I agree that I initially came on a bit strong, and am quite capable of
admitting my errors. I apologize for the bad start. I regret my cranky
old man demeanor.
I have asked a very straightforward question, which no one has really
addressed. I conceded that I believe that increased CO2 in the
atmosphere will cause warming, and that in my OPINION, humans have
some role in it. Our chidren are taught in High School, make that
Elementary School, about the Scientific Method and how we scientists
must follow it to present research as the genuine article. I have
asked that the case be made for AGW by using the scientific method.
That's it. What I got was some really good information on IR, CO2 and
modeling, indeed some very kind replies, but nothing directly relevant
to my only question. I got theory instead of facts, data and controls.
Window dressing is nice in a formal paper or in a text book, but I
have distilled it all down to this simple question: "Utilyzing the
Scientific Method, prove that AGW causes climate change." I expect
facts and controls to back up the experimental portion.
Now I am an analytical guy, usually running GC, GC/MS all day.(yes, I
test air too) I am not a researcher or an educator. I have to run
several sets of controls by EPA protocol before running a real world
sample. Theory will get me no where in my work. I deal with linear
curves, peaks on chromatographs and mass spectral data. My work is
absolutly reproducible at any competent facility anywhere. This may
help explain why I expect facts, not theory. I can't tell one of my
customers that it "might be carbon tetrachloride, but then again, it
may or may not be".
If I am asking too much of the present knowledge of atmospheric
science, just say so and we will move on. I do have some modeling
questions I would like to know the answers to. I am not trying to be a
Dick or a Lindzen........
On Jan 9, 10:27 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS, OKC, recall where you started:
>
> "I defy anyone to prove to me that "global warming" is irrefutably a
> predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method does not
> get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. Please do
> not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real Climate. I
> said irrefutable evidence, not politics."
>
> That seems more a provocation than the beginning of an honest inquiry.
>
> You can't effectively determine whether something is fraudulent by
> coming in guns blazing and screaming fraud, then seeing whether they
> welcome your skeptical inquiry. By this standard everything is
> fraudulent!
>
> mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
