On 9/14/2012 1:10 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The "evidence" has strong indications of being manipulated for
the purpose of a political agenda.
It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry.
I would agree with you if the fossil fuel industry was the only party
guilty of "cherry picking"! You can read for yourself in the
Climate-gate email dump many examples of discussions of cherry-picking
by climate alarmists. I like Richard Muller's ongoing commentaries
<http://muller.lbl.gov/> on the entire issue because I have a close
personal friend that knows him personally. It is clear that there is
global warming, but its "cause" is not completely clear. We can only
offer conjectures and to jump to the comclusion that "humans are causing
it" are premature. I think that we should keep science seperate from
state policy unless there is clear and incontrovertible evidence. Too
many "do-gooders" have influenced state policy and to the eventual harm
of mass numbers of humans, example the banning of DDT because of the
emotional appeal of a book. It can be proven that this ban has causes
hundred of thousands of humans to die needlessly to malaria.
The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is
the subject of a lot of controversy
Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors.
Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything,
they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the
provisional nature of all science.
I am no desire to be an apologist for any industry. I am interested
in the purity of science.
We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately
retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them
in their predictions?.
Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to
predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures,
something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil fuel
releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is
increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing.
All I will say is that our climate is not so simple that we can
generate a faithful model based on what you wrote here alone. Complex
systems cannot be expected to have simple models.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at