I do wish you would cease trivializing this point. It's not uncharted
territory, the great unknown, or magic. It's simple logic. If either
factor causes the other to increase, then both will increase until
some other limit is reached. From the historical data, it appears
that both temperature and CO2 are cyclic rather than constantly
increasing. Therefore, something is causing both CO2 and temperature
to drop. Since nobody seems to know what might be causing this
decrease, Occam's Razor suggests that it might be far simpler to
assume that bother factors do NOT cause each other to increase
endlessly, and that temperature and CO2 are not as tightly coupled as
you suggest. Even better, the Vostok-Petit graphs clearly show CO2
following temperature, not the other way around.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

**Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that neither of us
is a climatologist. I place my faith in the climatologists to tell me about
the climate.

I don't place my faith in experts. I've been screwed by alleged
experts and have seen from the inside how they operate in a different
industry. In this case, the problem is funding. It's almost
impossible to get funding for AGW research intended to disprove the
IPCC consensus. Well, not impossible if you don't mind taking money
from big oil. If someone does manage to produce an unfavorable
report, their funding magically goes away.

How soon we forget Global Cooling:
http://archive.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Incidentally, experts are often wrong.
"Vindicated: Ridiculed Israeli scientist wins Nobel"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/05/international/i041311D61.DTL

**Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4.

As I indicated previously, I read one part out of four. The physical
science basis report is what I found interesting. The rest are
summaries, guesswork, conclusions, extrapolations, predictions, and
some politics. I wasn't interested.

The IPCC very clearly states that
rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures
causes higher levels of CO2.

Ummm... reading the report doesn't mean that I'm instantly converted.
I tend to be very suspicious of methodology. For example, ice cores
older than about 150,000 years are dated largely by guesswork. The
glacial creep that far back causes the distinctive annual ice layers
to blurr into mush. They also tend to form angular layers, which are
difficult to see on a vertical ice core sample. The best they can do
is correlate volcanic dust events with corresponding land based
dating.

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained.

**Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other influence
on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc. These events can
cause massive climate shifts.

Lasting how long? Looking at the graphs, it appears that CO2 and
temperature were decoupled at least 1-2 million years. I can see such
isolated events causing climate changes, but not for extended periods.
Also, the Vostok-Petit graph shows atmospheric dust concentration,
which should be an indication of volcanism and asteroid hits. No
connection with temperature or CO2.

Reminder, others agree with me. Read the comments:
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
http://www.denverclimatestudygroup.com

In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

**In SOME cases, yes.

It was true in 3 out of 4 peaks as shown on the Vostok-Petit graph.
The 4th was admittedly difficult to determine because the temperature
did not drop as rapidly as the other peaks.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the
same scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem
is man-made in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of
people" that are "religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil
fuel lobby".

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS. In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists" BTW. They could, like
Spencer, be 'Creation Scientists'. Will you throw your weight behind Spencer
and his odd-ball ideas?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

and they
must all be speaking somehow with the same voice.

**97% are. 3% dispute the science. Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?


and still
fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of quoting, as
apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in that
discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Oct 7, 10:23*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

Arfa


Don't take him seriously, he has that effect on some, but in reality
he is full of it.

Even if the AGW was actually true, there are far more dangerous things
in the real world to be wary of.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Because.


Yawn. Grow a brain, and get a life.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.


He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
look at the issue. He searches for others like him to 'prove' that he's
right. He ignores anything may may even remotely prove him wrong,
because his whole world would collapse. Even though it's been shown
that his beloved IPCC is composed of liars who cook data and thieves who
knowingly publish bad data to keep their funding, he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On 10/7/2011 6:32 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

Point of order, Jonetwon used Flavoraid, not Koolaid.

Minor nit. ;-)

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi



--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

"kreed"

Don't take him seriously, he has that effect on some, but in reality
he is full of it.

Even if the AGW was actually true, there are far more dangerous things
in the real world to be wary of.


** Like Arab zealots with a stolen or back yard built nuclear weapon.

Forget a 1960s type nuclear Armageddon - that is the LEAST of our worries.

Imagine the actual consequences of a major city (ie London, New York )
being rendered uninhabitable by a "dirty bomb".

The whole planet would be immediately turned into a Nazi style police
state - purely to prevent a recurrence.

That is where we are all headed folks.

After seeing 911- who can doubt it?




