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.

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

bull****. As a retired rocket scientist, I know that the problem
resides in the blogosphere.
gak,
jo4hn

jo4hn wrote:

Steve wrote:

Sun Responsible for Global Warming
As Reported on NewsMax 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.


As a retired rocket scientist, I know that the problem
resides in the blogosphere.

You're all wrong. Global warming is caused by all the hot air Al Gore
emits.

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?

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve wrote:
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
As Reported on NewsMax

You missplet "misreported".


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.

And during the same period of time, solar irradiance has been
decreasing:

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

JPL and NASA have their own web pages on the subject:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/ca...rel/index.html

See also:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ch...rming_999.html

--

FF

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve wrote:
[snipperectofied]

BUNK!

ORRRRRR, as they say in Quebec-- BUNQUE!

*I* did work on the Iriqois[sic] engine heat exchanger... yea, yea.. I
know I'm an EE, it was part of my easy credits--- fluid dynamics.

The AVRO Arrow was better than anything my friends in the US had in
their day.... it was killed by Diefenbaker because it ruffled too many
feathers with the WE ARE THE BEST engineers in the US.

Assholes.

r

Mon, Mar 5, 2007, 11:37am (EST-2) (Steve) who doth
burble a batch of BS that was snipped.

You cold have at least had the courtesy to label this off-topic.
And this is hardly the proper newsgroup, don'tcha think?

I figure the global warming is cause by all thethane generated
from all the bull **** posts about global warming. Ya little troll.




JOAT
It was too early in the morning for it to be early in the morning. That
was the only thing that he currently knew for sure.
- Clodpool

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....

wrote:

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

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



Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

On Mar 5, 5:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?

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

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

Yet when asked, you can produce no evidence to support that
absurd claim.

Now you will probably reply, saying you have already provided
that evidence, but won't tell us what it is or where to find it.

Or you'll just rant.

--

FF

On Mar 5, 4:32 pm, (J T) wrote:
Mon, Mar 5, 2007, 11:37am (EST-2) (Steve) who doth
burble a batch of BS that was snipped.

You cold have at least had the courtesy to label this off-topic.
And this is hardly the proper newsgroup, don'tcha think?

I figure the global warming is cause by all thethane generated
from all the bull **** posts about global warming. Ya little troll.


Well, did you really think that an article with the subject:
"The REAL Cause of Glpbal Warming"
was going to be on topic?

--

FF

GEORGE W BUSH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL AMERICAS TROUBLES AND GLOBAL WARMING!!!
THIS NEEDED TO POSTEDE ON A WOOD WORKING GROUP!!!

In article ,
says...
GEORGE W BUSH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL AMERICAS TROUBLES AND GLOBAL WARMING!!!
THIS NEEDED TO POSTEDE ON A WOOD WORKING GROUP!!!

In much the same way that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a direct
result of Ron & Nancy Reagans' misguided belief that abstinence can
prevent the spread of STDs.

What is this Glpbal thing you mention? ;~)



Anyway, for those that believe "man" is responsible for Global warming,
"Man" has influenced Mars with probes, rovers, and other stuff that has
crash landed there. Therefore man is causing global warming on Mars also.

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....

thousands of his peers are right. Does it make sense to agree with one
scientist just because he fits comfortably into our personal political
ideology?
In fact, this morning's news reported that China's current explosive
growth may soon make it the world's leader in CO2 emissions. Does this
mean that we can now blame the Commies?
Yes, there may be a valid case for non-human causation, but that does
not create a dichotomy--either one or the other. Maybe there is more
than one cause for global warming and human causation is understood much
better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.
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.

Bob

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....



Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
wrote:
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....

thousands of his peers are right. Does it make sense to agree with one
scientist just because he fits comfortably into our personal political
ideology?

No more sense than supposing that scientific truth can be decided by majority
vote.

In fact, this morning's news reported that China's current explosive
growth may soon make it the world's leader in CO2 emissions. Does this
mean that we can now blame the Commies?

Well, yes. Obviously.

Yes, there may be a valid case for non-human causation, but that does
not create a dichotomy--either one or the other. Maybe there is more
than one cause for global warming

Probably so.

and human causation is understood much
better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.

Probably not.

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.


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

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

In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....



Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as a *substitute*
for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.

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

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

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....



Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...

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?

On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:

...

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as
a *substitute* for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.

The news media, public, and governments _sometimes_ rely upon
consensus within a scientific field as a substitute for "overwhelming"
evidence simply because they do not understand the underlying
theory needed to evaluate the evidence.

Within a scientific field consensus is built when scientists who DO
understand the underlying theory reach similar conclusions from
that evidence. Controversy over the relationship between smoking
and various illnesses was settled within medical researchers decades
before the government and public accepted those conclusions.

Scientists, when considering scientific issues outside of their
area of specialization are not necessarily any better, and indeed
may be worse, than the public as a whole. Cold fusion comes
to mind. Need I mention the DI's list of 'scientists' who 'question'
evolution, most of who are not scientists at all and almost
none of whom are biologists or zoologists? So if you poll
scientists who do not study climatology then you may
well find that they rely on their perception of consensus
within the field of climatology.

Have you any evidence that the _climatologists_ are relying
on consensus instead of evidence?

Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...

IOW, when challenged to provide something to support your accusation,
you deny making it.

How light were you feeling when you wrote:

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists
find out the truth of things by voting on them. It is
consensus, not data, that drives this bunch.


You did not write "Gore finds out the truth by..."

--

FF

On Mar 6, 9:53 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

..

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.


Cite?

Preferably one that breaks the numbers down according to
type of 'stuff'.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 9:53 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

...

and human causation is understood much
better than non-human, that's all I'm saying.

Probably not.


How do you figure that?

Don't you think that we have a pretty good handle on how much
fossil fuel is produced worldwide, and nearly as good a handle
on how much cement is produced?

Where do the uncertainties in human production of CO2 lie?

As far as the natural world is concerned, we can be a lot
less confident that nature doesn't have something hidden
from us. Consider the recent discoveries of a an undersea
CO2 lake, and arctic methane clathrates.

--

FF

In article m, wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall
wrote:

...

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as
a *substitute* for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.

The news media, public, and governments _sometimes_ rely upon
consensus within a scientific field as a substitute for "overwhelming"
evidence simply because they do not understand the underlying
theory needed to evaluate the evidence.

Within a scientific field consensus is built when scientists who DO
understand the underlying theory reach similar conclusions from
that evidence. Controversy over the relationship between smoking
and various illnesses was settled within medical researchers decades
before the government and public accepted those conclusions.

Scientists, when considering scientific issues outside of their
area of specialization are not necessarily any better, and indeed
may be worse, than the public as a whole. Cold fusion comes
to mind. Need I mention the DI's list of 'scientists' who 'question'
evolution, most of who are not scientists at all and almost
none of whom are biologists or zoologists? So if you poll
scientists who do not study climatology then you may
well find that they rely on their perception of consensus
within the field of climatology.

Have you any evidence that the _climatologists_ are relying
on consensus instead of evidence?

Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.

I might remind you that of the well-known list of however many thousand
scientists it was who all affirmed the notion of anthropogenic global warming,
only a tiny minority actually are climatologists...

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

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

wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....
Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.
Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.
Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...

IOW, when challenged to provide something to support your accusation,
you deny making it.

How light were you feeling when you wrote:

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists
find out the truth of things by voting on them. It is
consensus, not data, that drives this bunch.


You did not write "Gore finds out the truth by..."

--

FF


Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in "Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group
that even you have vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists.

2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well).

I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

wrote:
SNIP

Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.


And you are (quite dishonestly) arguing as if there is essentially
no material disagreement within the climatology community. You
cannot bring yourself to speak the truth: The current state of
climatology does NOT justify the claimed level of confidence of
cause/effect/end result associated with global warming. This is
not to say it never will - it might, it might not. But the incredible
levels of confidence about what causes gw, how severe it is, and what
its outcomes will be simply cannot be *demonstrated by the data at hand*,
at least not to the point of being inarguable.

This breathtaking confidence in the absence of proof is a *political*
behavior whenever it occurs, whether by trained climatologists or
trained chimps like Gore...

On Mar 6, 4:34 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

SNIP



Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.

And you are (quite dishonestly) arguing as if there is essentially
no material disagreement within the climatology community.

Please demonstrate the existence of material disagreement
within the climatology community.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
"... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
One out of how many?
Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
because....
Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists find out the truth
of things by voting on them. It is consensus, not data, that drives
this bunch.
Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.
Sigh. My, my, how sensitive we are when mere mortals question dare to question
the High Priests. For the record, I was not referring to *scientists*. I was
referring to the popular expositors like Gore who take science - incomplete
science in this case - and imbue it with breathtaking certainty by means
of the "consensus" argument. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that
scientists use voting in the practice of their profession. You and Freddy
need to lighten up...

IOW, when challenged to provide something to support your accusation,
you deny making it.

How light were you feeling when you wrote:

Because ... in Global Warming Orthodoxy, scientists
find out the truth of things by voting on them. It is
consensus, not data, that drives this bunch.

You did not write "Gore finds out the truth by..."

--

FF

Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
"Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists

False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."


2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.


3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)

I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.
..

I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.

--

FF

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..
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.

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

Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
"Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists

False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."

Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
it does make meaningful discussion difficult.

Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.


2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.

Right, but in an *entirely different* context. I have argued that that scientific
method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
discussion, hence I did not bring it up.



3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)

I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.

I will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
of words, phrases, and general semantics.

.
I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.


I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly. 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. 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...

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

SNIP

Let me help you digest my sentence so that your exposition will be more attuned
with Reality:

1) Note that the named class was those with membership in
"Global Warming Orthodoxy" - a group that even you have
vigorously argued does NOT largely contain scientists

False. My argument is that the "Global Warming Orthodoxy"
is a straw man you invented. I assume it to be a subset of another
of your straw men "Scientific Orthodoxy."

Well, if you want to invent meaning I did not intend, you're welcome to, but
it does make meaningful discussion difficult.

I didn't invent any meaning you did not intend. You claimed that I
had vigorusly argued about who belongs to your "Global Warming
Orthodoxy". In fact I did not. I addressed how the media, the
public, and the
government reaches its conclusions.


Incidentally, just because I identify a group broadly does not inherently make it a
strawman. (You seem to like to resort to calling things strawmen when you cannot
rationally defend your position.) There *is* a GW Orthodoxy - it is evident in
popular culture, media, and politics. To deny it is to be obtuse beyond words.


That depends on how one defines "Orthodoxy". If you define it
synonymously with "conventional wisdom then yes, there are a
multitude of such "Orthodoxies".



2) Note also the context. I was responding to a part of the thread that involved (at least
obliquely) a reference to the consensus argument. Again, clearly not the method of
scientists. "Consensus" is the method and argument of media, politicians, and the
global warming religionists whom I *am* attacking.

In the past when you have ranted about "Scientific Orthodoxy"
and I have suggested that scientists on the scientific and not on
consensus, you have disagreed.

Right, but in an *entirely different* context.

'Intelligent Design' as I recall.

I have argued that that scientific
method may be more-or-less dispassionate, but scientists are not. They get married
to their cherished theories in much the same way anyone else might. That's *why*
the scientific method was developed - to separate the ideas from the person and test
the ideas in light of data, experiment, analysis and so on. But the dearly held positions
of scientists themselves do constitute a kind of baked-in orthodoxy that takes
a swift kick to overcome. Someone famously commented that "Funeral by funeral, science
progresses." They were exactly referring to this orthodoxy that tends to discount
new ideas, even/especially at the early discussion and funding phases. Here again, to
deny that this orthodoxy exists is obtuse. It is also not germane to this particular
discussion, hence I did not bring it up.

