On Mar 7, 3:34 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.

Wow! That's HUGE!

Considering that 98% would still be produced by breathing and other things
that cannot be stopped, that is teny tiny. Not 2% per year, Every year
would only be 2% less to give up life as we all know it.

Oh, damn, I should not have been so optimistic.

Here are some figures for data through 1996:

http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html

From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)

Naturally emitted : 150
Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)

Total emitted: 157

Total absorbed: 154

Net change: +3

Which is less than half of the estimate of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

That estimate many be low, however:

At
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/c...n.html?print=t

It is estimated that there is an annual contribution
of 6 Gt/a of anthropogenic CO2 from deforestation
alone, and another 6.5 Gt/a from fossil fuel burning.

I don't think they include cement production which would
be another Gt/a or so. Anthropogenic sinks of CO2
which I would guess is mostly agriculture by irrigation,
are small, but not nonexistant, perhaps recovering as much
as 5% of that emitted.

The molecular weight of CO2 is about 1.86 times the
mean molecular weight of air so if anybody has a figure
handy for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere we can
do a reality check against the observed increase of
~1.5 ppm v/v per year.

--

FF

wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP
SNIP

I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.
What is your evidence?
The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
voice in the climatology community.

How about if you just _name_ someone?

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.


Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists. This is, of course,
a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying
exists.


But, in fact, (and you know this)
there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.

Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
include his first name or to reference something
he has written?

I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.


There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
look for it and send it along if I find it.

Then there is this site:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp

Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
their money is dirty" list. BUT, they point to primary
research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
severity, and consequences.

Then there's this:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php


Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant. We don't know
enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.


A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
critics'.

And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
invalid. Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
that if he's lying, his university position will be
in jeopardy sooner or later.

Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are

A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
if nothing else.

disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does

Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
rational voices.

not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
of interest here.

And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
hypothesis.

And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
to look for the contrarian voices.


That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
that publicity is substantive.

Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
for myself.

THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.




I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified.
You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.
But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
that:

a) GW is primarily human caused
b) It's bad
c) We can do something meaningful about it

IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
views.

I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.

But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.

...
What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
it was believed to be so.


In
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en
you wrote:

"That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "

'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
my intention in both statements is obviously identical.


You went on to add:

"The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
injection
into the carbon cycle."

This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
we are not currently in an ice age.


I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:

" I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly "


I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
when you made it.

No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
say it this way:

CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
of GW, though many scientists believe the data point that way.
CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.

I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.



So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
be)
you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
suspect that you do not.
My "substantive objection" is that science as we understand it today
cannot be used to justify the jump from correlation to causation as
to human action; that it cannot be used to justify these breathtaking
leaps that describe the end of the world as we know it due to GW; that
it cannot be used to justify the argument that mankind can materially
ameoliorate GW (whatever causes it) by changing behavior.

That is not an objection to the argument for "Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere being causal for global warming."

It is not, nor did I claim it to be. That paragraph is a precis - a
summary - of my overall 'substantive objection' to the popularization
of the GW concerns and the consequently deep beliefs that call for
action not justified by the science.


As I have written several times, the argument for increasing CO2
levels in the atrmosphere being causative for global warming is based
on spectroscopy and the law of conservation of energy. It is NOT
based on correlation.

That argument is not original to myself, it is the argument used to
predict global warming back in the early 1970's. It was valid then
and remains valid today.

On it's face, I am suspicious. The 'predictions' about global warming
have been almost universally wrong, at least insofar as they comment
on the degree and severity of the process. Are you suggesting there
are circa 1970s predictions that materially match the actually observed
warming of the past 3 decades? That's a paper I'd really like to read.


I can lead you through it, step by step, if you like.

Please do, because - if I am to believe some of the other threads here on
the topic - there is recent ice core evidence that warming precedes
CO2 buildup which is quite at odds with your line of thinking.

--

FF

wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:34 pm, "Leon" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
Wow! That's HUGE!
Considering that 98% would still be produced by breathing and other things
that cannot be stopped, that is teny tiny. Not 2% per year, Every year
would only be 2% less to give up life as we all know it.

Oh, damn, I should not have been so optimistic.

Here are some figures for data through 1996:

http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html

From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)

Naturally emitted : 150
Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)

Total emitted: 157

Total absorbed: 154

Net change: +3

Which is less than half of the estimate of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

That estimate many be low, however:

At
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/c...n.html?print=t

It is estimated that there is an annual contribution
of 6 Gt/a of anthropogenic CO2 from deforestation
alone, and another 6.5 Gt/a from fossil fuel burning.

