Craig Jungers wrote: > Mike and Paul, > > I suddenly realized that you two are iconoclasts and no amount of evidence > is going to sway you; further discussion is really a waste of bandwidth. > > But just to give Mike some data that his theory that in 2009 most of the > earth cooled... only the central part of the USA was cooler on average. Here > is the link to the story (although I'm pretty sure neither of you will > accept the data as anything other than true-believer propaganda): > http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-08-10-july-climate-report_N.htm Iconoclasm comes in various guises. In the case of the anti-GW sentiments expressed by Mike and Paul, it is unfortunately mainly diatribes tailored to confuse and negate, rather than explicate. What to do when confronted with such no-nothing responses? Well, check sources, look at the arguments, and see whether the responses respond to the arguments of others. I think you will find their contributions lacking. There is, however a legitimate root cause for skepticism on GW. I think it is this: Everybody wants "proof" of GW theories. And we can never have the kind of proof we have that atoms exist, that electrons go around them, and cause electricity to flow in wires. Atmospheric science is one of the sciences where the fabric of investigation and verification is different than it is in other venues. We will never have any "proof," in the classic sense, that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the direct cause of GW, for this fundamental reason: you can't purposely dump a lot of CO2 (or similar) into the atmosphere to see what happens, and then take it out to see if the effect is reversed. All of the evidence is correlative, and it will always be thus. Because there is no comparable period in traceable geologic history when CO2 levels rose as high as they are now, we do not even have a second example that looks like what we are experiencing now. We are stuck depending on the skills, ethics, and talents of geophysical and atmospheric science experts, and their models. The fundamental argument of the anti-GW crowd is that we are being purposely fooled by those experts, who are acting in conspiracy mode to drive public furor and fear to fund their work. What utter crap! Scientists are a many times more ethical, especially in the climate of peer review criticism extant to achieve publication, than most any other crowd of professionals you might choose. In the States much of this GW skepticism is driven by the far right wing. They cherry-pick their examples and spurn a holistic, overall analysis of what we see happening. And, they are hate- and fear-mongers. It is sickening to watch. Some (e.g., the infamous Rush Limbaugh) even make a living from their diatribes. It is very sad and frustrating for all scientists. But, a lesson on the sometimes low state of public discourse and a severe test of everyone's crap-detectors. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Thu Nov 26 2009 - 09:56:08 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:38 PDT