contrails

Gary Evans wrote:
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.


I live in cotton country, which as you probably don't know,
is Oklahoma.
Cotton spraying is the largest single vector for agri chemicals.
We get contrails. They are about 20 feet off the ground.

Unfortunately, they blow into town - specially the small towns like the
one where I live. People start complaining about their allergies,
and asthmatics stay indoors. People get headaches. Others walk round
carrying small oxygen bottles.

The cotton business is heavily subsidized. In this locality, there
is a pretty lake - actually a reservoir 20 miles north, with a big canal
system to carry irrigation water. This is a popular tourist destination.
The lake water is drained for irrigation, carrying sport fish to
their final destinations. The tourists fade away. The fish are uneatable
if caught in the irrigation ditches. You know - the crop sprays.

Brian W

T8 wrote:

I am after truth. Yes, I am naive.

-Evan Ludeman / T8


Not only Evan, but some researchers think they are about seeking truth.

It's the most amusing thing. If you mention that their business is
about making models, improving models, and contradicting models, they
are aghast. But models are all we have. And the process works very,
very nicely. You know: Evolution by Natural Selection: General &
Special Relativity. Thermodynamics. the Germ Theory of Disease.

Brian W

On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 wrote:
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

Really appreciate your point of view Evan.

Mike Carris

T8 wrote:
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.


Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have
the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
opposition?

On Dec 25, 12:11*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 wrote:





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

Really appreciate your point of view Evan.

Mike Carris

Ditto............

On Dec 25, 3:36*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:

Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have
the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
opposition?

(!!!!!)

Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:

My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
my throat.

If you want to discuss science, email me.

-T8

T8 wrote:
On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:

Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have
the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
opposition?

(!!!!!)

Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:

My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
my throat.

If you want to discuss science, email me.

-T8


Ah, so this really is about politics. You don't want one public policy
(dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy
(doing nothing). In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy
down the throat of the others, right?

On Dec 25, 5:11*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
T8 wrote:
On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:

Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have
the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of
opposition?

(!!!!!)

Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly:

My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any
other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe
and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea
that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down
my throat.

If you want to discuss science, email me.

-T8

Ah, so this really is about politics. *You don't want one public policy
(dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy
(doing nothing). *In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy
down the throat of the others, right?

Of course it's political! Not solely, but....

There's a non-trivial asymmetry in those two cases politically. Hope
that's obvious. I don't think we should argue that here....

-T8

Alan wrote:
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?

There are a number of things that would do it:

* evidence that the cloud models seriously understate the amount of
cloud that will form as the global temperatures rise
* someone finally figuring out a way for cosmic rays to produce the
clouds the proponents think they do
* the discovery that satellite measurements have under-reported
incoming energy
* adding more measurement stations to the sparsely instrumented
polar regions determines the warming there is much less than
previously estimated.
* a new theory, supported by measurements, the CO2 forcing is
significantly lower than current theories require
* a study demonstrating each method used to determine sea level rise
has flaws widening the error bands significantly.
* deep sea measurements showing the ocean circulation currents are
much different than thought, requiring significant changes in heat
transfer and dissolved CO2 parameters.

A climate scientist, or even a knowledgeable lay person, could name a
lot more, of course. There are a lot factors in climate dynamics, so
there are many places a person can look for potential errors in theory
and measurements.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

delboy wrote:
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.

Even the alarmists with the widest eyes aren't suggesting life on earth
will be wiped out, only that "business as usual" will result in
significant and substantial changes in the climate and sea level that
will affect all of us.
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,
"Seems" ignores the science and the data. That claim is usually based on
the HadCRUT3 data, which tends to under report the warming because it
ignores the polar regions; the other datasets "seem" to show more
warming. The current decade still shows rising temperatures despite
natural warming events like el Nino are at minimums, and the heat
content of the oceans continues to rise at about the same rate, and
that's a lot of heat.
which
is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as
'climate change'!

An artifact of uninformed media coverage, and some relabeling effort a
few years ago by people that wanted to direct attention away from global
warming and thought "climate change" didn't sound so scary. The
scientists were never confused about what the words meant.
4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each
person's carbon footprint.

Yes, and even China has declared important per capita energy reduction
goals, but that will still not stop the rise in their emissions, nor are
these changes elsewhere happening fast enough, and it is unlikely to
without somehow pricing CO2 (and equivalent) emissions.
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.

"Eventually" is hundreds of years for coal, far beyond the current
danger timelines.
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!

And all of these will be easier to deal with if we aren't already in big
trouble with climate problems.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly