The REAL Cause of Glpbal Warming

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 9, 7:43 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >There are three obvious explanations:
>>
>> [for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]
>>
>> >Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
>> >capable of our technology to get started in the
>> >first place, or most of those that do are shy
>> >about accidentally or deliberately making their
>> >existence known, or they don't last long after
>> >making it to our level of technology.
>>
>> A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
>> technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
>> example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
>> transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.
>>
>By that point such a civilization _could_ deliberately broadcast
>to its potential if slightly less advanced neighbors at very little
>societal cost. We have done so briefly, and may do so again.
>
>So your example fits into the second category of what I call
>'shy' civlizations.

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

:-)

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

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

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve <[email protected]> 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=tsi/composite/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/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html

See also:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

--

FF

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve <[email protected]> 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

On Mar 5, 1:13 pm, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> 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....

On Mar 5, 5:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] 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, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Mon, Mar 5, 2007, 11:37am (EST-2) [email protected] (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 shit 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

On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Pure bullshit. 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Schmall wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (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

On Mar 6, 4:34 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bob Schmall wrote:
> >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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

On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> 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 pissed 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

On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> 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.woodworking/msg/2426e2667f2dee4a?dmode=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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> >> <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >Pure bullshit. 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

On Mar 7, 3:34 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >> From what I have heard, 2% less CO2.
>
> > Wow! That's HUGE!
>
> Considering that 98% would still be produced by breathing and other things
> that cannot be stopped, that is teny tiny. Not 2% per year, Every year
> would only be 2% less to give up life as we all know it.

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

Here are some figures for data through 1996:

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

>From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)

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

Total emitted: 157

Total absorbed: 154

Net change: +3

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

That estimate many be low, however:

At
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/fa04-catalyst-forest-carbon-sequestration.html?print=t

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

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

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

--

FF

On Mar 8, 6:23 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
> > 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
> > the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
> > stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.
>
> Correct. Not a continued 2% decrease per year, 2% of the total today and
> the total every day after.

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

Do I have it right here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/5fbd19e429695aca?dmode=source&hl=en

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

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

--

FF

On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
> >http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap1.html
>
> >>From Table 2 (all values in Gigatonnes per year)
>
> > Naturally emitted : 150
> > Anthropogenic: 7.1 (That's your 2% value, right?)
>
> > Total emitted: 157
>
> > Total absorbed: 154
>
> > Net change: +3
...
>
>
>
> Assume this is all true as presented -
> I have no way of knowing whether the measurement/calculation
> models used are correct.

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

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

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

I can give you some reasons why it is.

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

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

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

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

That third possibility is sobering.

For some of us.

--

FF

On Mar 9, 7:43 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >There are three obvious explanations:
>
> [for the failure, so far, of the SETI program to find anything]
>
> >Either it is rather unusual for a civilization
> >capable of our technology to get started in the
> >first place, or most of those that do are shy
> >about accidentally or deliberately making their
> >existence known, or they don't last long after
> >making it to our level of technology.
>
> A fourth one: Most of them, after reaching the level of our current
> technology, don't stay at that level very long, but progress beyond it -- for
> example, abandoning broadcast communication in favor of optical fiber
> transmission would drastically reduce a planet's RF signature.
>

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

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

A fourth case could be the Prime Directive.

--


FF

On Mar 5, 5:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:13 pm, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Steve wrote:
> > > Sun Responsible for Global Warming
> > > As Reported on NewsMax
>
> > > Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
> > > instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
> > > changes in the sun.
>
> > > One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
> > > warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate
> > > changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
> > > scientist's controversial theory.
>
> > > Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
> > > disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars' south pole had
> > > been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
>
> > > Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory
> > > in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current
> > > warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to
> > > the National Geographic article.
>
> > > "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
> > > and Mars, he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small
> > > contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it
> > > cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.
>
> > > The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun
> > > variations in its magnetic field.
>
> > > Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it
> > > maintains that the Earth's climate is strongly influenced by cosmic
> > > rays from exploded stars.
>
> > > The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
> > > cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to
> > > milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by
> > > Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on
> > > Environment & Public Works, on the committee's Web site.
>
> > > "Cosmic ray intensities and therefore cloudiness keep changing because
> > > the sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays
> > > coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth, the Danish report
> > > by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
>
> > > Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities
> > > were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age
> > > that climaxed 300 years ago.
>
> > > Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the
> > > Earth's climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
> > > through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
> > > encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
> > > intense.
>
> > "... according to one scientist's controversial theory."
> > One out of how many?
>
> Please continue your thought. One scientist cannot be right
> because....

