If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . "Dan Luke" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote: Anyway, so where is the IEEE position? Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team? Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping. The IEEE is an engineering association. So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You specifically included: "International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences" QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group. The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group - not a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I don't? (It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like "Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the world...." This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.) Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept? I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . "Dan Luke" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote: Anyway, so where is the IEEE position? Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team? Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping. The IEEE is an engineering association. So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You specifically included: "International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences" QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group. The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group - not a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I don't? Fine; take MPS out. I will stipulate it doesn't meet my strict definition of "professional association." Any others? (It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like "Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the world...." This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.) Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept? I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on. Petroleum geologsts aren't scientists? Before the release of its latest statement, the AAPG alone among scientific professional societies denied that humans are changing the climate. Now, albeit in mealy mouthed, wishy-washy language, they have dropped the denial. But please, make free to remove any more from the list that, in your opinion, don't qualify as scientific professional societies. Then find one that fits in the remaining list but denies that AGW is a fact. I say there isn't one, although, as I told McNicoll, there are at least a couple of dodgy organizations who claim the title. -- Dan T182T at 4R4 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Flaps_50!" wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" wrote: *It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. * You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention. Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"James Robinson" wrote in message
... "Flaps_50!" wrote: On Aug 9, 2:16 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote: It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention. Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration. There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates. Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island effect of cities. Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is here for us to use. Peter |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m... Jessica wrote: "Climate Scientists" = global warming believer. There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW. Very true, and they are probably a substantial majority. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"James Robinson" wrote" "Flaps_50!" wrote: "Dan Luke" wrote: It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention. Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration. There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates. Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island effect of cities. Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is here for us to use. That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they all wrong? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
In article ,
James Robinson wrote: That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they all wrong? There's this thing call the Sun, heard of it? Look around a bit for work on changes to Mars and Jupiter's climates; they're affected by *something*, and it's hard to argue that human CO2 production having anything to do with their recent changes. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
In article ,
James Robinson wrote: "Peter Dohm" wrote: "James Robinson" wrote" "Flaps_50!" wrote: "Dan Luke" wrote: It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention. Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration. There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates. Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island effect of cities. Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is here for us to use. That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they all wrong? They could be. Remember, the "scientific community" in ages past supported (among other things): Geocentric universe Flat Earth Phlogiston As a retired engineer with a similar background to Burt, I have to go along with him on this. The earth has cycled through many heating/cooling cycles, with varying levels of CO2 -- some where CO2 concentration led, some where it trailed temperature. Remember, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is 0.0004 part of the atmosphere, not some huge figure. For a graphic view, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm This chart takes back 450,000 years and through four ice ages and five warmings. How can anybody with a modicum of scientific training tell us that CO2 is causative of temperature? -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"James Robinson" wrote in message
... "Peter Dohm" wrote: "James Robinson" wrote" "Flaps_50!" wrote: "Dan Luke" wrote: It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention. Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration. There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates. Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island effect of cities. Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is here for us to use. That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they all wrong? The short answer is yes! The slightly longer answer is that the practicioners of hard sciences, including climatology, have not embraced any such thing. However, there is a lot of political muscle and avalable grant money behind the CO2 witch hunt, and you can find plenty of panderers in any field. That is not to say that we should be converting O2 to CO2 faster than we can grow evough plants to accomplish the reverse, especially over a long period of time. However, there does seem to be ample argument that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is more of a result of the temperature of the oceans than of anything that humans have done. I might add that warming, and the release of CO2 from the oceans is probably a very good thing. It is the most essential food for plants--which also thrive in warm conditions--and provides the oportunity to release more O2 back into the atmosphere. Peter Build MORE nukes! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
The earth has cycled through many heating/cooling cycles, with varying levels of CO2 -- some where CO2 concentration led, some where it trailed temperature. Remember, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is 0.0004 part of the atmosphere, not some huge figure. For a graphic view, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm This chart takes back 450,000 years and through four ice ages and five warmings. How can anybody with a modicum of scientific training tell us that CO2 is causative of temperature? The solar "constant" is variable but insufficient to account for the variability being experienced. There are numerous gases with thermal and ionospheric consequences: water, methane, CO2, volcanic dust etc. (not to mention the fluorocarbons.) CO2 is not even the most thermally active atmospheric gas. There are numerous terrestrial feedback loops and plenty of uncertain coupling factors. Arguably, Global Weather variation is not even the most severe World threat, when compared with the continued human growth rate. Even an engineer ought to be able to predict the end point of ANY positive constant % growth rate in the use of finite resources. The exponential curve is inexorable.... Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming The debbil made me do it | Denny | Piloting | 442 | April 5th 08 12:26 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 10:47 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 09:21 PM |
I have an opinion on global warming! | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 89 | April 12th 07 12:56 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |