Honorable Forum:
I kinda get the impression that some disagreement persists among scientists
and scholars, not about whether or not climate change is a fact, not whether
or not some pretty radical changes have occurred and are occurring, but, to
put it extremely, whether or not the anthropogenic factor is alone, or
largely, responsible for the 200 year-old hockey stick (unfortunate
metaphor?). Looking back over, say, the last few million years (part 2 of my
question implies), have their been other hockey sticks with similar enough
blades to be useful for comparison? This is still not to imply that the
present "blade" is largely made up of anthropogenic factors, only that a
comparison with similar "sticks" in the history of the earth might provide
some insight on the potential consequences of our persistent generation of
extra CO2 that is unmitigated by some (unknown by me) altered carbon
sequestration capability of the earth's photosynthetic organisms (kindly
correct me if this assumption is in error, inadequate as a first cut on the
general position of this issue if not an important principle underlying a
reasonable process by which the question can be answered--and to what extent
it is necessarily "equivocal" or not perfect, but good enough and
precisely/scientifically enough why). What we have here is a question about
how one proceeds from the generality to the specific, or getting a handle on
the relationship of the data to the conclusion. I submit that we understand
what the generalizations are, if not perfectly well, at least adequately for
purposes of getting somewhere (more clearly rather than more muddily) with
that question.
I have no interest in fomenting an intellectual see-saw, and certainly not
any sandbox swapping of the order of my data can lick your data. I'd like to
see, for example, Lawrence and Lewis compare notes and give the undecided
but not denying an authoritative demonstration of the two extremes of
scholarly consideration of this issue. Perhaps that will separate the
debunked claims from the claims that claim to refute the debunked claims,
leading to, if not a settlement of the issue at the academic level, at least
a clear exposition of the process/thinking that led to such diverse
conclusions. Given the real and considerable stakes at stake, it would seem
that such an exercise would have high priority and be a considerable gift to
the less gifted among us.
WT
PS: I'd like to know if my diesel-powered field vehicle is doing its part to
avert a catastrophic global climate catastrophe by filling the stratosphere
with particulates that will reduce insolation or whether it would be equally
insolent to acquire a petrol-fueled truck (no electrical ones capable of
carrying all my junk being not yet available).
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Thanks for offering repeatedly debunked claims here. It helps if your
data is up-to-date. The physicist who resigned the APS should have boned
up on his atmospheric physics before resigning. The physics underpinning
anthropogenic climate change is nearly 200 years old -- and it is as well
proven as the fact that gravity will pull you toward the ground surface if
you walk off the roof of a five-story building.
That physics works quite well if anyone bothered to look at atmospheres of
other planets, and if anyone tried to figure out what Earth's temperature
would be without the natural greenhouse effect. Only a fool would expect
greenhouse warming to suddenly stop working because we're changing
chemical concentrations in the atmosphere.
Dave
On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote:
Wayne Tyson wrote:
The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes
and minds of "the public."
The public is used to hearing rather wildly conflicting information
about climate change from the scientific community. In
1974 some claimed that global cooling was a looming
problem:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
More recently there have been accusations of fraud:
On Oct. 6, 2010 Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics
at the University of California, Santa Barbara wrote this:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/hal-lewis-quits-aps/
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at
being an APS Fellow [American Physical Society] all these years
has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure
at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course,
the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars
driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has
carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest
and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my
long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt
that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate
documents, which lay it bare."
Paul Cherubini
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