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

FF

On Mar 12, 4:39 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 12:53 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> ...
> ><S NIP>
> >> It could well be (and I'm not saying it is,
> >> I'm merely proposing a thought experiment)
> >> that the natural planetary feedback mechanisms
> >> encourage the buildup of CO2 in the face of, say,
> >> deforestation, exactly to create an
> >> environment conducive to ... forest growth.
>
> > So that's what, your Intelligent climate design
> > hypothesis?
>
> No, it the "the planet may actually exhibit feedback towards
> quiescence" hypothesis. Hardly a remarkable idea ...

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

--

FF

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

On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> <SNIP>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>> I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
> >>> in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
> >>> and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
> >>> controversy among climatologists.
> >>> What is your evidence?
> >> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
> >> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
> >> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
> >> voice in the climatology community.
>
> > How about if you just _name_ someone?
>
> > FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
> > 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
>
> Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists.

Splorf!

Of course not.

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

As you will recall, you were responding to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >> But, in fact, (and you know this)
> >> there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
> >> in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
> >> we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
>
> > Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
> > with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
> > include his first name or to reference something
> > he has written?
>
> I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
> Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
> entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
> summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
> and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
> of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
> but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
> Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
> that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
> journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
> and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
> it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
> in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.
>
> There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
> that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
> severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
> look for it and send it along if I find it.
>
> Then there is this site:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Then there's this:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
>
> Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
> Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant.

Consensus is alway irrelevant to truth.

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

Which is a term you still haven't defined.

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

>
> > Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
> > Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
>
> A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
> if nothing else.

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

>
> > disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
> > were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
> > someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
> > to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
> > none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
>
> Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
> in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
> ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
> why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
> rational voices.

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

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

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

>
> > not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
> > concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
> > on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
> > of interest here.
>
> > And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
> > at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
> > hypothesis.
>
> And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
> to look for the contrarian voices.
>

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

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

>
>
> > That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
> > like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
> > for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
> > that publicity is substantive.
>
> > Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
> > causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
> > for myself.
>
> THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
> with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
> Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
> scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
> of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
> to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
> was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
> were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
> good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> I have not said now or ever that
> >>>> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
> >>>> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
> >>>> position is not currently justified.
> >>> You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
> >>> My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
> >>> conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
> >>> composition.
> >> But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
> >> that:
>
> >> a) GW is primarily human caused
> >> b) It's bad
> >> c) We can do something meaningful about it
>
> >> IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
> >> views.

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

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

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

>
> > I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
> > I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
> > avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
> > as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.
>
> > But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
> > Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.

That offer still stands.

>
> >> ...
> >>> What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
> >>>> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
> >>>> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
> >>>> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
> >>>> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
> >>> You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
> >>> As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
> >>> reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
> >>> pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
> >>> by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
> >> And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> >> GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
> >> it was believed to be so.
>
> > In
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/2426e2667f2dee4a?d...
> > you wrote:
>
> > "That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
> > in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "
>
> 'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
> incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
> in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
> don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
> my intention in both statements is obviously identical.
>

Fine.

Both statements are wrong.

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

>
>
> > You went on to add:
>
> > "The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
> > age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
> > injection
> > into the carbon cycle."
>
> This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
> we are not currently in an ice age.
>

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

>
>
> > I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:
>
> > " I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> > GW was not established incontrovertibly "
>
> > I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
> > when you made it.
>
> No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
> discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
> To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
> say it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understand?


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

False again.

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

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

That is simply not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:

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

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley <[email protected]> replied:
> I guess younever heard of al gore?

You are correct.

I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
named Al Gore.

--

FF

On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
> with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
> Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
> scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
> of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
> to primary sources.

This may come as a shock to you but the journals
support themselves by selling subscriptions and
reprints. Some do carry advertisements, but their
circulation is too small for advertising revenues
to be a major income stream.

That may be a good thing, as it allows the
journals to maintain editorial independence.
Imagine, if you will, the chilling effect on academic
publication if the journals had to rely on grants
from government, industry and philanthropists.

Consider how Reader's Digest quit carrying
anti-smoking articles and the New York Times
quite carrying advertisements for programs
to help people stop smoking after RJ Reynolds
bought up some of their major advertisers like
del Monte and Nabisco.

> I thought this was not the case, but
> was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
> were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
> good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
>

I do agree that scientific publication is an
area in which collectivism has its merits.
Fortunately that collectivist spirit s manifest
in the United States in institutions called libraries.
While I am fortunate to have access to an
excellent science library within waling distance
of my home, most readers have ready access
to one or more major University Libraries.