I don't think they include cement production which would
be another Gt/a or so. Anthropogenic sinks of CO2
which I would guess is mostly agriculture by irrigation,
are small, but not nonexistant, perhaps recovering as much
as 5% of that emitted.

The molecular weight of CO2 is about 1.86 times the
mean molecular weight of air so if anybody has a figure
handy for the mass of the Earth's atmosphere we can
do a reality check against the observed increase of
~1.5 ppm v/v per year.

--

FF


Assume this is all true as presented - I have no way of knowing whether the measurement/calculation
models used are correct.

Here's the billion dollar question: It is BAD? It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
I'm merely proposing a thought experiment) that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say, deforestation, exactly to create an
environment conducive to ... forest growth.

On 7 Mar 2007 09:40:00 -0800, wrote:

,;On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
,; wrote:
,; On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
,; wrote:
,; On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
,; SNIP
,; SNIP
,;
,;
,; I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
,; in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
,; and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
,; controversy among climatologists.
,;
,; What is your evidence?
,;
,; The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
,; controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
,; such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
,; voice in the climatology community.
,;
,;How about if you just _name_ someone?
,;

The bulk of the government support goes to those on the band wagon.
Try Google and search for "Global Warming Hoax" and "Global Warming
Fraud" to find opposing views from some reputable sources, e.g.:

Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric Science and director of
the Earth System Center at the University of Alabama,

Of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most
credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's
doing serious research on the subject.

S. Fred Singer, (President of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project University of Virginia) author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, who
points to the positive side of the melting Arctic:

Pat Michaels, the University of Virginia (Professor of Environmental
Sciences) climatologist and author of Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media
..

Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford,
and a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution.

Paul Knappenberger of the University of Virginia, says of the claims
made by the science academies that, "What is missing is the scientific
assessment of the potential threat. Without a threat assessment, a
simple scientific finding on its own doesn't warrant any change of
action, no matter how scientifically groundbreaking it might be."

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
(sic) speaks at Rice University".

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

'nuff said ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

"Swingman" wrote

"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
(sic) speaks at Rice University".

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming
expert (sic) speaks at Rice University".

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics
professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.

My two favorite definitions of "expert"--"somebody 500 miles from home
with a briefcase" and "an 'ex' is a has-been, a 'spurt' is a drip under
pressure."

I enrolled for an economics course once--the professor was a seedy
little guy in a brown suit about 30 years old that did not appear to
have been pressed or mended in 20, and I saw him drive off that
afternoon in a car that was older than I was that was mostly rust except
for the holes. He spent most of the first lecture telling us how
important he was and how most of us were going to fail the class and how
he had tenure and there wasn't anything any of us could do about it and
on and on. Several of the students, recently back from Vietnam, debated
holding a blanket party for the twit. Personally I just dropped the
course.

Now, whenever I tell that story, some moron comes up with "intelligence
doesn't have anything to do with income", to which my response is that
the guy is supposed to be an expert on _money_. If he knows so much
about it how come he's never managed to acquire any?

When I went to get him to sign the drop form and he saw what I was
dropping my advisor told me about a convention he had recently attended
where an economist spent a hour and filled three boards with equations
deriving the formula for compound interest, like that was some important
new result.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

in 1349614 20070308 154317 "J. Clarke" wrote:

My two favorite definitions of "expert"--"somebody 500 miles from home
with a briefcase" and "an 'ex' is a has-been, a 'spurt' is a drip under
pressure."

The second was (almost) Jack Train on "Does the Team Think" (195x?)

Swingman wrote:
"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert

(sic) speaks at Rice University".

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

'nuff said ...


Nice diversion. Now address the issue with Bill Gray who is an indisputable
expert in atmospheric science and declares GW to be an outright hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

wrote:

How about if you just _name_ someone?

Here are mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

"Ol Pete" wrote in message

Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.

http://examinernews.com/articles/200...ews/news03.txt


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:54 pm, "Leon" wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message

m...




Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Bob Schmall
wrote:

Let's get real and admit our part in the whole thing; the enormous weight
of scientific evidence points to human beings as one cause of global
warming. All we can control is ourselves, all we can correct is what
we've caused.

One cause, perhaps... but not the only cause, nor even necessarily a
significant cause. One major volcanic eruption puts more stuff in the
atmosphere in one day than we humans can put there in ten years.

I'd like someone to answer me this. If CO2 emissions from human
technoligical activity is a cause of global warming, and if humans were
to, not merely reduce but complete eliminate all CO2 emissions from
technological activity, what would be the net global effect on humanity?

From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.


Wow! That's HUGE!

The present concentration is about 380 ppm and the
observed rate of increase over the last 50 years has
been about 1.5 ppm/a. That rate is a bit steeper
in recent years, but still not much in excess of 0.5%/a.