.... Phil

On Oct 7, 6:07*pm, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in ...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

* Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.

--

OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby".


How it works is that many people are aware that AGW is looking so much
like a crock, one Rasmussen poll in the US quoted that 69% of those
polled believed that the scientists in the IPCC had defrauded data in
order to support global warming.

The public just don't buy it anymore and the same can be seen in the
Australian polls on the Carbon tax, approximately 70% don't want it.
If you start bringing up the subject with people generally, you cannot
find anyone who wants it and almost as many don't believe in AGW to
boot.


Anyone who doesnt fully believe Trevor's fantasy and his beliefs is
simply
not relevant. They are an "idiot" and if they are actually a
scientist, he will simply
claim that they are "not a scientist if they disbelieve AGW", or paid
off by the "fossil fuel lobby"

Trevor worships as gospel anything that comes from the IPCC and
ignores that it may not be what he thinks it is
when it comes to honesty and integrity.

Strange part is that looking at Google, many of the IPCC are involved
in the World Wildlife fund
and they are funded by BP, so in reality you could say that many in
the IPCC who are involved in this
group are funded by the "fossil fuel" industry. Funny how the "fossil
fuel industry" - BP for example fully support AGW and the carbon
taxes.

Take a look at how many others are funded by global banks, who
originally cooked up this fraud (as well as other "dirty air" scams
over the last 40 odd years, and funded it in order to create fear,
and rake in profits This is only the tip of the iceberg of fraud and
corruption.

Trev can't see through this, and also he is very likely in my opinion
also concerned that if the AGW fraud continues to collaps into dust
that his wife (who according to others on here works for the CSIRO)
loses her job in CSIRO, (Which is also headed by a former one of these
global bank officials, and therefore not to be trusted) it will kill
their household income if the institute is defunded, in order to
appease a public that wants blood, after being conned - and possibly
hurt future career prospects for being associated with this
organisation, even if she is not involved in the "climate science"
part and or wasn't knowingly being dishonest.

Its not hard, you just follow the money, and who benefits from it.


If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.


That would be about right. Its how government works.

Arfa

On Oct 7, 9:32*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

* Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.

--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

* *He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
look at the issue. *He searches for others like him to 'prove' that he's
right. *He ignores anything may may even remotely prove him wrong,
because his whole world would collapse. *Even though it's been shown
that his beloved IPCC is composed of liars who cook data and thieves who
knowingly publish bad data to keep their funding, he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


That sounds like a pretty accurate profile of the guy to me.

On Sep 25, 6:20*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and...ergy-and-water...

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics atChoiceare FAMOUS *for *!!!

Look at the pic *- *all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And *NO *on /off *cycling at all *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.jenman.com.au/news_article.php?id=262

This article tends to reinforce what you said about Choice.



Not *ONE *of the *KNOWN *issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.

BTW:

One reason thatChoicedid not cycle the CFLs is that they found it *VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly *- * with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total ********.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.

.... Phil

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org
The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees. I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked. There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer? Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct. Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics, don't deal with economic impacts, and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report. Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.
If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In sci.electronics.repair Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the
same scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem
is man-made in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of
people" that are "religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil
fuel lobby".

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS. In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists" BTW. They could, like
Spencer, be 'Creation Scientists'. Will you throw your weight behind Spencer
and his odd-ball ideas?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

and they
must all be speaking somehow with the same voice.

**97% are. 3% dispute the science. Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

Did you actually look at that study? After a thorough torturing of the
data to get the desired conclusion, they ended up with *79* "climate
scientists". A perfect example of cherry picking!


Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?


and still
fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of quoting, as
apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in that
discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

Try this: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/06/ip...ussion-thread/
Note that Judith Curry is chair of atmospheric physics at GA Tech.


**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.

You should be, since you are one.

Jerry

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
(...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with his
position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view. I'll even
read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled temperature
precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my opinions unless I
also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged in any name calling,
labeling, word games, or insults. I'll listen to his logic, his
rationalizations, and even his dogma, as I would listen to others, who
might also be religious, politically incorrect, deranged, unpopular,
or insufficiently credentialed. That's because wisdom doesn't come
from experts. It comes from those who question the experts.