You used the same terminology, in the context of a different
scientific
hypothesis.

....

3) "Global Warming Orthodoxy" should thus be read specifically to exclude people in their
practice of science (though they may personally hold religious views on the matter as well)

I am glad to see that you are changing your opinions. Next time you
would do well to give us notice, if you chose to use the same words
but define them differently.

I will bear in mind that you need particular help in understanding the plain meaning
of words, phrases, and general semantics.

Here I congratulate you on your progress and yet you sound
rather testy.


.
I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...

Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.

I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly.

The I took you advice and lightened up, making a joke, and you now
seem to be ****ed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?

OTOH, if you think that I am now presenting a different interpretation
of those remarks than I intended when first I wrote them, maybe you
will understand why I have a similar opinion of your remarks.

It is you who makes the claim that I have an 'earth worshiping
religiosity.'
I deny it.

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?


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.

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.

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.

--

FF

wrote:
On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP
SNIP
I don't think I should have to constantly parse standard English for you just because your
religious views on warming require you to walk around with your panties in a permanent knot.
Lighten up...
Good to see you making light of your opinions. Hopefully no one
else takes them seriously either.
I am indifferent to the matter. I await (with bated breath) the actual data that supports
your earth worshiping religiosity incontrovertibly.

The I took you advice and lightened up, making a joke, and you now
seem to be ****ed off. There just is no pleasing you, is there?

But I'm, not ****ed off - this is USENET where nothing really matters.


OTOH, if you think that I am now presenting a different interpretation
of those remarks than I intended when first I wrote them, maybe you
will understand why I have a similar opinion of your remarks.

I hadn't given it much thought.


It is you who makes the claim that I have an 'earth worshiping
religiosity.'
I deny it.

OK, but you're kidding yourself.


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. 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.


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.


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.


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.

Leon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message


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.


That's one group's assessment of the theoretical change on atmospheric
CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct,
what would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its
behavior enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required
to achieve that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop
using fossil fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute
energy source, or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century
technology? Would climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to
mankind? What effect would it have on agriculture? On transportation?
On communications? On modern-day creature comforts? What effect
would the necessary reduction in technology have on mankind? Would the
average standard of living improve, or degrade? Would more people get
proper nourishment, or would more starve to death? What effect on the
spread of disease, etc.?

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..



That's one group's assessment of the theoretical change on atmospheric
CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct, what
would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its behavior
enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required to achieve
that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop using fossil
fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute energy source,
or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century technology? Would
climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to mankind? What effect
would it have on agriculture? On transportation? On communications? On
modern-day creature comforts? What effect would the necessary reduction
in technology have on mankind? Would the average standard of living
improve, or degrade? Would more people get proper nourishment, or would
more starve to death? What effect on the spread of disease, etc.?

I think if we reduced the CO2 emissions TODAY, all of the believers of
Global Warming would be whining about other problems tomorrow. Like how do
I get to work, why does my telephone not work, etc.

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


That's one group's assessment of the theoretical change on atmospheric
CO2. But that wasn't my question. Assuming your figure is correct, what
would be the net global effect on humanity if it changed its behavior
enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2%? What would be required to achieve
that result? For example, Would all of mankind have to stop using fossil
fuels as a energy source? Where would we get a substitute energy source,
or would we have to revert to the Seventeenth century technology? Would
climate conditions be more, or less favorable, to mankind? What effect
would it have on agriculture? On transportation? On communications? On
modern-day creature comforts? What effect would the necessary reduction
in technology have on mankind? Would the average standard of living
improve, or degrade? Would more people get proper nourishment, or would
more starve to death? What effect on the spread of disease, etc.?

I think if we reduced the CO2 emissions TODAY, all of the believers of
Global Warming would be whining about other problems tomorrow. Like how do
I get to work, why does my telephone not work, etc.