So you've heard that if humans quite producing CO2
altogether it would reverse the observed trend and
send CO2 concentration plummetting downward
at four times the rate at which it rose over the last
50 years, right?

He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
The 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology
stopped, the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal,
eventually stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.

J. Clarke wrote:

... my advisor told me about a convention he had recently attended
where an economist spent a hour and filled three boards with equations
deriving the formula for compound interest, like that was some important
new result.


We derived that formula in my engineering economics class. As I recall,
it took my professor about 10 minutes and less than half a page of paper.

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

... my advisor told me about a convention he had recently attended
where an economist spent a hour and filled three boards with equations
deriving the formula for compound interest, like that was some important
new result.


We derived that formula in my engineering economics class. As I recall,
it took my professor about 10 minutes and less than half a page of paper.

There isn't much to it, that's for sure. I remember working it out on my own
as a college freshman. Used about half a page of paper, alright... but it did
take me more then ten minutes... maybe fifteen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Ol Pete" wrote in message

Your post was certainly misleading.

First you couldn't find the subject of the post and had to be led to it, now
the post is "misleading"??

LOL ... apparently only to a dumb ass.

A "professor of economics" whose "research focuses on the economics of
global climate change", preaching "global warming".

Yeah, buddy ... real "science" in action, with no self-interest there!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Ol Pete" wrote in message

Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.

http://examinernews.com/articles/200...ews/news03.txt


Ah! Now there's a world-class publication, unlike that liberal POS rag
Houston Chronicle!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.

Correct. Not a continued 2% decrease per year, 2% of the total today and
the total every day after.

"NuWaveDave"wrote in message

Ah! Now there's a world-class publication, unlike that liberal POS rag
Houston Chronicle!

Couldn't have expressed it better myself.

They're so "balanced" that when Molly died, they went ahead and killed
O'Reilly too.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07

On Mar 8, 6:23 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message

. ..

wrote:

He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.

Correct. Not a continued 2% decrease per year, 2% of the total today and
the total every day after.

Huh? I don;t see how that statement agrees with Mr
Wondering;s statement that the concentration would
eventually stabilize at 98% of its present concentration
(372 ppm).

Do I have it right he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en

There are some estimates that CO2 from human deforestation [1]
is nearly as high as from fossil fuel use. If that is true, or
close, the rate of rise could be reversed (in the short term)
just by ending deforestation and through reforestation even if we
went on burning fossil fuels at the present rate. In the long run
we'd also have to stop ****ing up the ocean.

[1] (I'm not clear if that is just from the burning part of slash and
burn or if it also includes the difference in rate of uptake between
a rain forest and a pasture littered with termite mounds and farting
cattle)

--

FF

Unknown writes:

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

From http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm


The real consensus is quoted and sourced here . However,
Lindzen will often cite Benny s study which the peer review
journals Science and Nature refused to publish. Peiser then
released a press release saying there was a conspiracy against
his work.. The study claimed that there are 32 peer review
journals that refute climate change. However, when Tim
Lambert and William M. Connolley reviewed the abstracts he
found the following results:

[table deleted]

A quick look at Connolley's results shows that Peiser's study
is seriouly flawed. Only one of the papers disagreed with the
consensus and it wasn't even peer reviewed. Therefore Benny
found ZERO peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with the
scientific concensus. Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt
with carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration has only one
purpose which is to fight global warming. So how Benny Peiser
came to the conclusion that a paper on carbon sequestration
refutes global warming is a bit of a mystery. Benny Peiser's
work has been refuted on numerous other sites as well. William
Connolley and many others debunked Peiser's study on May 6th,
2005 and Peiser admitted his mistakes on March 19, 2006.
Despite his study being refuted by numerous people, Peiser
continues to use his discredited study to say a scientific
consensus regarding climate change doesn't exist.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:56:33 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote

"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
(sic) speaks at Rice University".

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.



Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they still
would not reach a conclusion"
Unknown source


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mar 8, 6:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
"Unknown" wrote in message

Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
...

Nice diversion. Now address the issue with Bill Gray who is an indisputable
expert in atmospheric science and declares GW to be an outright hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

That's not a very good start. Declaring something to be a hoax is
an accusation that its supporters are engaged in deliberate mis-
conduct, or have been deceived by others who are.

This has happened, Piltdown man, or the supposed studies
proving the efficacy of the "See spot run" method of teaching,
or Lysenkoism (which you might have some passing familiarity
with) for example.

--

FF

On Mar 8, 12:14 pm, Unknown wrote:
On 7 Mar 2007 09:40:00 -0800, wrote:


...

