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.

"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

"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.

"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

"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.

"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?

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.

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.

"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!

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