I have never found a University Library that was not
open to the public.

--

FF

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve <[email protected]> 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.

NOAA is wonderful. It seems every month NOAA puts out a report saying
the latest month is one of the warmest on record. Every month.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2838.htm

MARCH TEMPERATURES SECOND WARMEST ON RECORD FOR U.S.;
GLOBAL MARCH TEMPERATURE FIFTH WARMEST ON RECORD

April 16, 2007 - March 2007 was more than five degrees Fahrenheit
warmer than average throughout the contiguous U.S., making it the
second warmest March on record, according to scientists at the NOAA
National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Precipitation was
above average in much of the center of the nation, while the Southeast
and much of the West were drier than average. The global average March
temperature was fifth warmest on record. (Click NOAA image for larger
view of March 2007 statewide temperature rankings. Please credit
"NOAA.")

U=2ES. Temperature Highlights
For the contiguous U.S., last month's average temperature of 48.1
degrees F made it the second warmest March on record (based on
preliminary data). It was 5.6 degrees F (3.1 degrees C) warmer than
the 20th century mean of 42.5 degrees F (5.8 degrees C). Only March
1910 was warmer in the 113-year national record.

Statewide temperatures were much warmer than average from parts of the
Midwest and Deep South to the Northern Plains and West Coast. Most
Northeast states and Florida were near average, while no contiguous
U=2ES. state was cooler than average for the month. The month tied for
the warmest on record for Oklahoma.

More than 2,500 daily record-high temperatures were set from the East
to the West Coast during the month. On March 13 alone, more than 250
daily high temperature records were set. The earliest high of 90
degrees F (32 degrees C) occurred in Las Vegas that day. For March,
more than 200 daily record highs of 90 degrees F or greater were
registered in California, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and areas of the
Southeast.

The warmer-than-average March temperatures helped reduce residential
energy needs for the nation. Using the Residential Energy Demand
Temperature Index (REDTI-an index developed at NOAA to relate energy
usage to climate), the nation's residential energy demand was
approximately 11 percent lower than what would have occurred under
average climate conditions for the month.

Alaska had its third coldest March on record, with a temperature 12.5
degrees F (6.9 degrees C) cooler than average. Also, 40 new daily
record-low temperatures were tied, or broken, during March throughout
the state.

U=2ES. Precipitation Highlights
Precipitation was above average from parts of the Northeast to the
upper Midwest and from the northern Plains to Texas and New Mexico.
Much needed rain helped end drought in large parts of Texas. For
Texas, it was the wettest March on record. (Click NOAA image for
larger view of March 2007 statewide precipitation rankings. Please
credit "NOAA.")

Across the Deep South and Southeast, drier-than-average conditions
prevailed for a second straight month, worsening drought conditions.
Six states were much drier than average from Louisiana and Arkansas to
Florida. It was the second driest March on record for Mississippi and
the third driest for Alabama.

At the end of March, severe drought stretched from southeastern
Mississippi to northwest Georgia and Tennessee and also affected
southern Florida.

The combination of unusual warmth and below-average snowfall during
much of the month led to a continued deterioration of mountain
snowpack conditions in California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

At the end of March, mountain snowpack was less than 50 percent of
average in parts of every state in the West and less than 25 percent
of average in several states.

In Los Angeles, the lack of rainfall led to the driest water-year to
date for the city since records began in 1877. From July 1, 2006,
through the end of March, downtown Los Angeles had received only 2.47
inches of rain, almost one foot below the normal amount of rainfall
for the period.

In the West, where mountain snowpack is relied upon to supply water
needs throughout the region, below-average rain and snowfall have
become increasingly common. In only two of the past nine years has
snowpack on April 1 been at or above the long-term average in at least
half the region.

Near the end of March, approximately 33 percent of the contiguous U.S.
was in moderate to exceptional drought, according to the federal U.S.
Drought Monitor. The most severe conditions were in northern Alabama,
southern California, western Arizona, parts of the western High Plains
and extreme northern Minnesota.

Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for March was
the fifth warmest on record (1.10 degrees F/0.61 degrees C above the
20th century mean). For the January-March year-to-date period, the
global surface temperature was second warmest on record. This was
slightly cooler than the same three-month period in 2002. The El Ni=F1o
episode that began in September 2006 rapidly weakened in February and
neutral conditions were present in March.

Separately, the global March land-surface temperature was the fourth
warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for sixth
warmest in the 128-year period of record, approximately 0.2 degrees F
(0.1 degrees C) cooler than the record established during the very
strong El Ni=F1o episode of 1997-1998.