The bulk of the government support goes to those on the band wagon.

Exxon and Mobile's money is just as green.

Try Google and search for "Global Warming Hoax" and "Global Warming
Fraud" to find opposing views from some reputable sources, e.g.:

When I am looking for reputable sources I make it a point to
NOT include perjoratives in the search keys.

E.g. there are apparently valid arguments that the fluoridation
of public drinking water can cause some problems. I would
not expect to find any using the search terms "fluoridation
communist conspiracy".

--

FF

On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html

From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)

Naturally emitted : 150
Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)

Total emitted: 157

Total absorbed: 154

Net change: +3
....



Assume this is all true as presented -
I have no way of knowing whether the measurement/calculation
models used are correct.

Perhaps you noticed that 150 has only two significant digits.
The same was true of the original table: 150,000 (megatonnes)
So if I had done the arithmetic correctly the calculated net
change would have been 10, not 3. Instead, I arbitrarily
did the arithmetic as if it had three sigfigs like the number
for uptake, 154 Gt/a. That made the answer agree with
other sources that indicate an increase of 2.6 to 3.7 Gt/a.

That's problem when working with figures that are dumbed
down for the public.


Here's the billion dollar question: It is BAD?

I can give you some reasons why it is.

It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
deforestation, exactly to create an
environment conducive to ... forest growth.

So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
hypothesis?

Here is some food for thought. Consider the null
result, thus far, from the Seti program. They
have surveyed candidate stars over a considerable
volume of space with a sensitivity capable of detecting
a civilization leaking radio/tv radiation at a strength
comparable to our commercial broadcasting, and
anything with the strength of our military radar out
to a considerable distance beyond.

There are three obvious explanations:
Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

That third possibility is sobering.

For some of us.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

There are three obvious explanations:
[for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]
Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 8 Mar 2007 21:08:36 -0800, wrote:

-snip-

Here is some food for thought. Consider the null
result, thus far, from the Seti program. They
have surveyed candidate stars over a considerable
volume of space with a sensitivity capable of detecting
a civilization leaking radio/tv radiation at a strength
comparable to our commercial broadcasting, and
anything with the strength of our military radar out
to a considerable distance beyond.

There are three obvious explanations:
Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

That third possibility is sobering.

For some of us.

Another possibility, from a book I'm reading.

There's an omni-not-so-benevolent intelligence out there that listens
for, as the book put it, the yapping dog in the yard (RF in space) and
when found, comes by and "shoots" it. In the book, they blew up our
sun. Book is, "Variable Star" by Robert A. Heinlein and Spider
Robinson. Pretty good read. Not done yet so I can't tell you how it
ends.

Renata

On Mar 9, 7:43 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
There are three obvious explanations:

[for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]

Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.


By that point such a civilization _could_ deliberately broadcast
to its potential if slightly less advanced neighbors at very little
societal cost. We have done so briefly, and may do so again.

So your example fits into the second category of what I call
'shy' civlizations.

A fourth case could be the Prime Directive.

--


FF

On Mar 9, 9:36 am, Renata wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 21:08:36 -0800, wrote:

-snip-





Here is some food for thought. Consider the null
result, thus far, from the Seti program. They
have surveyed candidate stars over a considerable
volume of space with a sensitivity capable of detecting
a civilization leaking radio/tv radiation at a strength
comparable to our commercial broadcasting, and
anything with the strength of our military radar out
to a considerable distance beyond.

There are three obvious explanations:
Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

That third possibility is sobering.

For some of us.

Another possibility, from a book I'm reading.

There's an omni-not-so-benevolent intelligence out there that listens
for, as the book put it, the yapping dog in the yard (RF in space) and
when found, comes by and "shoots" it. In the book, they blew up our
sun. Book is, "Variable Star" by Robert A. Heinlein and Spider
Robinson. Pretty good read. Not done yet so I can't tell you how it
ends.


Yes. I tend to doubt that such a "super paranoid" or "super nasty"
civilization would survive its own advanced technology. Vulcans
would have an evolutionary advantage over Klingons. But I suppose
if they also had some sort of Borg-like "super collectivist"
imperative
as well, they might survive.

--

FF

On Mar 8, 10:50 pm, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

...
Several of the abstracts (#34) dealt
with carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration has only one
purpose which is to fight global warming.
...

I though that Carbon sequestration was a natural process, not a
purposeful action.

Am I mistaken?

If not, it may be studied by people for any number of reasons,
both scientific and nefarious, right?

--

FF

On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:13 pm, Bob Schmall wrote:



Steve wrote:
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
As Reported on NewsMax

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate
changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
scientist's controversial theory.

Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars' south pole had
been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory
in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current
warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to
the National Geographic article.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
and Mars, he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small
contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it
cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun
variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it
maintains that the Earth's climate is strongly influenced by cosmic
rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to
milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, on the committee's Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities and therefore cloudiness keep changing because
the sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays
coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth, the Danish report
by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities
were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age
that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the
Earth's climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
intense.

"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?

Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....

One scientist *can* be right but if that scientist's opinion is
anathema to the general consensus of the related field - in this case
climatology - then it would probably not be a good idea to formulate
public policy around the lone figure.

For the record: I don't think climatologists have an adequate model
around which to construct policy. Global warming - although *very*
popular in this group - still requires a great deal of work before we
can adequately assess the situation. Are we dealing with a minor
annoyance or a catastrophe? I'll agree to higher costs in order to
avoid the latter. The former? Not so much.

On Mar 7, 7:49 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[I wish google would include the message-id in this line
in addition to the headers but you (most of you, at least)
can check the headers if you really must know which
article, FF]...

I replied to this about a day and a half ago, and when
I could not find the follow-up yesterday I replied again.
I still cannot find either follow-up. The second time
I made sure that Google returned a 'success' message
Other replies posted last night are there..

Maybe the articles are stuck in a buffer somewhere.
My apologies if two replies (or none) eventually show
up.

I'll wait a bit longer before making a third attempt.

--

FF

On Mar 8, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:56:33 -0500, "Lee Michaels"



wrote:

"Swingman" wrote

....

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.

Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they still
would not reach a conclusion"
Unknown source

I think it was Harry Truman who said all economists should
have one arm amputated so that they would stop saying,
"But on the other hand..."

--

FF

wrote:

On Mar 8, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:56:33 -0500, "Lee Michaels"



wrote:


"Swingman" wrote


...

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.

Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they still
would not reach a conclusion"
Unknown source


I think it was Harry Truman who said all economists should
have one arm amputated so that they would stop saying,
"But on the other hand..."

--
If all economists were laid end to end, they'd probably have more fun.

In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:43 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
There are three obvious explanations:

[for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]

Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
capable of our technology to get started in the
first place, or most of those that do are shy
about accidentally or deliberately making their
existence known, or they don't last long after
making it to our level of technology.

A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.

By that point such a civilization _could_ deliberately broadcast
to its potential if slightly less advanced neighbors at very little
societal cost. We have done so briefly, and may do so again.

So your example fits into the second category of what I call
'shy' civlizations.

Perhaps, but I don't see it quite that way. Your description implies intent to
remain undiscovered and undiscoverable; I think my example is a separate case,
where the lack of RF emissions is simply a byproduct of advancing technology,
with no intent either way regarding discoverability.

A fourth case could be the Prime Directive.

:-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 8, 11:32 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:56:33 -0500, "Lee Michaels"



wrote:


"Swingman" wrote


...

Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics
professor".

Isn't "economics professor" a guy who can't get a regular job?

I guess that makes him an expert of some kind.

Just to pile on: "If all economists were laid end to end, they
still would not reach a conclusion"
Unknown source


I think it was Harry Truman who said all economists should
have one arm amputated so that they would stop saying,
"But on the other hand..."

--
If all economists were laid end to end, they'd probably have more fun.

But the goats wouldn't. Or were you wishing them on women?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
S NIP

It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
deforestation, exactly to create an
environment conducive to ... forest growth.

So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
hypothesis?

No, it the "the planet may actually exhibit feedback towards
quiescence" hypothesis. Hardly a remarkable idea ...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

How about if you just _name_ someone?

Here are mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us


And still more - an hourlong documentary that interviews a number of honest-to-goodness
climatologists squarely in opposition to the current theories in the scientific 'mainstream'
(you know, that orthodoxy that does not exist):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66792811497638

On Mar 12, 4:39 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...
S NIP
It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
deforestation, exactly to create an
environment conducive to ... forest growth.

So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
hypothesis?

No, it the "the planet may actually exhibit feedback towards
quiescence" hypothesis. Hardly a remarkable idea ...

Planets that do not, most likely do not harbor life.

--

FF

Perhaps the Fourth time will be the charm....

On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, wrote:
SNIP
SNIP

I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.
What is your evidence?
The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
voice in the climatology community.

How about if you just _name_ someone?

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.

Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists.

Splorf!

Of course not.

This is, of course,
a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying exists.

As you will recall, you were responding to:

"FWIW, I don't know the names of any
prominent scientists who 'support' the
global warming hypothesis either."

That is because all of the scientists whom
I know by name and whom I also know
'support' global warming, are among my
personal friends and associates. None
of whom, I assume you have ever heard of.
Thus, THEY are not 'prominent'.

