The Holocene Deniers

[Baggins]

Oooo...you are so sharp, Mr. "Baggins" (and brave too -- writing under a pseudonym) --

My name is William Bailey I am a chief geophysicist for one of the leading geophysical exploration companies in the world. I have a degree in geology from Edinburgh University a masters in geology from UCL and 20 years experience in the oil exploration business including stints with GSI ( briefly), HGS and Western Geophysical.

I live in the UK and work offshore.

If you want any further information I will consider it.

I have a very good reason to deny global warming - I work in the oil industry - and a very good reason not to deny global warming - I am not a hypocrite who would sell out my scientific training for personal reasons - guess which path I choose?

and right, there's no physics involved in climate dynamics, and physicists have nothing common with climatologists respecting what empirical science is, how it works (and doesn't work), what scientific theories are (and aren't), and how scientific hypotheses are (and are not) empirically corroborated (or falsified). Thus indeed you have no reason -- none whatsoever -- to be interested in what Drallos (or me, or Glenn, or any Republican) has to say, just as I no longer have any interest -- none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat -- in anything you have to say on any subject -- after all, you are not a contributor to the Republican Party (nor a climatologist either, for that matter), what can you possibly know that'd be of value to a mere physical-organic chemist and libertarian Republican like me?).

Drallos has no training in climatology therefore I couldn't really give a stuff what he thinks about it and the fact that he is obviously very right wing just confirms my idea that he is, like Mr Morton, rejecting science for political reasons.

There is a lot of physics in meteorology, I know that, I , unlike you and Mr Morton, actually studied meteorology at University for a year ( I took the first year Meteorology course at Edinburgh University as part of my Geology degree ). But I, unlike you and Mr Morton, don't have the intellectual hubris to assume that this allows me to naysay climatological experts in their fields.

The fact that you are all right wingers just confirms that you reject science for political reasons, you are no diffrent to YECs as far as I can see.

I respectfully disagree, but very well, think what you like.

Well I have no respect for you and your ilk who would reject science for political reasons, but I still think you can think what you like as long as you don't mind being ridiculed for it.

Have you any good reason for thinking I should take the word of a plasma physicist and software developer over that of trained climatologists?

I respectfully disagree, but very well, you are not only entitled to your own opinion but indeed you have a duty to yourself to reject my or Glenn's or Drallos' or anybody else's perspectives in favor of whatever makes the most genuine be good sense to you (just as I do for my own self and Glenn does for his own self).

-- Frank

I think I do have the duty to point out that people who reject the science have absolutely zero training in the discipline they reject and do so for political rather than scientific reasons.

I have absolutely no respect at all for people like you and Mr Morton and Drallos, you have sold any scientific integrity you may ever of had to your politics, good luck with that.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Oooo...you are so sharp, Mr. "Baggins" (and brave too -- writing under a pseudonym)

It's called a "forum handle". It's for people disinclined to divulge personal information in a open forum on the internet.

Most people would call that common sense.

 

[Frank Lovell]

...
It is part of the reason I find it hard to be extremely harsh with you....

Thau (may I call you Thau -- and I am curious, why a "cybernym" anyhow?), you wrote the above to Glenn.

And why is it noteworthy to "find it hard to be extremely harsh" with anybody here? Why ever "find" on a dialogue list ANY reason EVER to be "extremely harsh" with someone???

Really, what IS it with you folks here? Why all the hubris, the vitriol, the pejorative innuendos and one-upsmanship? I (an atheist) have spent decades on dialogue lists of all sorts and the most rancorous ones are the religious lists and the political lists (and the least rancorous one are the scholarship-oriented scientific and philosophical lists where I have read and been in countless disagreements where rancor and personal attacks are relatively rare).

For the record, I freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge that my thinking is feeble and fallible and that therefor I could be wrong on anything I say. Does anyone else here EVER even implickly acknowledge that about themselves? Here on ChristianForums, am I among infallible giants of intellect who on the strength of mere counter-utterance I should bow down to and capitulate?

What I am looking for here are reasons why I should revise my (feeble, fallible) present perspectives and understandings -- I am not hear to tell anyone what they must or should think or believe. Are any of you here to tell me what I must or should think or believe?

