Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Quadibloc on 20 Feb 2010 01:31 On Feb 19, 9:35 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > We need a good laugh, explain how > Global Warming causes cold and snow again. Cold and snow are caused by winter, and winter is caused by the orbital specific interacting with Earth's mainly equatorial climate :) John Savard
From: I M on 20 Feb 2010 01:59 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:46:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:37:13 -0800 (PST), Last Post ><last_post(a)primus.ca> wrote: > >> | In real science the burden of proof is always >> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. > >A demonstration that you don't understand the most basic nature of >science. The burden of proof is on a proposer until a consensus is >achieved. There is no burden of proof on anybody, gossip can only be corrected with the understanding of the science. >Once a theory becomes widely accepted, however, the burden of >proof is on those who believe the theory is wrong. And contrary to your >assertion, the consensus that AGW is a real phenomenon is extremely >broad. BS, obviously irrelevant, you can't have it both ways, next time you post you might say there is no AGW, and with no GW, there is never AGW. >> So far >> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one >> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have >> | they provided data that climate change is being >> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by >> | natural phenomena > >This statement is proof positive that you are ignorant, and not >qualified to have an opinion on the matter. >_________________________________________________ > >Chris L Peterson >Cloudbait Observatory >http://www.cloudbait.com There must be two CLPs, will the real CLP please stand up and show proof positive that commerce and industry is affecting climate.
From: Androcles on 20 Feb 2010 03:57 "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message news:6l1vn5dhr4r2g2daev5eifq6tpdlfq9a6j(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:46:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson > <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >>On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:37:13 -0800 (PST), Last Post >><last_post(a)primus.ca> wrote: >> >>> | In real science the burden of proof is always >>> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. >> >>A demonstration that you don't understand the most basic nature of >>science. The burden of proof is on a proposer until a consensus is >>achieved. > > There is no burden of proof on anybody, > gossip can only be corrected with the understanding > of the science. > >>Once a theory becomes widely accepted, however, the burden of >>proof is on those who believe the theory is wrong. And contrary to your >>assertion, the consensus that AGW is a real phenomenon is extremely >>broad. > > > BS, obviously irrelevant, you can't have it > both ways, next time you post you might say there > is no AGW, and with no GW, there is never AGW. > > >>> So far >>> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one >>> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have >>> | they provided data that climate change is being >>> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by >>> | natural phenomena >> >>This statement is proof positive that you are ignorant, and not >>qualified to have an opinion on the matter. >>_________________________________________________ >> >>Chris L Peterson >>Cloudbait Observatory >>http://www.cloudbait.com > > > There must be two CLPs, will the real CLP > please stand up and show proof positive that > commerce and industry is affecting climate. > ============================================== Take note of the word "bait" in cloudbait. The troll is baiting, I strongly suggest the killfile.
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 05:05 On Feb 20, 1:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/20/10 12:04 AM, Last Post wrote: > > ø Can you make the wind to blow? > > ø Can you make the rain to fall? > > > ø If you can not do either, how do you expect to > > control the climate? You are an arrogant fool, > > fascist too. But none of that cuts any ice here. > > One roll of toilet paper is worth more than all > > of the IPCC documents. At least it is useful. > > You didn't read it did you? ø I have them all on file
From: Dave Typinski on 20 Feb 2010 05:30
Quadibloc <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >On Feb 19, 9:35�pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > >> � � � � �We need a good laugh, explain how >> Global Warming causes cold and snow again. > >Cold and snow are caused by winter, and winter is caused by the >orbital specific interacting with Earth's mainly equatorial climate :) If nothing else, at least Mr. Orbital Specific provides good fodder for humor. Anyway, I had a look at the Swiss ProClim document linked by Sam (thanks, Sam!). The ProClim document addressed many concerns, but not all of them. That is to say, it removed some of my doubts, but not all. As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate change. In no specific order: 1) The raw data and its analysis appear to have considerable wiggle room. That is, the data is massaged before processing and it is not clear to me just how much. 2) The raw data is not available. That leads me to wonder who is hiding what. I realize the proprietary nature of the process of data collection often prevents free distribution. I also realize that climate scientists and those empaneled to evaluate climate research are human and subject to human failings. 3) The good climate science being performed is being muddled by the new religion of environmentalism. Anthropogenic environmental change has become original sin updated for new millennium sensibilities by many people. As such, it is very difficult to separate fact from faith. 4) Climate change is being used by political bodies as an excuse to engage in social engineering. It has become the global political power game of the millennium. As such, politics has muddied the waters even more than the True Believers. 5) If anthropogenically forced global warming were an ironclad fact, why isn't it clear? To put it another way, why isn't it easy to show? 6) My sense is that there are too many caveats in the data processing methodology; i.e. too many manually inserted fudge factors. (this is probably a repeat of #1 above) 7) My sense is that not all climatologists agree on the details. 8) My sense is that not all climatologists agree that anthropogenic activity is the primary cause of global warming. 9) My sense is that some climate researches have falsified data. Probably more to save their own jobs than to promulgate some ideology, but who knows... True Belivers can do some amazingly dumb things. Summed, these fill me with confidence neither about the current state of our understanding of the climate nor the politics that has become inseparable from it. I'm a fairly intelligent, rational person, quite more so than average. As such, I claim that if climate change really is caused for the most part by humans, those with a clear understanding of how and why are doing an exceedingly poor job of communicating it. If I'm not convinced, how is the average person supposed to be convinced? They must take it on faith. Faith is not a good way to decide things. A parting thought for those who are knowledgeable about climate change yet worried that we are proceeding stupidly to our doom: I do not have the time to research and read every refereed paper on climatology. But I do take the time to vote. This does not excuse me from my personal responsibility to do my own research. By the same token, my responsibility does not excuse the climatology community from theirs. Namely, to communicate to the intelligent lay reader the facts of the current state of our understanding so that we voters may cast a vote based not on faith, but on evidence and on well working models (i.e., no fudge factors) that agree to a high degree with observation. As such, I stand behind all efforts and expenses incurred with moving the global population inland and increasing energy efficiency. Those simply make good sense given the undisputed facts: the Earth's climate is warming up and primary sources of energy are in ever shorter supply. However, I firmly resist any notion that we should try to legislate a change in the environment. -- Dave Typinski |