If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 1:51*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
Remember when the scientists were predicting global cooling? Where are those guys when we need them? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/ A snippet from that thread: "I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/." |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote:
No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory? Or is that out of the question? Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 11:53*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 6:08*pm, Tom Gardner wrote: Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for ease of reference) * Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you * that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis * *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced * after it is too late to mitigate the effects. * *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point * in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind. To clarify my earlier response, "yes". I'm pleased to hear it. What evidence/arguments would be sufficient? What, in your opinion, is the very best evidence that this is an imminent problem? There's no single "smoking gun", and your expecting to find one (in advance of irreversible changes) is naive. So, I'm sorry, the best response I can give is the answer can be found by reading learning and inwardly digesting the scientific literature. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote: Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE gold standard of science. What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you don't want to contribute. No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you require? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
In article Tom Gardner writes:
Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for ease of reference) Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced after it is too late to mitigate the effects. *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind. And what evidince or argument is needed to convince you of the opposite? Perhaps closed minds call the kettle black? Alan |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote: On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote: Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE gold standard of science. What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you don't want to contribute. No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you require? One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times. After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune). |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On 25 Dec, 05:22, Greg Arnold wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: T8 wrote: On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, jcarlyle wrote: Au contraire, T8 - doing the test that disproves the theory is THE gold standard of science. What you're seeking, with your demand for raw data and source code, is merely an opportunity to cherry pick to enable you to ridicule - you don't want to contribute. No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. There are many models in use by scientists around the world, using a number of different datasets. How many people and how many tests do you require? One would suppose that such tests already have occurred many times. After all, a scientist who was able to disprove global warming would achieve extraordinary fame (and fortune).- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The issues: 1) We have burnt rather a lot of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, in the last hundred years or so. 2) Many rain forests have been cut down to allow the land to used for other purposes. Trees consume large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere for photosynthesis. 3) The human population is expanding at a considerable rate. At least in the developed World all these folk expect to live in heated and air- conditioned houses, to drive cars and to travel by aircraft. On the other hand: 1) We seem to be living in a natural interglacial period. Only a few tens of thousands of years ago much of North America and Northern Europe was covered in ice. 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out. 3) Reasonably accurate temperature measurement has only been possible for a few hundred years, so to say that there is a trend of increasing temperatures may only be looking at a very short term and natural variation in terms of the entire history of the planet. In any case the average global temperature seems to have stabilised again, which is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as 'climate change'! 4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each person's carbon footprint. 5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them as much as possible. 6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike, famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they had it made! Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct), Derek Copeland |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
To get off of religion for a minute it is amazing how many people
believe contrails are evidence that the government is spraying the population with something. Maybe it’s just the loons out here in the west but I caught a call-in radio program a while back discussing contrails and people were calling in expressing their belief in the conspiracy. Part of there proof that it wasn't a natural occurrence was because the planes only sprayed at certain times. Hard to argue with that logic. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote: No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory? Or is that out of the question? Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided! The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW. However, I believe that burden also includes providing every opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely required. My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such errors are factual and provable. I am after truth. Yes, I am naive. This was driven home very nicely by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain faced about this. But it fits. We don't share the same scientific ethics. Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously check their work. To deny that a great number of researchers in the AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of laughter. Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a whole. I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. They've earned this. I hold them in contempt. If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/ costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary or economically desirable". But if the current state of the art in AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc. -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
delboy wrote:
/snip/ 2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out. Happy Christmas (sorry, Festive Season to the Politically Correct), /snip/ Derek Copeland Recent investigations suggest most extinctions have occurred at the hot point of climate cycles, I read in a recent copy of New Scientist (sorry the reference is wishy-washy...) Brian W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |