Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:15:54 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
om:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than
the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated
or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

Fine but little dated now.


Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid?

Some questions/anomalies have been resolved quite recently. This one
of the ways The Great Global Warming Swindle dishonestly distorted the
truth - by knowingly using outdated or discredited research, they
say..

For example:
"Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the
surface which disproves human-induced warming
We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface
in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This
expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse
gases or changes in the Sun’s output. Until recently, measurements of
the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not
appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now
been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the
theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the
observations."

I understand 'the cosmic ray thingy' was originally based upon flawed
data and is currently unproved.

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:

Shouldn't you be in the boatyard applying bottom paint... or
something?

CWM

Did you use a respirator last time?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote:
You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So
I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the
other guy's argument.


Nope, it was a purely personal attack.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 12:33:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:56:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

Shouldn't you be in the boatyard applying bottom paint... or
something?

Just trying to encourage a little intellectual honesty. It seems to be in
short supply.

Tomorrow the boatyard.

I'm just trying to encourage a little boating talk. It seems to be in
even shorter supply.

If you want honesty... The thread has long ago run it's course, and
the dead horse has been soundly beaten by all involved. No further
beating of the horse will give anyone an advantage.

CWM

Perhaps not. But it will certainly tenderize the meat.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:37 PM:
Jeff wrote:
What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the
question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring
minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?


Dave has never addressed the topic of global warming. In fact, he
generally does not address any issue, but prefers to stay on the
sideline and take cheap shots. That was the exact sentence used by
Dave in questioning someone else. I guess it didn't bother you when
he said it.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.


Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now
to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or
corrupting the science by political dogma.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:36 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I'm not impressed.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who study
atmospheric change.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to
allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.


Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now
to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or
corrupting the science by political dogma.


And with that, we are squarely in the same camp. Perhaps just arriving there
from different trails.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Cessna 310 wrote:

Nope, it was a purely personal attack.


whatever you say

I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.

So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.

There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding. I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:18:08 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who study
atmospheric change.

atmospheric *science*, yes. Temperature,ozone,water
vapour,aerosol,clouds,winds etc. etc.

quasi/pseudo/para...scientist/engineer/technician. They don't put your
name on papers for sweeping the floor.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.

So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.

There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding.
I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.


It's not like governments seek control over everything they can get their
hands on, or anything.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:18:08 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with
a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be
that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific
paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who
study
atmospheric change.

atmospheric *science*, yes. Temperature,ozone,water
vapour,aerosol,clouds,winds etc. etc.

quasi/pseudo/para...scientist/engineer/technician. They don't put your
name on papers for sweeping the floor.


So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
....

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand
identification and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.

An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all. Ironically, there is evidence that the anti-Global Warming
forces offer "bounties" for anything critical of Global Warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...rc=rss&feed=11

The one thing that most of the pro-Global Warming research has in
common is that it is published in peer-reviewed journals, where the
editors are experts in the field, and the papers are reviewed by other
experts charged with looking for flaws in the methodology. Not a
perfect system, but it is a foundation of modern science, and having
been through the process I can assure you that scientists take it
seriously.

The one anti-Global Warming paper offered in this discussion (Beck's
180 years accurate CO2 Gas analysis) was published not by one of the
6000 ISI listed peer-reviewed journals, but a journal dedicated to
publishing articles that could not pass normal peer review.



While there are certainly some that have made a career from
global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded
by some "global warming conspiracy."

Has anyone claimed it has? That's what's called a straw man.

So how else does a academic research scientist lose his job? Research
grants have to come somewhere, they are either from relatively
unbiased sources searching for the truth, or they are from sources
with a special agenda. We know that big business, in particular big
oil, has funded anti-Global Warming research in the past, but who has
been funding pro-Global Warming research? Certainly not the Bush
administration!


Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research
interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country,
the government has not been very eager to support GW research.

And of course the critical phrase is "what they can get grants for." Do you
not suppose it might be more difficult to get grants to investigate a
non-problem than to investigate a problem? Might that not predispose one
seeking grants to wish to come down on the side of there being a problem?

Not when the federal government has been insistent that there is no
problem. Actually, there's probably easier money to be made by taking
the "anti" position.


Oh no, of course not. Pure hearts.

Pure hearts, like the American Petroleum Institute, who partially
funded the paper by Baliunas and Soon which claimed that there has
been no climate change in 2000 years. This paper was refuted by the
13 scientists whose work was cited by it, and half of the editorial
board of the journal resigned in protest over the poor peer-review
process.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
...

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a
"research assistant."

How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand identification
and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

Not at all, just trying to clarify. The original presentation of the paper
was done in a way that made one think he was a scientist, without stating
that he was a research assistant. He then posted that he wasn't a scientist,
then posted again linking his name to several scientific papers without
mentioning his role in those papers, again leading one to believe that he
has bonafides which he really doesn't.

If I'm speaking with Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, I want to know it. If
I'm speaking with one of their students, it make a difference.

As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?


Why do you take the statement as "rude"? I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately, you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement, I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:27 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
...

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a
"research assistant."

How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand identification
and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

Not at all, just trying to clarify. The original presentation of the paper
was done in a way that made one think he was a scientist, without stating
that he was a research assistant. He then posted that he wasn't a scientist,
then posted again linking his name to several scientific papers without
mentioning his role in those papers, again leading one to believe that he
has bonafides which he really doesn't.

If I'm speaking with Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, I want to know it. If
I'm speaking with one of their students, it make a difference.

Just as a matter of interest, who do you consider to be The Big Chief
of this particular subject matter?


As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.

Practically perfect, in fact..

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?


Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately, you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:27 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, who do you consider to be The Big Chief
of this particular subject matter?

I don't know that there really is one. However, such a person would have to
be someone untouched by -- and immune to -- political agendas.



As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely
a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.

Practically perfect, in fact..


Just call me Mary Poppins.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

Yup, my reply followed Mr.B's, but addressed your link to the paper you
originally posted. At that time you appeared to be leading us to believe
that you wrote the paper. Had you said, "I worked as a research assistant on
this paper, and others," the entire matter would have ended right there.


I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately,
you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..


I usually hire an electrician.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?
Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?
Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

and you are wrong as well

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you
are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid.

You don't know much about science, I see. Bias is a very important issue
in all of science, so much so that any experiments or reasoning *must*
address bias and correct for it.

If you watch the video, there is much more to the argument than the bias
of the involved scientists. Why don't you address any of those issues?

Stephen

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:06 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:24:36 -0400, Jeff said:

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.
An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all.

Again, you're trying to be cute. Your rhetorical question was as follows:

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?
No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?

Your claim, in other words, is that the answer to the question (whether
experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory's being
true) is to be found in a peer-reviewed journal article.

Pretty clear example of trying to blow smoke.

Do you have a peer-reviewed article to prove that? Otherwise, you're
just blowing smoke.

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

And on the other side, its well established that much of the "anti"
research is funded by front groups supported by big oil, and published
in non-peer reviewed journals. That's mirrors!

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:12:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

Yup, my reply followed Mr.B's, but addressed your link to the paper you
originally posted. At that time you appeared to be leading us to believe
that you wrote the paper. Had you said, "I worked as a research assistant on
this paper, and others," the entire matter would have ended right there.


With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to
judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination
to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some
knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry
Jeff was somewhat misled for a period.

I am not responsible for what Gore says or anybody assuming I am a
tree-hugger. Despite my poor verbal skills what I actually say can be
very precise. Sometimes I wonder if I have spent too much time with
lasers and become one.

Enough is enough, I apologise to the group for off-topic posts but I
feel BS must always be countered particulaly something as gross as
T.G.G.W.S.

I have finished. :-) Byeeee.


I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately,
you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..


I usually hire an electrician.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:46 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:32:41 -0400, Jeff said:

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

No Jeff. Blowing smoke is claiming the issue of whether those supporting the
theory of GW are corrupt is to be found in a scientific journal.

Why is that, Dave? I don't follow your logic at all. A claim was
made, I only asked if there was supporting evidence that would be
acceptable to most people. How is that blowing smoke? Most people
would look at it the other way, that making such a claim without
supporting evidence is blowing smoke.

Logic was never your long suit, was it Dave?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to
judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination
to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some
knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry
Jeff was somewhat misled for a period.

Actually, you don't know what my background is, do you?

And you are still unwilling to clarify what your contributions to those
papers may have been. Why the continued obfuscation? If I put my name on a
book, I think it makes a difference whether I actually wrote it, or simply
typed the manuscript. To list my name along with that of the author without
clarifying my actual role would be disingenuous at best.

If you receive public funding in related fields, it is not unreasonable for
one to assume that it is in your own personal interest to keep those funds
flowing. This is not an implication of corruption -- it is simply a
statement made based upon an understanding of how money flows in acadamia
and governmental institutions.


I am not responsible for what Gore says or anybody assuming I am a
tree-hugger. Despite my poor verbal skills what I actually say can be
very precise. Sometimes I wonder if I have spent too much time with
lasers and become one.

I have no way to judge your verbal skills, it's your writing skills that I
have commented on.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:


I understand 'the cosmic ray thingy' was originally based upon flawed
data and is currently unproved.

So was the original ice core CO2 study. So in that context, the current
research that relies on the CO2 levels reported in that study should
likewise be disqualified.


Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

No, the global warming noise is just increasing. The signal level seems
to be lost below all the global warming screaming and hype.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.
If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.



Wrong. You said that we needed to look at papers by you and other
scientists doing scientific research. You even provided a link that
indicated a direct personal involvement in writing papers related to
global warming. You declared that fairly early in your entry into this
thread.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.
All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.


Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now
to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or
corrupting the science by political dogma.


Planning for what? For changing the kind of grass we plant since the
earth is warming?

We're trying to create an understanding so that political dogma doesn't
rule the decisions, but common sense and scientific reality. Those
preaching global warming panic are going down the political dogma path.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:

Nope, it was a purely personal attack.


whatever you say

I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head

If that's what it takes to get rid of those pesky intra-cranial rocks,
go for it.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.
So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)
I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.
There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding. I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Not necessarily. One can keep getting funding if they are supporting by
a politically favored viewpoint.



Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.


You've got to be kidding. Or trying to pull a quick one.

A "yes" would support a political platform or viewpoint.

Do you think Al Gore would propose funding to blow his political agenda
out of the water? Or do you think we would use his political influence
to fund research that would be interpreted in a way so as to support his
position?

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Jeff wrote:
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:46 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:32:41 -0400, Jeff said:

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

No Jeff. Blowing smoke is claiming the issue of whether those
supporting the
theory of GW are corrupt is to be found in a scientific journal.

Why is that, Dave? I don't follow your logic at all. A claim was made,
I only asked if there was supporting evidence that would be acceptable
to most people. How is that blowing smoke? Most people would look at
it the other way, that making such a claim without supporting evidence
is blowing smoke.

Logic was never your long suit, was it Dave?


I think the paper by this physicist has been published in the last few
weeks.


Some scientists reject current global warming theory

February 02, 2007 AD

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists,
describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to
conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global
warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in
carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the
20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human
activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another
candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

+++

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself
assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer
accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views.

He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is
the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully
digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more
complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or
the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is
no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse
gases cause global warming.

Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the
United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global
warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.

In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so
uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been
cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has
been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we
might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr.
Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why
climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of
fingerprints."

Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify
reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' "

However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other
suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior
explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global
warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has
been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that
cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere.

So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is
unlikely that this does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much
of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate
through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially
potent drivers of climate change.

The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases
is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will
matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not
dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states.

Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2
increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today
instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of
global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories
around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant.

In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal,
Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that
Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way
sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others.

That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter
global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice
ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces
influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy,
Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550
million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more
than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most
dominant climate driver over geological time scales.

The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative
role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the
global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2
-- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary
role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also
believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their
adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as
solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium
into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an
altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is
not the right way to go."

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:12:22 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.
If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.
I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Wrong. You said that we needed to look at papers by you and other
scientists doing scientific research. You even provided a link that
indicated a direct personal involvement in writing papers related to
global warming. You declared that fairly early in your entry into this
thread.



I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this quibbling. Forget
trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently on it's
own merits, or shut the **** up.

CWM

Maybe the following will shut you up. Or maybe you can't figure out
what is being said....



Some scientists reject current global warming theory

February 02, 2007 AD

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists,
describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to
conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global
warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in
carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the
20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human
activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another
candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

+++

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself
assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer
accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views.

He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is
the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully
digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more
complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or
the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is
no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse
gases cause global warming.

Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the
United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global
warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.

In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so
uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been
cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has
been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we
might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr.
Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why
climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of
fingerprints."

Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify
reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' "

However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other
suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior
explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global
warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has
been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that
cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere.

So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is
unlikely that this does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much
of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate
through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially
potent drivers of climate change.

The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases
is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will
matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not
dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states.

Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2
increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today
instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of
global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories
around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant.

In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal,
Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that
Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way
sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others.

That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter
global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice
ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces
influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy,
Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550
million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more
than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most
dominant climate driver over geological time scales.

The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative
role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the
global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2
-- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary
role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also
believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their
adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as
solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium
into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an
altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is
not the right way to go."

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:47 PM:
....

With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to
judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination
to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some
knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry
Jeff was somewhat misled for a period.

No need to apologize, I don't feel that I was misled. Having worked
in academia for a number of years, and published a little, I
understand how all that works.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:35:22 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote:

Maybe the following will shut you up. Or maybe you can't figure out
what is being said....


I thought you were claiming to know what you were talking about? Your only
option now really is to just shut the **** up. Find a subject you have
first
hand knowlege about. Preferably something ON ****ING TOPIC. If that is
beyond
your abilities, then do the right thing and shoot yourself in whatever
portion
of your body houses your desicated brain.

CWM

Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's
posts have been entirely on-topic.

Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them
sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic
also.

Carry on.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's
posts have been entirely on-topic.

Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them
sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic
also.

Carry on.


Your original post was completely off topic for this newsgroup. That's
just
another FACT that you choose to ignore. If this is the way you want this
newsgroup to evolve, I will be more than happy to start lots of off topic
threads to assist you in your endeavors. I may even cross post them to
gain more
impact for your project. Maybe others can also join in and start off topic
threads. That would be GREAT!

CWM

Aw, c'mon, Charlie. You need to go sailing as badly as I do. Unfortunately,
that option isn't open to me for another few weeks. The most I can hope to
do until then is work on the boat when weather allows. But I have to
disagree that the topic is is off-topic for this newsgroup, as the outcome
of the debate could very well impact our ability to engage in this activity.