Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.


Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)


But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.


People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true -- for example the 20' sea level rise
by 2100. That number was pushed by Gore in his "movie," and no one
stands by it. His images of storms, floods, and mudslides had
positively nothing -- I repeat nothing -- to do with "Global warming"
-- they were scenes of things that have happened for millennia on this
planet -- storms, floods, and mudslides.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

And that's the problem -- legitimate science by definition is a
process of hypothesis, evidence, test, rebuttal, and alteration of
hypothesis in a continuing (and hopefully evolutionary) cycle.
Therefore "consensus" falls outside best science practice.

Another aside -- The IPCC didn't help its case by limiting trend
graphs to a 10 year period. One of the most telling critiques is that
the rise shown in each falls well within acceptable variability.



Dan

On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


Dan

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


Did you even read the article?

Of course. Better yet, I understood it.

It says "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations."

What part of "after" don't you understand?

No part. What part of "greenhouse effect" don't you understand?


It is then fun to watch them try to refute the data that clearly
contradicts their opinion about CO2 causing global warming rather than
resulting from it.

There is no attempt at refutation of the data. They *know* CO2 is released
when ice ages end.


"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is
that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000
year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused
by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

So the causality magically reverses after 800 years, eh? That is truly
funny.

Nothing magic about it. In this *natural* scenario, CO2 is first a
reinforcer, not a cause. Orbital forcing is strong enough to get the ball
rolling for initiation and termination of ice ages, but it is the greenhouse
effect that maintains earth as a liquid water planet. Increasing greenhouse
gases,whether produced by man or nature, increase the temperature.

Are you denying that increased CO2 produces a warmer climate? Do you know
how the greenhouse effect works? Do you understand the importance of CO2
among the greenhouse gases?

The rest of the article is full of "could" and "might" and other waffle
words simply because these "scientists" simply don't want to accept the
fact that the data contradicts their favorite hypothesis.

And you call this science?

Your spin? No.

You are ignoring the fact that the dramatic CO2 rise of the last 200 years
is *ahead* of the temperature rise. Furthermore, we know that the CO2 rise
is anthropogenic; there is an isotopic smoking gun that tells us so.

BTW, I thought you believed there was no such thing as "a hundred thousand
years ago" on earth. Am I wrong about that?

On Mar 11, 9:40 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that the dramatic CO2 rise of the last 200 years
is *ahead* of the temperature rise. Furthermore, we know that the CO2 rise
is anthropogenic; there is an isotopic smoking gun that tells us so.

Wait -- this is new. Who's made this claim?


Dan

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like
the rest of us.


Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books, and that their professional
organizations and NOAA, the NRC, the USGS and NASA are covering it up. In
short, you have to believe in a conspiracy that dwarfs anything the 9/11
nuts have dreamed up.

Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move on.

Roger wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 10, 9:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Unless he really believes in his cause, in which case he would scrap

Thaks sorta like the difference between the religoius believer and the
fundamentalistic fanitic.

The believer learns to conserve and in harmony with nature and the
resto f the world. The fanatic says, if it doesn't conform, destroy it
or them.

I disagree with almost all of the above. I don't think believers and
fanatics are all that much different when it comes to the crunch. This
isn't just anotion, BTW, I have some experience with this. The fanatic
cannot exist without succour from the mainstream, for one thing. The
beliver may distance themselves from the fanatic, but there's usually
sympathy to one degree or another that enables the fanatic comfort in
his position. This overlay applies to just about every human leaning I
can think of. But science should be and usually is, out of this realm.
Scientists don't "believe" they look at the evidence and make a best
guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..


Bertie

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13td079oh0skja3
@news.supernews.com:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:


Dan wrote:

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

Dan, you are behind the PC power curve. It is now global "climate
change" rather than global warming. The evidence that global
warming
is
starting to ebb is mounting and the fanatics need to stay ahead of
the
data so that they can claim there were right no matter which way the
temperature trends.


Good grief.


How does a so called 'mind' come to operate in this fashion? How is
such
damage done?

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.


It could make one despair if one didn;'t find it entertaining on some
level.


Bertie

On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Bertie

"Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
specific idea, cause, or belief.

All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.


Dan

"Dan" wrote:

:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.

I don't dismiss honest differences of opinion out of hand.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
one can deny your consistency.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's life
forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think straight.
Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.

Oh -- and have we lost our reference for the "isotopic smoking gun"?


Dan