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at
a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate
of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F
(0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200
years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of
the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation
of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the
1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA
is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts and protects.

Relevant Web Sites
Climate of 2007: March in Historical Perspective

NOAA Drought Information Center

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.

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

Mon, Mar 5, 2007, 11:37am (EST-2) [email protected] (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 shit 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

The real cause of so-called global warming is that their is too much bull
shit being spewed about it.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> How about if you just _name_ someone?
>
> Here are more:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus


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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

[email protected] wrote:

> How about if you just _name_ someone?

Here are more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

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?

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:13 pm, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> 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:
> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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.

On 2007-03-06 11:06:52 -0600, [email protected] (Doug Miller) said:

> 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.

I've never heard a single climatologist or other scientist proclaim
that the relative contribution of the causes of global warming are
supported by overwhelming evidence other than the ones paid by Exxon or
are part of the jihad.

Proven, habitual fabricators like Fred Singer stated repeatedly just a
few years ago that there as absolutely no global warming and that it
was indisputable. Now the same person proclaims loudly that it is
UNSTOPABLE. It's the volcanos or its the eliptical orbit of the Earth
in relation to oun sun, et cetera. They are never ambivalent.

Look at where the article came from: Newsmax. Its a blatant propaganda site.

Belching hot air about Al Gore is merely political correctness.

On 2007-03-08 06:14:05 -0600, Unknown <[email protected]> said:

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

What a bizarre comment. Name a mainstream scientist who says he has
credibility? And he has the most credibility? That's bad. That's
really, really bad.



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


Yes, repeated fraud and dissembler Fred Singer. The guy who claimed
that there is absolutely no global warming or that global warming is
unstoppable. Take your choice. The guy who says that tobacco smoke
isn't really all that bad. Ditto for asbestos. The guy who takes money
from Exxon, UNOCAL, Phillip-Morris and great gobs of it from the
brother of Jesus, and Bush financier and family friend Sun Myung Moon.
A guy who takes money from Richard Mellon-Scaife. A guy who seems to
endlessly be setting up astroturf organizations and other fake front
groups.

Sure. Next thing I'll start depending on Newsmax and Limbaugh for
science and football advice.

Whatever you do don't go to these websites. They actually have
scientific content. Remember, science is the enemy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222

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

On 2007-03-08 06:31:36 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> said:

> "Unknown" wrote in message
>
>> Bill Gray Univ. Colorado) is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane
>> expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his
>> criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
>>
>> Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
>
> But, but ... BIG headlines Monday here in Houston: "Global warming expert
> (sic) speaks at Rice University".
>
> Buried in the article, his "expert" credentials ... "economics professor".
>
> 'nuff said ...

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

You could find plenty of scientists including climatologists,
glaciologists and other specialties who have spoken on the subject
although I suspect the science doesn't matter.

For what its worth, I think fraudster Fred Singer's credentials are in
rocket science.

Should I say -'nuff said... ?

On 2007-03-08 14:19:00 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> said:

>
> "Ol Pete" wrote in message
>
>> Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
>> find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.
>
> http://examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news03.txt

Oh my, clearly there hasn't been 'nuff said.

It took seconds to produce this information:

Eban Goodstein, Project Director is Professor of Economics at Lewis and
Clark College in Portland Oregon. Goodstein is the author of a college
textbook, Economics and the Environment, (John Wiley and Sons: 2004)
now in its fourth edition, as well as The Trade-off Myth: Fact and
Fiction about Jobs and the Environment. (Island Press: 1999).
Goodstein’s current research focuses on the economics of global climate
change, a subject on which he has spoken widely. Articles by Goodstein
have appeared in among other outlets, The Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, Land Economics, Ecological Economics, and
Environmental Management. His research has been featured in The New
York Times, Scientific American, Time, Chemical and Engineering News,
The Economist, USA Today, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Goodstein received his B.A. from Williams College and his Ph.D. from
the University of Michigan. He serves on the editorial board of
Environment, Workplace and Employment, is on the Steering Committee of
the Center for the Applied Study of Economics & the Environment, and is
a Member Scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform.


Your post was certainly misleading.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ol Pete" wrote in message
>
>> Do you have a url? I looked at both the Chronicle and at Rice and could
>> find no such article. Perhaps my search skills are lacking.
>
> http://examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news03.txt


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

Bob Schmall wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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...

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 6, 12:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bob Schmall wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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...

Leon wrote:
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> 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.?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mar 6, 12:06 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >Pure bullshit. 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.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>>
> 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.

The real cause of global warming is the hot air Al Gore is belching and
farting.