I don't give a rat's ass about the prominence of
the sources you present. I care about what
they have to say.

But don't let that spoil the enjoyment you
get from misconstruing my sentence to falsely
imply that I was presenting some sort of
fallacious argument.

Oh, your assertion that I claimed there were
no dissenting scientists is also false. What
*I* claimed was that you had not demonstrated
that. That claim was true.

But again, I'm sure it is much more fun to
make something up.


But, in fact, (and you know this)
there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.

Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
include his first name or to reference something
he has written?

I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.

There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
look for it and send it along if I find it.

Then there is this site:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp

Volume 10, number 12 and it's a weekly
so there are a lot of back issues to go
through looking for something to cast
doubt on the hypothesis.


Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
their money is dirty" list.

As you know, I have no such list.
I rely on information content.

BUT, they point to primary
research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
severity, and consequences.


Can you point me to a back issue that does that?

In particular, can you point me to anything that
disputes the accepted values for the increase
in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 20th century?

Can you point me to anything that disputes
that anthropogenic CO2 is being produced at
a rate that exceeds that observed rise in
concentration?

Because, if both of those are true, anthropogenic
global warming is inevitable, absent some other
process with an opposite effect, right?

Then there's this:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php

Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant.

Consensus is alway irrelevant to truth.

We don't know
enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.


Which is a term you still haven't defined.



A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
critics'.

And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
invalid.

I disagree.

Note that I made no reference to the source
of his funding.

Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
that if he's lying, his university position will be
in jeopardy sooner or later.

Obviously I have no need to make fallacious
arguments as you are happy to make them
up yourself and falsely attribute them to me.


Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are

A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
if nothing else.

More like a waste of time, much like arguing with
you.


disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does

Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
rational voices.

Rather he is exaggerating beyond what
is known to argue for what needs to be
done based on what is known.

Being a politician he is used to persuading
people and knows that there are numerous
people who will not be persuaded by a good
argument but will be persuaded by a bad one.
He has now problem making those bad ones,
understanding that the people who ARE
persuaded by the good arguments will not
change their minds. A politician doesn't care
_why_ people support him.

Now, I don't recall that you have ever said that
you have reached a conclusion on the global
warming hypothesis yourself. So I won't claim
that you have made the mistake of thinking that
because a person makes a fallacious argument,
the premise he purports to support MUST be
false. But I think that a lot of people have made
that mistake.


not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
of interest here.

And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
hypothesis.

And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
to look for the contrarian voices.


And in another article or two you presented a few.
Somebody else did us the courtesy of attempting
to discredit them. I'll add that one, Fred Singer
has evidently 'changed sides' though he seems
to be arguing that human influence has not been
significant.

Dr Singer appears to be fond of presenting a
contrarian view to a number of issues about
which a consensus has developed, perhaps
being somewhat analogous to Halton Aarp or
Fred Hoyle, though evidently not as well-liked.



That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
that publicity is substantive.

Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
for myself.

THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.





I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified.
You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.
But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
that:

a) GW is primarily human caused
b) It's bad
c) We can do something meaningful about it

IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
views.

a) No. I am far from convinced that there
is unambiguous evidence of recent global
warming. I am convinced that global warming
is inevitable if present trends continue.

b) Global warming has potential for catastrophic
consequences. The Methane clathrates in
particular have the potential to extinguish
human life.

c) Yes. And more than is commonly realized.
In particular we have been doing something
about it for the last 50 years without realizing
it.


I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.

But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.

That offer still stands.


...
What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
it was believed to be so.

In
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e2667f2dee4a?d...
you wrote:

"That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "

'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
my intention in both statements is obviously identical.


Fine.

Both statements are wrong.

It is incontrovertibly established that increasing
atmospheric CO2 is causative of global warming.



You went on to add:

"The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
injection
into the carbon cycle."

This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
we are not currently in an ice age.


Indeed, I didn't snip it for fear you might have
thought it was in someway meaningful.



I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:

" I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly "

I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
when you made it.

No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
say it this way:

No, I addressed exactly what you said and now
you are claiming that you meant something that is
very different.

You denied that increasing atmospheric CO2
was causative of global warming. Adding the
word 'primary' as a qualifier corrects your earlier
error.

That one word makes the difference between
a statement that is false and one that is true.
You may think that truth and falsity are
'very small semantic differences', but I do not.


CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
of GW,

Now you add the words 'sole or primary', again
correcting your earlier error.

Those are not subtleties, small semantic differences,
or nuances. Those words have meaning and their
use makes as much difference as using or omitting
a trivial little three-letter word like 'not'.

Understand?


though many scientists believe the data point that way.
CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.

False again.

It doesn't matter how the CO2 gets into the
atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is
causative of global warming.

Your reference to the warming since the end
of the last ice age is non sequitor. You are
making the mistake of assuming that to prove
that something is causative of warming,
warming must be observed.

That is simply not true.

Consider a familiar example, the laboratory
constant temperature bath. The bath is a
tank of water into which a coil of tubing is
inserted. Coolant, typically cold tap water,
is run continuously through the coil. A heater,
usually a thermostatically controlled electrical
resistance heater is also placed in the bath
and there is also an agitator to keep the water
mixing.

If the various parameters are adequately
matched the bath will maintain a (near)
constant temperature. The cooling coil
is indisputable causative of cooling the
bath, and the heater is is indisputably
causative of heating the bath DESPITE
the fact that no temperature change is
observed. Those we know from basic
Physics. If we attempt to prove either
merely by observing the water bath and
while ignoring basic Physics we cannot
for each is a factor that confounds our
observation of the effect of the other.

Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is similarly
indisputably causative of global warming. That
follows from the basic Physics that establishes
the greenhouse effect. It we attempt to prove that
by observation, while simultaneously ignoring
all we already know from Physics, we cannot
for there are many, many confounding factors
to contend with.

Your attempts (not just yours, but everybody's,
including Al Gore's) to use geological records to
prove or disprove that increasing CO2 is causative
of global warming is non sequitor. How does it
feel to make the same mistakes as Al Gore?


I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.


You have said two completely different things.
One was correct, the other not.

Increasing concentrations of atmospheric
carbon dioxide are indisputably causative
of global warming. No person who understands
the greenhouse effect can honestly deny that.
That is why it is so important to correct you
on that.

--

FF

I guess younever heard of al gore? think real hard!he's the only one
which was elected president in 2k not shrub! I guess you think
getting elected by the will of the people mean's your not prominent!
LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!! you know where al gore went
to before he got in politic's? it's a little place called C-O-L-L-E-
G-E!thank's for proveing you do'nt know you learn science in college!
he proved global warming from people driveing suvs guess where? in
the good old U S of A! I hope you like liveing under water because
that's where you're gonna be a a few year's if the republiCON loon's
get there way!

In article .com,
says...
Perhaps the Fourth time will be the charm....

On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, wrote:
SNIP
SNIP

I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.
What is your evidence?
The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
voice in the climatology community.

How about if you just _name_ someone?

FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
'support' the global warming hypothesis either.

Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists.

Splorf!

Of course not.

This is, of course,
a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying exists.

As you will recall, you were responding to:

"FWIW, I don't know the names of any
prominent scientists who 'support' the
global warming hypothesis either."

That is because all of the scientists whom
I know by name and whom I also know
'support' global warming, are among my
personal friends and associates. None
of whom, I assume you have ever heard of.
Thus, THEY are not 'prominent'.

I don't give a rat's ass about the prominence of
the sources you present. I care about what
they have to say.

But don't let that spoil the enjoyment you
get from misconstruing my sentence to falsely
imply that I was presenting some sort of
fallacious argument.

Oh, your assertion that I claimed there were
no dissenting scientists is also false. What
*I* claimed was that you had not demonstrated
that. That claim was true.

But again, I'm sure it is much more fun to
make something up.


But, in fact, (and you know this)
there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.

Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
include his first name or to reference something
he has written?

I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.

There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
look for it and send it along if I find it.

Then there is this site:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp

Volume 10, number 12 and it's a weekly
so there are a lot of back issues to go
through looking for something to cast
doubt on the hypothesis.


Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
their money is dirty" list.

As you know, I have no such list.
I rely on information content.

BUT, they point to primary
research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
severity, and consequences.


Can you point me to a back issue that does that?

In particular, can you point me to anything that
disputes the accepted values for the increase
in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 20th century?

Can you point me to anything that disputes
that anthropogenic CO2 is being produced at
a rate that exceeds that observed rise in
concentration?

Because, if both of those are true, anthropogenic
global warming is inevitable, absent some other
process with an opposite effect, right?

Then there's this:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php

Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant.

Consensus is alway irrelevant to truth.

We don't know
enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.


Which is a term you still haven't defined.



A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
critics'.

And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
invalid.

I disagree.

Note that I made no reference to the source
of his funding.

Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
that if he's lying, his university position will be
in jeopardy sooner or later.

Obviously I have no need to make fallacious
arguments as you are happy to make them
up yourself and falsely attribute them to me.


Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are

A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
if nothing else.

More like a waste of time, much like arguing with
you.


disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does

Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
rational voices.

