On 9/14/2012 11:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.

You've been misled by GW deniers. There's no evidence in the emails of cherry picking - as has been confirmed by several independent review committees.

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.

Cause is seldom a single thing; what's important is which factors are within our control. Muller is one of the founders of BerkleyEarth. He was critical of the data that showed global warming, but after leading an extensive re-evaluation of all the data using comprehensive statistics the group concluded:

"Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that global warming is real, and the best explanation of the temperature trend is a combination of volcanoes and CO2."

And there's no real debate about where the CO2 comes from. It's easy to calculate how much is produced by burning fossil fuel.

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.

Of course not. Just the CO2 added would produce only a 0.8C temperature rise. The problem is there are several positive feed backs: water vapor, methane emission, reduced albedo,... If you want to wait till we have a perfect model, you are essentially deciding it's not a problem. It's not a scientific problem. Science can always wait. Science never needs to make a decision and it's theories are always provisional. Life however requires decisions; which means decisions based on imperfect information.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to