[1] For the curious, I just trashed a laptop LCD trying to replace
the CCFL backlight. Argh.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

I've just lost the will to live ...
Arfa

Can I have your test equipment?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeffrey Angus wrote:

On 10/7/2011 6:32 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

Point of order, Jonetwon used Flavoraid, not Koolaid.

Minor nit. ;-)


Kept in their Frigidaire, and made with their Kitchen Aid mixer?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:31:17 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown
experimentally many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in
either factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive
feedback.

**Correct.


Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused
prior warmings or high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from
the Sun than Venus is. Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver
of temperatures on this planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It
is NOT an insignificant driver.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands
of years. This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It
is occuring MUCH faster that at any time in the past few hundred
million years. It is the extreme rapidity of the present warming
that is causing considerable concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As
is average temperature.


Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.

**Not quite. Absolute cause and effect cannot be proven for past events.
What we do have, however, is solid science that CO2 acts as a GHG. We also
have compelling evidence that rising CO2 levels and temperatures are solidly
linked. When one rises, the other follows.


Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known
input which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

**You think? You need to supply some science to show that rising CO2 levels
are not the cause of the present warming. Thus far, you've supplied nothing.

Aleready done. Jeff provided the time direction corrected graph. The
presumed causal connection is voided due to the timing of the changes in
CO2 and temperature. You just refuse to understand.

?-))))

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:29:54 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
If I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up increasing
until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that several catastrophic
phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say) 5% or so. Return to 'normal'
levels would likely take several million years.


The explaining power of the model is worthless then.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

I've just lost the will to live ...
Arfa

Can I have your test equipment?

--
# Jeff Liebermann

Ha ! No ! Today, the world of Arfa just got a bit better. A company that I
used to relieve of a lot of money, but whose work slowly dried up, as that
company changed hands and names over the years, seem to have just got
themselves a new warranty manager. He emailed me mid week and invited me to
call him regarding some new work that he wanted me to look at. It's a bunch
of switch-mode power supplies, and having had a squint at a load of samples
that arrived yesterday, I think there's going to be a lot of straightforward
money to be had again, if he can back the numbers that he was talking !

So I'm going to still need my test equipment for the moment ... d;~}

Arfa

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 01:55:13 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

It's a bunch
of switch-mode power supplies, and having had a squint at a load of samples
that arrived yesterday, I think there's going to be a lot of straightforward
money to be had again, if he can back the numbers that he was talking !

Congratulations. Do they look like this?
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/Blown%20Power%20Supply.html

So I'm going to still need my test equipment for the moment ... d;~}

Sniff...

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
(...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with his
position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view. I'll even
read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled temperature
precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my opinions unless I
also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged in any name calling,
labeling, word games, or insults.


Good for you. Wait a while, and he'll be calling you names.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard in
1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-ap...h-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then
refuses to (...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with
his position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view.
I'll even read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled
temperature precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my
opinions unless I also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged
in any name calling, labeling, word games, or insults.


Good for you. Wait a while, and he'll be calling you names.

**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably,
rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites.
You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome,
ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably,
rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites.
You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome,
ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.


Yawn.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard
in 1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-ap...h-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like
Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the
people who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as
an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect
sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a
claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is
some compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support
that claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your position
with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath, you insist that
valid input on the subject can only come from experts - that's
climatologists according to you - and that any non experts, regardless of
what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have, are just fools,
dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft of other derogatory
names.

Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter. You
further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all peer
reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to you that
many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee, are not
qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to climatology, your
answer is "so?"

Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and validating
with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in its conclusions ?
The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ? If they are not properly qualified
to understand the subtleties and nuances of the subject, then their opinions
carry no more weight than any person of a reasonable education level,
randomly picked off the street.

You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name was
odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be qualified
in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much to do with
climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data needs
to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to climatology in
order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or not. You cannot
embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the fancy takes you, to
refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to you by various people.

Arfa

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:28:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted.

What strawman? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
How does citing a petition signed by 31,487 alleged scientists
constitute a misrepresentation of YOUR position.

Not much experience in climate reseach.

No never answered my question. What would you consider to be the
minimum qualifications necessary to have an opinion in the matter? A
college degree? Ability to understand the data massaging? Carnal
knowledge of statistics?

Incidentally, the last time I checked, representative democracy only
requires that the voter be able to read (but not necessarily
understand) the ballot, and sign their own name. There's no minimum
standard for intelligence, logic, political experience, or even that
they understand English. If the founding fathers wanted the
government run by academics, they would have done things quite
differently.

