In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:52:09 -1000: Hi, [snip]
I stand by what I have written, but it is rapidly becoming obvious that I'm not going to convince you, so I'm going to quit trying. > >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: "The last few decades have shown us that the >current trend <...>" > >Please see statement #2 in my original post. I made it in part to show >there's no such thing as a current trend. You may say some figures show it >has warmed and perhaps indeed it has, just like the guy in #2 knows he won >some money. But he's not currently in a winning trend - he just thinks he is >because that's human nature and he has his special troll in his pocket. >Currently in reality it may be warming, cooling, or staying about the same. >The isolation and examination of these feedback systems separate from the >total global reality may be interesting and worth studying, but they aren't >very useful for making a case for global AGW - it still remains that it has >not been shown that the human contribution of CO2 to those systems accounts >for any changes represented in the tiny historical data sets we have >available. The guy in my statement #2 has a huge advantage over the guy in >#3 - he can actually count up accurately, but he still doesn't know what's >going to happen next or what's guiding his fortunes. All the worse for #3 >because he has so few and inaccurate numbers that he might as well not have >any - so he's basically just making things up as he feels like it, as is >clearly the actual case with him. So with regard to the more important >subject of the actions we should or should not be taking, I addressed that >in other posts. All that stuff above hardly has any relevance anyway, as >implied by original statement #1. > >- Rick > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