We'd also hear questions like:


Why can't I fly in my private jet to lecture everyone else on how to live?

Why can't I heat my huge mansion(s) while writing screeds about what others should do?

How come the planet is still experiencing very slight warming?

Why is the economy collapsing?

Why is the average life expectancy declining?

How come I can't get a good steak any more?

Why are the farmers all broke?

How come there are famines in the developed West for the first time ever?



The greatest danger to civilization as we know it is not global warming. It is
collectivist political ideology mated with a specious extrapolation of known
climate science. People like Gore, for instance, (who epitomizes this) are not
just wrong, they are a menace to free people everywhere...

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


I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
controversy among climatologists.

What is your evidence?

The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
voice in the climatology community.

How about if you just _name_ someone?

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

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

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

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

Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
of interest here.

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

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

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




I have not said now or ever that
your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
position is not currently justified.

You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
composition.

But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
that:

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

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

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

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

...
What is it that you consider to be uncertain?

IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...

You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.

And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
it was believed to be so.


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

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

You went on to add:

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

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

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


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

So, having settled that, what objections remain? Ranting about
'Orthodoxies' not only does not tells us if (let alone what it might
be)
you have a substantive objection, but it tends to lead one to
suspect that you do not.

My "substantive objection" is that science as we understand it today
cannot be used to justify the jump from correlation to causation as
to human action; that it cannot be used to justify these breathtaking
leaps that describe the end of the world as we know it due to GW; that
it cannot be used to justify the argument that mankind can materially
ameoliorate GW (whatever causes it) by changing behavior.

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

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

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

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

--

FF

On Mar 6, 5:54 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message

. ..



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?

The implication of those figures is that nature is
reabsorbing about 80% of the anthropogenic CO2
so that, in the short run at least, stability can be
achieved by a modest reduction to 80% of the
present rate. That's encouraging.

--

FF

On Mar 6, 3:09 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article m, wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall
wrote:

...

Pure bull****. You have absolutely no proof for that ridiculous statement.
Scientists agree because the evidence leads them to a conclusion. that's
why they are scientists and not politicians. Case in point: continental
drift. Forty years ago it was not understood and most scientists in the
earth sciences disagreed with it. Now we have overwhelming evidence and
there is a concensus.

Yes, but the consensus on plate tectonics is the direct result of the
overwhelming evidence. In global warming, consensus is used as
a *substitute* for, and mistaken by many *as*, the overwhelming evidence.

The news media, public, and governments _sometimes_ rely upon
consensus within a scientific field as a substitute for "overwhelming"
evidence simply because they do not understand the underlying
theory needed to evaluate the evidence.

Within a scientific field consensus is built when scientists who DO
understand the underlying theory reach similar conclusions from
that evidence. Controversy over the relationship between smoking
and various illnesses was settled within medical researchers decades
before the government and public accepted those conclusions.

Scientists, when considering scientific issues outside of their
area of specialization are not necessarily any better, and indeed
may be worse, than the public as a whole. Cold fusion comes
to mind. Need I mention the DI's list of 'scientists' who 'question'
evolution, most of who are not scientists at all and almost
none of whom are biologists or zoologists? So if you poll
scientists who do not study climatology then you may
well find that they rely on their perception of consensus
within the field of climatology.

Have you any evidence that the _climatologists_ are relying
on consensus instead of evidence?

Yourself, Mr Daneliuk, and Mark or Juanita seem to be
confusing the media's reliance on consensus within the
scientific community with a supposed, and never demonstrated
reliance upon consensus within the field of climatology itself.

I might remind you that of the well-known list of however many thousand
scientists it was who all affirmed the notion of anthropogenic global warming,
only a tiny minority actually are climatologists...


In the future you might remind me. In the instant
case, you were informing for the first time. I wasn't
aware of such a list.

And I quite agree that it is no more indicative of
truth than the list of Steves.

--

FF

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.