My guess is at least half the list of signers are bogus. That's not a
wild guess. That's from experience working with the local elections
officials counting petitions and ballots (before computers made voter
fraud easy. At the time, a typical local ballot petition would
require about 25,000 valid signatures. There was not enough time or
resources to check everyone, so we picked out a few "sheets" of
signatures, each of which had either 20 or 40 signatures. Based on
the ratio of valid to signatures on a sheet, we extrapolated the total
number of valid signatures. If it exceeded 25,000, the petition was
deemed valid. If low or close, we grabbed another few more random
sheets and did it again. From experience, at least half the
signatures were bogus. On politically volatile issues, which tends to
invite fraud, we were lucky to get 20% of the signatures valid.

So, using 20-50% valid, would 6,300 to 15,700 valid signatures be
sufficient?

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
True. Quantity is not a great substitute for quality, but in this
case, I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that not everyone is a
true believer in the IPCC view of global warming.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

Apparently, you haven't had much dealings with the medical profession.
My experiences have been that much of the medical profession leans
towards useless procedures, defensive medicine, and padding the bill.
If I want to know something about medicine, I will ask the medical
profession for their opinion, do my own research, and then decide for
myself. Throwing oneself to the mercy of the medical profession is
suicide.

Same with climate experts. These are often the same people that can't
predict tomorrows weather successfully, but are expected to do the
same 100 years in the future. Yes, I know that there's a difference
between weather prediction and climate research, but if you look
carefully, you'll see that almost everyone with weather experience is
now also considered an expert on climate (because that is where the
funding goes). Passing our economy and our lifestyle into the hands
of the climatologist is equally dangerous. Following their lead, we
may solve or delay global warming, but at what price?

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?

Please show me where it has been discredited? I did some digging and
all I could find was a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and word
games, such as:
http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition
If you use the same criteria that the elections commission uses for
petitions, and samples the signatories, the petition would be anywhere
from 20-50% valid, which I consider good enough.

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I have a calculator, with a substantial collection of known bugs. Duz
that make the calculator useless?
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read=735
Of course not. Even if half the buttons were broken, there would
still be enough functionality left to make the calculator usable. Same
with a petition. Even if half the signatures are bogus, the remainder
is sufficient to make the petition useful.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

Please show me where it has been discredited. Finding a few invalid
names does not magically discredit the entire petition.

Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.

You avoided my question. Precisely what qualifications do you believe
are required in order to have an opinion on the subject? That doesn't
mean an uninformed opinion, but rather one that you would consider to
be authoritative? Do they need to have a degree? Experience in
writing papers? Well known in their specialty? Involved in weather
or climate in some manner?

Wisdom does not come from experts. It comes from those who question
the experts.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

So, you only listen to those who completely agree with your values? If
I ran background checks on my favorite scientists, politicians, and
engineers, I would find a very mixed bag of religions, party
affiliations, philosophies, and mystical practices. The mistake
you're making is that you're judging the person, not the content. Man
has fought many revolutions and wars in the name of freedom of speech,
thought, religion, philosophy, and economics. Now that almost anyone
has the right to an opinion, without risk of official retaliation, you
offer the principle that only those that are academically qualified,
politically correct, and follow the correct religions, are considered
authoritative.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.

I'm not sure what you mean by "target". Assassination is not a useful
method of argumentation.

Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

Some do, most don't. One of the reasons you see a large number of
names as authors on global warming papers is that the effort usually
involves a team of specialists. Sometimes its in collaboration with
other climatologists, but usually some of the names are statisticians,
professional writers, proof readers, and editors.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?

Not directly. Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:
http://www.amazon.com/Disconnect-Radiation-Industry-HasDone-Protect/dp/0525951946
The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC
working group III (Mitigation) report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=353
In her book, she details how some cell phone research reports were
allegedly edited to conform to the position of those paying the bills.
By the time the various reports were published, they had allegedly
been edited sufficiently that even the authors would have difficulty
recognizing their own work. In one case, the summary and conclusion
were changed to show a result different from what the data
demonstrated. These anecdotes were meant to alarm the readers, but is
really a fair description of how things are done in research.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/10/2011 11:35 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated
Harvard in 1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-ap...h-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on
the planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if
some of those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or
even Mickey Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone
like Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll
consult the people who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming


On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors


Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it
as an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science
is science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to
present solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a
specialist in a particular area of scientific research makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a
non-specialist makes a claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with
that clima, unless there is some compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science'
as part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked,
discredited and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet.
Spence is a religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the
denialist camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to
support that claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread.
Since he was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with
bringing him up. If you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may
do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your
position with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath,
you insist that valid input on the subject can only come from experts -
that's climatologists according to you - and that any non experts,
regardless of what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have,
are just fools, dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft
of other derogatory names.

**Incorrect. I will attempt to clarify my position:

* The Oregon Petition has been discredited. Many times. It is very
seriously flawed.
* Dr Apfelbach has signed the petition, but, AFAK, has never published
any original science to validate his position. Since Dr Apfelbach is
deceased, we can't even know if his position was aligned with the
perpetrators of the Oregon Petition. Dr Apfelbach is not likely to be
the only scientist in that situation. IE: Dead, unpublished (in the area
of climatology) and possibly not in agreement with the position espoused
by the Oregon Petition.
* ANY person (specialist or non-specialist) who makes new claims WRT any
area of science, must also provide healthy, peer-reviewed science to
back that claim.
* A specialist in a particular area of science must be assumed to have
knowledge of that area of science and should always be granted a
reasonable level of credibility.


Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter.

**The climate scientists are the ones that have submitted the data. The
IPCC has collated that data. The people who collate data, make policy
decisions and provide technical input on possible solutions don't
necessarily need to be qualified in the area of climatology, nor do they
necessarily need to be scientists. For instance: A specific area of the
debate centres around the ramifications of a carbon tax or an ETS.
Scientists are not necessarily qualified to provide expert opinions on
the ramifications of such actions. Economists, however, are just the
kinds of people that are required to provide the opinions.


You
further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all
peer reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to
you that many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee,
are not qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to
climatology, your answer is "so?"

**Peer-review people are ALWAYS in the same area of expertise as those
who are doing the research. ALWAYS. IOW: Climate research is
peer-reviewed by climatologists, not nuclear physicists.


Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and
validating with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in
its conclusions ? The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ?

**That was not the comment made, nor was it related to my response. The
IPCC requires the expertise of a large number of disparate people. Not
all are climatologists. Some are economists, for instance.


If they are
not properly qualified to understand the subtleties and nuances of the
subject, then their opinions carry no more weight than any person of a
reasonable education level, randomly picked off the street.

**Irrelevant. I suggest you read up on the IPCC, it's charter and what
it does. It would be helpful for you to read IPCC AR4 too. I guess you
won't be doing that any time soon though.


You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name
was odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be
qualified in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much
to do with climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

**The Oregon Petition was put foreward as an example of 39,000
scientists who (allegedly) disputed the theory of AGW, the IPCC and the
research performed by climatologists. That is why I say: so? It's
irrelevant. Let's put it into context:

I was service manager for Marantz Australai for 5 years, from 1974 -
1979. I have more than passing familiarity with Marantz products
manufactured from 1972 - 1980.

Let's say a client brings you a Marantz 2325 reciever in for service.
The fault is one that causes the amplifier to make a sudden,
intermittant noise, sometimes tripping the protection relay.

You ask 200 plumbers, 200 electricians, 200 doctors, 200 hi fi
sales-people, 200 TV techs and 200 geologists what the problem is. You
recieve the following answers:

* Output transistors are faulty. (200 opinions)
* The on/off switch is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The front end diff amp pair is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The fueholder is faulty. (200 opinions)
* You need an (expensive) mains filter. (200 opinions)
* It's cosmic radiation. (200 opinions)

From that list, you'd reasonably assume that the front end diff amp is
the most likely cause of the fault, yet a mere 200 out of 1,200 people
tell you that is the cause.

If you asked me, I'd say: None of them. It's one of the varistors in the
output stage. For safety, replace all 4 (two in each output stage)

Who're you gonna trust? The guys that offer a completely plausible
reason, based on no experience? Or the one, lone opinion, from the guy
who knows the 2325 back to front and inside out?


You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data
needs to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to
climatology in order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or
not. You cannot embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the
fancy takes you, to refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to
you by various people.

**I believe you've misread what I wrote. I'll take the rap for not
stating my case with adequate precision. Sorry.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au