Hi Tony, I'm not intent on winning any argument and I think you really fundamentally misunderstand my position.
I have only suggested that people should accept a multitude of viewpoints and not accept something being given to them them prima facie. Current pro-AGW research is far from beyond reproach (in my view) - and I think that any arguments that are along the lines of 'accept scientists because that have proofs and facts' are invalid based on the deportment of the climate research community. One thing I have noticed in this thread is that I have stated that I'm willing to look at both sides of the argument and have been for some time (for the record, I started out at this stuff as a worried person (at the birth of my first son)) and I've ended up being pushed more to the skeptic camp than the pro camp - mostly by pro-agw material I have mentioned elsewhere (ESPECIALLY having pretty tame comments censored on rc). Your reply ends in: So tell me, seeing as it is that important that you win an argument - what argument did you win? In my experience, this is pretty common in talking about AGW. Someone starts a discussion (and my question to you was really as above - I really did not know) but sooner or later is descends into some sort of narky argument. It is probably more polite to fart at a party than even hint that you might have an open mind to the skeptical side of the AGW debate. As you say "I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a debate about it." And I think it is. I don't think we will ever agree on that point. More below: On 25 February 2010 19:07, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote: [ Arctic sea ice, antarctic sea ice, Archimede's principle, etc deleted to keep the thread under control length wise ] I don't disagree with much of what you have written. Also, I don't dispute that the Earth has been and is generally warming for a period of at least a few hundred years. I accept your point about sea ice via land ice and to be honest, without further research I don't have an opinion on antarctic land ice *mass*. I do have an opinion that the antarctic warming research done by Steig et al is probably garbage based on station siting issues and some other errors in his most recent (I think most recent) paper on the topic. My understanding is that much of the temperature inferencing across West and East antarctica was done via a lot of fairly dubious interpolation - at least in the material I have read over the past year or so since it was released. Now, hopefully not being alarmist, the Australian Antarctic Division are > predicting a maximum rise of 2 metres, and a probable rise of 0.8 metres > over the next 100 years. It will be interesting to see when this is reflected in real-estate prices. ;) > The reason why Antarctica is not melting as fast as > they first thought was due to the hole in the Ozone layer. They are worried > that when the Ozone layer finally repairs itself, however, the temperature > could rise dramatically, and they may need to revise these figures (I note > that no one argued that there's no Ozone hole.) Link: > > http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_399765016087963_PA04_ > Ice%20Sheets_FIN_MEDIA_090610.pdf<http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_399765016087963_PA04_Ice%20Sheets_FIN_MEDIA_090610.pdf> You've lost me at the "when the ozone layer finally repairs itself". 1. What does a normal ozone layer look like and how would we know? 2. The PDF at the link you send me does not contain the words ozone or hole. 3. What did the ozone hole look like, for example, during the MWP? Again, I am not asking a leading question ... but i'd venture we have f'all data since before satellite obs. "I note that no one argued that there's no Ozone hole.": I have never met anyone dispute the existence of it either - but I have met a lot of people who dispute the cause or historical precedence. We do have a weather problem, whether you like it or not. Fair enough ... you have a foregone conclusion and there is probably no way we will see each other's point of view. Again, you need to understand that I do not dispute that climate changes or that it has been warming (since pre-industrial times). > The world is going > to do what it's going to do, regardless of whether you think you've won an > argument. So tell me, seeing as it is that important that you win an > argument - what argument did you win? > I wasn't trying to win an argument. My position remains flexible and nuanced. -- David Connors ([email protected]) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