Rather he is exaggerating beyond what
is known to argue for what needs to be
done based on what is known.

Being a politician he is used to persuading
people and knows that there are numerous
people who will not be persuaded by a good
argument but will be persuaded by a bad one.
He has now problem making those bad ones,
understanding that the people who ARE
persuaded by the good arguments will not
change their minds. A politician doesn't care
_why_ people support him.

Now, I don't recall that you have ever said that
you have reached a conclusion on the global
warming hypothesis yourself. So I won't claim
that you have made the mistake of thinking that
because a person makes a fallacious argument,
the premise he purports to support MUST be
false. But I think that a lot of people have made
that mistake.


not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
of interest here.

And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
hypothesis.

And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
to look for the contrarian voices.


And in another article or two you presented a few.
Somebody else did us the courtesy of attempting
to discredit them. I'll add that one, Fred Singer
has evidently 'changed sides' though he seems
to be arguing that human influence has not been
significant.

Dr Singer appears to be fond of presenting a
contrarian view to a number of issues about
which a consensus has developed, perhaps
being somewhat analogous to Halton Aarp or
Fred Hoyle, though evidently not as well-liked.



That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
that publicity is substantive.

Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
for myself.

THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.





I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified.
You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.
But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
that:

a) GW is primarily human caused
b) It's bad
c) We can do something meaningful about it

IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
views.

a) No. I am far from convinced that there
is unambiguous evidence of recent global
warming. I am convinced that global warming
is inevitable if present trends continue.

b) Global warming has potential for catastrophic
consequences. The Methane clathrates in
particular have the potential to extinguish
human life.

c) Yes. And more than is commonly realized.
In particular we have been doing something
about it for the last 50 years without realizing
it.


I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.

But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.

That offer still stands.


...
What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
it was believed to be so.

In
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e2667f2dee4a?d...
you wrote:

"That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "

'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
my intention in both statements is obviously identical.


Fine.

Both statements are wrong.

It is incontrovertibly established that increasing
atmospheric CO2 is causative of global warming.



You went on to add:

"The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
injection
into the carbon cycle."

This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
we are not currently in an ice age.


Indeed, I didn't snip it for fear you might have
thought it was in someway meaningful.



I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:

" I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly "

I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
when you made it.

No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
say it this way:

No, I addressed exactly what you said and now
you are claiming that you meant something that is
very different.

You denied that increasing atmospheric CO2
was causative of global warming. Adding the
word 'primary' as a qualifier corrects your earlier
error.

That one word makes the difference between
a statement that is false and one that is true.
You may think that truth and falsity are
'very small semantic differences', but I do not.


CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
of GW,

Now you add the words 'sole or primary', again
correcting your earlier error.

Those are not subtleties, small semantic differences,
or nuances. Those words have meaning and their
use makes as much difference as using or omitting
a trivial little three-letter word like 'not'.

Understand?


though many scientists believe the data point that way.
CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.

False again.

It doesn't matter how the CO2 gets into the
atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is
causative of global warming.

Your reference to the warming since the end
of the last ice age is non sequitor. You are
making the mistake of assuming that to prove
that something is causative of warming,
warming must be observed.

That is simply not true.

Consider a familiar example, the laboratory
constant temperature bath. The bath is a
tank of water into which a coil of tubing is
inserted. Coolant, typically cold tap water,
is run continuously through the coil. A heater,
usually a thermostatically controlled electrical
resistance heater is also placed in the bath
and there is also an agitator to keep the water
mixing.

If the various parameters are adequately
matched the bath will maintain a (near)
constant temperature. The cooling coil
is indisputable causative of cooling the
bath, and the heater is is indisputably
causative of heating the bath DESPITE
the fact that no temperature change is
observed. Those we know from basic
Physics. If we attempt to prove either
merely by observing the water bath and
while ignoring basic Physics we cannot
for each is a factor that confounds our
observation of the effect of the other.

Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is similarly
indisputably causative of global warming. That
follows from the basic Physics that establishes
the greenhouse effect. It we attempt to prove that
by observation, while simultaneously ignoring
all we already know from Physics, we cannot
for there are many, many confounding factors
to contend with.

Your attempts (not just yours, but everybody's,
including Al Gore's) to use geological records to
prove or disprove that increasing CO2 is causative
of global warming is non sequitor. How does it
feel to make the same mistakes as Al Gore?


I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.


You have said two completely different things.
One was correct, the other not.

Increasing concentrations of atmospheric
carbon dioxide are indisputably causative
of global warming. No person who understands
the greenhouse effect can honestly deny that.
That is why it is so important to correct you
on that.

--

FF