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.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
> He's not said anything about the rate of change of CO2 concentration. The
> 2% figure means that if all COT emissions from human technology stopped,
> the CO2 concentration would, all other things being equal, eventually
> stabilize at 98% of its present concentration.

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

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Perhaps the Fourth time will be the charm....
>
> On Mar 8, 12:49 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 6, 4:28 pm, TimDaneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> <SNIP>
> > >> <SNIP>
> >
> > >>> I also note that you STILL have present no evidence of controversy
> > >>> in the climatology community. There is controversy on UseNet,
> > >>> and in the media, but you have asserted that there is substantive
> > >>> controversy among climatologists.
> > >>> What is your evidence?
> > >> The same place you claim to have evidence for the absence of such
> > >> controversy but with a difference. For there to be the absence of
> > >> such controversy you'd have to assure that there was *no* contrary
> > >> voice in the climatology community.
> >
> > > How about if you just _name_ someone?
> >
> > > FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
> > > 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
> >
> > Oh, now it has to be *prominent* scientists.
>
> Splorf!
>
> Of course not.
>
> >This is, of course,
> > a subtle appeal to authority rather than science itself. I have no
> > good measuring stick for what makes a scientists "prominent" though
> > I do acknowledge that such people do get identified from time to time-
> > that's part of the scientific establishment's "orthodoxy" you keep denying exists.
>
> As you will recall, you were responding to:
>
> "FWIW, I don't know the names of any
> prominent scientists who 'support' the
> global warming hypothesis either."
>
> That is because all of the scientists whom
> I know by name and whom I also know
> 'support' global warming, are among my
> personal friends and associates. None
> of whom, I assume you have ever heard of.
> Thus, THEY are not 'prominent'.
>
> I don't give a rat's ass about the prominence of
> the sources you present. I care about what
> they have to say.
>
> But don't let that spoil the enjoyment you
> get from misconstruing my sentence to falsely
> imply that I was presenting some sort of
> fallacious argument.
>
> Oh, your assertion that I claimed there were
> no dissenting scientists is also false. What
> *I* claimed was that you had not demonstrated
> that. That claim was true.
>
> But again, I'm sure it is much more fun to
> make something up.
>
> >
> > >> But, in fact, (and you know this)
> > >> there are several voices that question the cause/severity/consequences
> > >> in that very community - Ballings leaps to mind, but I'm fairly sure
> > >> we can find one or two more with some DAGS if it's that important to you.
> >
> > > Getting information out of you is like pulling teeth
> > > with tweezers. Would it really have killed you to
> > > include his first name or to reference something
> > > he has written?
> >
> > I actually meant to reference his co-author Michaels.
> > Michaels and Ballings wrote a book some time ago
> > entitled "The Satanic Gasses" which was an attempt to
> > summarize the state of the science AND politics of GW,
> > and most importantly how the latter pollutes the substance
> > of the former. The books is now somewhat dated, I'm sure
> > but it was a good survey text. IIRC, Michaels is a climatologist,
> > Ballings is a scientist in some related field - I may have
> > that backwards or wrong. This book is NOT a peer-reviewed
> > journal but an attempt to summarize the state of what we do-
> > and do not know (as of its publication date) and just how
> > it has been wrongly extrapolated by the fear mongering chimps
> > in the political arena. I thought they did a decent job of it.
> >
> > There is at least one scientist at MIT I've seen recently cited
> > that casts grave doubt on the current beliefs about gw, its
> > severity, and causes but I cannot find the cite ATM. I will
> > look for it and send it along if I find it.
> >
> > Then there is this site:
> >
> > http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
>
> Volume 10, number 12 and it's a weekly
> so there are a lot of back issues to go
> through looking for something to cast
> doubt on the hypothesis.
>
> >
> > Before you run off and check - I have no idea who funds it
> > and thus it may end up on your "you can't believe them because
> > their money is dirty" list.
>
> As you know, I have no such list.
> I rely on information content.
>
> > BUT, they point to primary
> > research material, much of which is now casting doubt on
> > the currently held views of CO2 "unusually high" presence,
> > severity, and consequences.
> >
>
> Can you point me to a back issue that does that?
>
> In particular, can you point me to anything that
> disputes the accepted values for the increase
> in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 20th century?
>
> Can you point me to anything that disputes
> that anthropogenic CO2 is being produced at
> a rate that exceeds that observed rise in
> concentration?
>
> Because, if both of those are true, anthropogenic
> global warming is inevitable, absent some other
> process with an opposite effect, right?
>
> > Then there's this:
> >
> > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
> >
> > Notice that all these taken together "prove" only one thing:
> > Climate modeling is hard and consensus is irrelevant.
>
> Consensus is alway irrelevant to truth.
>
> > We don't know
> > enough to take the harsh stance advocated by gw orthodoxy.
> >
>
> Which is a term you still haven't defined.
>
> >
> >
> > > A preliminary search leads me to believe you refer
> > > to Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr of Arizona State University.
> > > It also shows that in recent years he has received nearly
> > > a half million dollars in grants so we can put to rest the
> > > notion of a conspiracy to deny funding to 'global warming
> > > critics'.
> >
> > And of course, the source of the money makes everything he says
> > invalid.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Note that I made no reference to the source
> of his funding.
>
> > Sort of an inverse appeal to authority. I'm guessing
> > that if he's lying, his university position will be
> > in jeopardy sooner or later.
>
> Obviously I have no need to make fallacious
> arguments as you are happy to make them
> up yourself and falsely attribute them to me.
>
> >
> > > Now, a quick search indicates he has been busy rebutting
> > > Al Gore. E.g. Al Gore says the snows of Kilamajaro are
> >
> > A noble cause. This alone should make him a cultural hero
> > if nothing else.
>
> More like a waste of time, much like arguing with
> you.
>
> >
> > > disappearing due to global warming, Dr Ballings says they
> > > were disappearing anyways due to changes in humidity,
> > > someone else might claim the change in humidity is due
> > > to Global Warming and I don't give a rat's ass because
> > > none of that addresses causality. Specifically it does
> >
> > Exactly right, except for one thing: Gore is not arguing
> > in the abstract over a cigar and a nice port. He wants
> > ACTION based on his exaggeration of what is known. That's
> > why he's so dangerous and needs to be slapped down by
> > rational voices.
>
> Rather he is exaggerating beyond what
> is known to argue for what needs to be
> done based on what is known.
>
> Being a politician he is used to persuading
> people and knows that there are numerous
> people who will not be persuaded by a good
> argument but will be persuaded by a bad one.
> He has now problem making those bad ones,
> understanding that the people who ARE
> persuaded by the good arguments will not
> change their minds. A politician doesn't care
> _why_ people support him.
>
> Now, I don't recall that you have ever said that
> you have reached a conclusion on the global
> warming hypothesis yourself. So I won't claim
> that you have made the mistake of thinking that
> because a person makes a fallacious argument,
> the premise he purports to support MUST be
> false. But I think that a lot of people have made
> that mistake.
>
> >
> > > not address the causality of global climate change, I'll
> > > concede that it does address the cause of snow loss
> > > on Kilamajaro but that is not the causal relationship
> > > of interest here.
> >
> > > And I will concede that you have now demonstrated that
> > > at least one climatologist disputes the global warming
> > > hypothesis.
> >
> > And you will find quite a few more if you take the time
> > to look for the contrarian voices.
> >
>
> And in another article or two you presented a few.
> Somebody else did us the courtesy of attempting
> to discredit them. I'll add that one, Fred Singer
> has evidently 'changed sides' though he seems
> to be arguing that human influence has not been
> significant.
>
> Dr Singer appears to be fond of presenting a
> contrarian view to a number of issues about
> which a consensus has developed, perhaps
> being somewhat analogous to Halton Aarp or
> Fred Hoyle, though evidently not as well-liked.
>
> >
> >
> > > That is one of the problems with the media, somebody
> > > like Gore or a Hollywood actor or actress as a spokesman
> > > for something gets all the publicity and of course, none of
> > > that publicity is substantive.
> >
> > > Can you direct me to some of Dr Ballings work on the
> > > causes of global climate change? If not, I will look
> > > for myself.
> >
> > THe only thing I've personally read was his survey book
> > with Michaels. I would be interested in more myself.
> > Sadly - and to my surprise - I've discovered that most
> > scientific journals have not yet discovered the power
> > of open publication on the web, so it's hard to get
> > to primary sources. I thought this was not the case, but
> > was challenged by someone else and when I looked ... they
> > were (mostly) right. Unless you have large bags of money,
> > good luck getting access to the papers in any convenient way.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>> I have not said now or ever that
> > >>>> your position is *wrong*, merely that it is unjustified in light of what can actually
> > >>>> be demonstrated today - more particularly, the level of *confidence* you place on stated
> > >>>> position is not currently justified.
> > >>> You have never stated clearly in what part you lack confidence.
> > >>> My position is based on infrared molecular spectroscopy, the
> > >>> conservation of energy, and the observed change in atmospheric
> > >>> composition.
> > >> But your "position", however meritorious, cannot justify the "confidence"
> > >> that:
> >
> > >> a) GW is primarily human caused
> > >> b) It's bad
> > >> c) We can do something meaningful about it
> >
> > >> IIRC (and if I am wrong, I apologize in advance), you hold to all three of these
> > >> views.
>
> a) No. I am far from convinced that there
> is unambiguous evidence of recent global
> warming. I am convinced that global warming
> is inevitable if present trends continue.
>
> b) Global warming has potential for catastrophic
> consequences. The Methane clathrates in
> particular have the potential to extinguish
> human life.
>
> c) Yes. And more than is commonly realized.
> In particular we have been doing something
> about it for the last 50 years without realizing
> it.
>
> >
> > > I can lead you through those arguments one step at a time,.
> > > I do request that you stick to the subject matter at hand, and
> > > avoid adhominems, perjoratives, hyperbole, or whatever such
> > > as 'Orthodoxy.' I'll also ask you to help look up a few facts.
> >
> > > But first we have to look at the scientific basis on which Global
> > > Warming was predicted back in the 1970s.
>
> That offer still stands.
>
> >
> > >> ...
> > >>> What is it that you consider to be uncertain?
> > >>>> IOW, I do *not* await mass approval or my or anyone else's ideas (dare I used
> > >>>> the word, "consensus'). I await *evidence* that cannot easily be argued by contrary
> > >>>> positions - the situation we find ourselves today. Keep up the good fight though, I've
> > >>>> always enjoyed theology, even the pantheist strains are entertaining reading...
> > >>> You have not presented _any _ 'argument by contrary position'.
> > >>> As I recall, you made the incorrect statement that there is no
> > >>> reason to suppose that CO2 is causative to global warming. I
> > >>> pointed out why that statement was wrong because it is contradicted
> > >>> by the spectroscopy of common atmospheric gases.
> > >> And you misquote me yet again. I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> > >> GW was not established incontrovertibly (or words to that effect) though
> > >> it was believed to be so.
> >
> > > In
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/2426e2667f2dee4a?d...
> > > you wrote:
> >
> > > "That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
> > > in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. "
> >
> > 'not known' is semantically equivalent to 'not established
> > incontrovertibly' in this context - or at least it is close enough
> > in my mind as not to be terribly controversial. You obviously
> > don't see it that way. It seems ridiculous to argue that when
> > my intention in both statements is obviously identical.
> >
>
> Fine.
>
> Both statements are wrong.
>
> It is incontrovertibly established that increasing
> atmospheric CO2 is causative of global warming.
>
> >
> >
> > > You went on to add:
> >
> > > "The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice
> > > age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of
> > > injection
> > > into the carbon cycle."
> >
> > This should be non-controversial because it is true by definition -
> > we are not currently in an ice age.
> >
>
> Indeed, I didn't snip it for fear you might have
> thought it was in someway meaningful.
>
> >
> >
> > > I don't consider those to be words to the effect of:
> >
> > > " I said that CO2 as the primary cause of
> > > GW was not established incontrovertibly "
> >
> > > I rebutted the statement you made, not what you were thinking
> > > when you made it.
> >
> > No, you amplified a very small semantic difference into a side
> > discussion and conveniently ignored my very clear intention.
> > To make sure we NEVER have this silly discussion again, I will
> > say it this way:
>
> No, I addressed exactly what you said and now
> you are claiming that you meant something that is
> very different.
>
> You denied that increasing atmospheric CO2
> was causative of global warming. Adding the
> word 'primary' as a qualifier corrects your earlier
> error.
>
> That one word makes the difference between
> a statement that is false and one that is true.
> You may think that truth and falsity are
> 'very small semantic differences', but I do not.
>
> >
> > CO2 is not indisputably demonstrated to be the sole or primary cause
> > of GW,
>
> Now you add the words 'sole or primary', again
> correcting your earlier error.
>
> Those are not subtleties, small semantic differences,
> or nuances. Those words have meaning and their
> use makes as much difference as using or omitting
> a trivial little three-letter word like 'not'.
>
> Understand?
>
>
> > though many scientists believe the data point that way.
> > CO2 increases attributable to human activity also cannot indisputably
> > be demonstrated to be causal for GW because measurable warming has been
> > taking place since the last ice age - well before the Industrial Revolution
> > of the past century or so. In summary, there are *suspicions* about these
> > causal relationships but they are not "known" to be true.
>
> False again.
>
> It doesn't matter how the CO2 gets into the
> atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is
> causative of global warming.
>
> Your reference to the warming since the end
> of the last ice age is non sequitor. You are
> making the mistake of assuming that to prove
> that something is causative of warming,
> warming must be observed.
>
> That is simply not true.
>
> Consider a familiar example, the laboratory
> constant temperature bath. The bath is a
> tank of water into which a coil of tubing is
> inserted. Coolant, typically cold tap water,
> is run continuously through the coil. A heater,
> usually a thermostatically controlled electrical
> resistance heater is also placed in the bath
> and there is also an agitator to keep the water
> mixing.
>
> If the various parameters are adequately
> matched the bath will maintain a (near)
> constant temperature. The cooling coil
> is indisputable causative of cooling the
> bath, and the heater is is indisputably
> causative of heating the bath DESPITE
> the fact that no temperature change is
> observed. Those we know from basic
> Physics. If we attempt to prove either
> merely by observing the water bath and
> while ignoring basic Physics we cannot
> for each is a factor that confounds our
> observation of the effect of the other.
>
> Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is similarly
> indisputably causative of global warming. That
> follows from the basic Physics that establishes
> the greenhouse effect. It we attempt to prove that
> by observation, while simultaneously ignoring
> all we already know from Physics, we cannot
> for there are many, many confounding factors
> to contend with.
>
> Your attempts (not just yours, but everybody's,
> including Al Gore's) to use geological records to
> prove or disprove that increasing CO2 is causative
> of global warming is non sequitor. How does it
> feel to make the same mistakes as Al Gore?
>
> >
> > I've now said the same thing three different ways. I wish to not
> > have to repeat it any more to satisfy your semantic longings.
> >
>
> You have said two completely different things.
> One was correct, the other not.
>
> Increasing concentrations of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide are indisputably causative
> of global warming. No person who understands
> the greenhouse effect can honestly deny that.
> That is why it is so important to correct you
> on that.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
> 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
>
> On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley <[email protected]> replied:
> > I guess younever heard of al gore?
>
> You are correct.
>
> I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
> named Al Gore.

what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
proveing you were home schooled!

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Say What? wrote:
> >> Bud Frawley wrote:
> >> [snip]
> [snip again]
> >> Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that?
> >> That was his claim. He is truly brilliant.
> >
> > There's no cure for global warming. Right now it's from all the hot air
> > coming out of politicians, but if we kill 'em all then they'll rot and
> > the methane coming out of them will still cause it.
>
>
> Well, then couldn't we at least give it a try? Who knows, maybe the
> methane wouldn't be quite as bad... <g>

ya right! thank's for proveing murder's the tipicle republiCON"S
solution for everything! I bet you do'nt even go to jail from when
your fat cat daddy bribes the judge!maybe you'll get country club
prison with your fat cat friend's! ya that's really paying for your
crime!give me a break!

In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> [email protected] 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 bullshit. 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.

Bud Frawley, wrote the following at or about 3/23/2007 8:33 PM:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I don't know the names of any prominent scientists who
>> 'support' the global warming hypothesis either.
>>
>> On Mar 23, 11:36 am, Bud Frawley <[email protected]> replied:
>>> I guess younever heard of al gore?
>> You are correct.
>>
>> I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
>> named Al Gore.
>
> what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
> POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
> real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
> they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
> before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
> science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
> even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
> my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
> proveing you were home schooled!

Whatever else he is, I guess Al Gore's a hypocrite, no?

The Story of Two Houses

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING

TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH

BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add
on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's
in the South.


HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,
this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction
can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and
is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system
uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes
into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers
and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding
rural landscape.


HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
filmmaker) Al Gore.


HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of
the President of the United States, George W. Bush.


So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York
Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an
inconvenient truth."

BTW, if you find this incredible, just DAGS using the obvious search
terms and you'll find it all too true.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

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

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

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

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

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Schmall
>> <[email protected]> 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.

Bud Frawley wrote:
[snip]
>> I have never heard of a scientist, prominent or obscure,
>> named Al Gore.
>
> what a moron which never even heard of the only one which was elected
> POTUS by the will of the people in 2k! thank's for proveing what a
> real moron look's like! you think al gore's not a scientist? I guess
> they like to have people which are'nt even real scientist's testifing
> before congress! NOT!let me give you a clue dumass!you have to have
> science background or your just spinning your wheel's! they do'nt
> even want to hear what you have to say! I guess you did'nt even read
> my post from I said he studied science in college! thank's for
> proveing you were home schooled!

Not to mention that Al Gore invented the internet. Remember that? That
was his claim. He is truly brilliant.

"NuWaveDave"wrote in message

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

Couldn't have expressed it better myself.

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

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

[email protected] 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.