I am here to discuss things in case I might thereby discover something I have overlooked or misunderstood or didn't know. If someone here finds my present perspectives to not make sense, I expect them to reject my perspectives in favor of whatever makes the most genuine good sense to them (just as I have always doen and will continue to do for my own self).

Why are most of you here?

I have NO TROUBLE AT ALL to agreeing to (hopefully respectfully) disagree whenever someone does indeed enduringly disagree with me on this or that or the other (heck, I recognize that I could be wrong, he/she may be right) -- why do so many here seem to have so much trouble doing this?

Bottom line, is this a discussion forum? Or a pontification forum or a "let's (rhetorically) beat-the-snot-outa-any-one-with-the-temerity-to-have-a-different-perspective-than-we-do" list?

Let me know, for I can take my exit as quickly (and a good bit more easily) as I made my entrance here, it is most certainly NOT the case that I have a shortage of dialectical outlets for pursuing my own personal intellectual interests and growth.

Now, If nobody else here finds the implications of Earth's history of global climate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentrations problematic with the highly (and in my feeble, fallible mind, premature) politicization of AGW (as distinct from plain ol' GW) as the "settled science" Cause of global warming (and not simply one influence among many others of global climate change), that's fine with me, I do NOT CLAIM to be an expert on climate and I freely, frequently, and explicitly acknowledge that I am fallible and could therefore be wrong.

If there are reasons why I should think human CO2 production or other human activities exert MAJOR (relative to all the other colossal natural influences that have Fourier-conspired collectively to cause multiple truly huge swings in Earth's last 700,000,000 years of pre-human history) 1st-order influences rather than possibly only 2d- order or 3rd-order influences, I would like to hear about them so I can examine them for merit for myself.

Thank you! -- Frank

PS: And note that while I think Glenn makes a very credible case for skepticism of the claims of AGW, and that his case and my case have some overlap, his case is not focused or centered on the same data and issues that my case is focused or centered on -- we have two (overlapping, but nonetheless) different cases underwriting skepticism of AGW, so that criticisms of Glenn's case do not necessarily indict mine and criticisms of my case do not necessarily indict his.

 

[Baggins]

It's called a "forum handle". It's for people disinclined to divulge personal information in a open forum on the internet.

Most people would call that common sense.

I will now go back and delete the first bit of my previous post.

He was obviously phishing for info to hack my massive petroleum provided bank balance

 

[Frank Lovell]

My name is William Bailey I am a chief geophysicist for one of the leading geophysical exploration companies in the world. I have a degree in geology from Edinburgh University a masters in geology from UCL and 20 years experience in the oil exploration business including stints with GSI ( briefly), HGS and Western Geophysical.

I live in the UK and work offshore.

If you want any further information I will consider it.

I have a very good reason to deny global warming - I work in the oil industry - and a very good reason not to deny global warming - I am not a hypocrite who would sell out my scientific training for personal reasons - guess which path I choose?


Drallos has no training in climatology therefore I couldn't really give a stuff what he thinks about it and the fact that he is obviously very right wing just confirms my idea that he is, like Mr Morton, rejecting science for political reasons.

There is a lot of physics in meteorology, I know that, I , unlike you and Mr Morton, actually studied meteorology at University for a year ( I took the first year Meteorology course at Edinburgh University as part of my Geology degree ). But I, unlike you and Mr Morton, don't have the intellectual hubris to assume that this allows me to naysay climatological experts in their fields.

The fact that you are all right wingers just confirms that you reject science for political reasons, you are no diffrent to YECs as far as I can see.

Well I have no respect for you and your ilk who would reject science for political reasons, but I still think you can think what you like as long as you don't mind being ridiculed for it.

Have you any good reason for thinking I should take the word of a plasma physicist and software developer over that of trained climatologists?

I think I do have the duty to point out that people who reject the science have absolutely zero training in the discipline they reject and do so for political rather than scientific reasons.

I have absolutely no respect at all for people like you and Mr Morton and Drallos, you have sold any scientific integrity you may ever of had to your politics, good luck with that.

>YAWN< -- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

I will now go back and delete the first bit of my previous post.

He was obviously phishing for info to hack my massive petroleum provided bank balance

Obviously

 

[Thistlethorn]

Thau (may I call you Thau -- and I am curious, why a &quot;cybernym&quot; anyhow?), you wrote the above to Glenn.

And why is it noteworthy to &quot;find it hard to be extremely harsh&quot; with anybody here? Why ever &quot;find&quot; on a dialogue list ANY reason EVER to be &quot;extremely harsh&quot; with someone???

Really, what IS it with you folks here? Why all the hubris, the vitriol, the pejorative innuendos and one-upsmanship? I (an atheist) have spent decades on dialogue lists of all sorts and the most rancorous ones are the religious lists and the political lists (and the least rancorous one are the scholarship-oriented scientific and philosophical lists where I have read and been in countless disagreements where rancor and personal attacks are relatively rare).

For the record, I freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge that my thinking is feeble and fallible and that therefor I could be wrong on anything I say. Does anyone else here EVER even implickly acknowledge that about themselves? Here on ChristianForums, am I among infallible giants of intellect who on the strength of mere counter-utterance I should bow down to and capitulate?

What I am looking for here are reasons why I should revise my (feeble, fallible) present perspectives and understandings -- I am not hear to tell anyone what they must or should think or believe. Are any of you here to tell me what I must or should think or believe?

I am here to discuss things in case I might thereby discover something I have overlooked or misunderstood or didn't know. If someone here finds my present perspectives to not make sense, I expect them to reject my perspectives in favor of whatever makes the most genuine good sense to them (just as I have always doen and will continue to do for my own self).

Why are most of you here?

I have NO TROUBLE AT ALL to agreeing to (hopefully respectfully) disagree whenever someone does indeed enduringly disagree with me on this or that or the other (heck, I recognize that I could be wrong, he/she may be right) -- why do so many here seem to have so much trouble doing this?

Bottom line, is this a discussion forum? Or a pontification forum or a &quot;let's (rhetorically) beat-the-snot-outa-any-one-with-the-temerity-to-have-a-different-perspective-than-we-do&quot; list?

Let me know, for I can take my exit as quickly (and a good bit more easily) as I made my entrance here, it is most certainly NOT the case that I have a shortage of dialectical outlets for pursuing my own personal intellectual interests and growth.

Now, If nobody else here finds the implications of Earth's history of global climate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentrations problematic with the highly (and in my feeble, fallible mind, premature) politicization of AGW (as distinct from plain ol' GW) as the &quot;settled science&quot; Cause of global warming (and not simply one influence among many others of global climate change), that's fine with me, I do NOT CLAIM to be an expert on climate and I freely, frequently, and explicitly acknowledge that I am fallible and could therefore be wrong.

If there are reasons why I should think human CO2 production or other human activities exert MAJOR (relative to all the other colossal natural influences that have Fourier-conspired collectively to cause multiple truly huge swings in Earth's last 700,000,000 years of pre-human history) 1st-order influences rather than possibly only 2d- order or 3rd-order influences, I would like to hear about them so I can examine them for merit for myself.

Thank you! -- Frank

PS: And note that while I think Glenn makes a very credible case for skepticism of the claims of AGW, and that his case and my case have some overlap, his case is not focused or centered on the same data and issues that my case is focused or centered on -- we have two (overlapping, but nonetheless) different cases underwriting skepticism of AGW, so that criticisms of Glenn's case do not necessarily indict mine and criticisms of my case do not necessarily indict his.

To sum up this to a question that can be answered, I have gone with this one: Why are you guys so mean to each other?

The answer to that question is quite simple, but there are several factors:

1. There are two main reasons for people to reject AGW: Ignorance and politics. There is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is very real (this is not a matter of opinion, but fact). Climatologists are the ones most qualified to establish if AGW is real or not, and their verdict is in. That leaves people to accept or reject established science. Rejecting science is done by ignorant people and people with a political agenda.

2. As AGW is real (according to the consensus among those most qualified to say so), those of us who care about the future of this planet and our own offspring feel extremely threatened by the powerful forces that exist in lobby groups trying to muddy the water when it comes to AGW. As such, we have very little patience for deniers. Something has to be done, and it has to be now. We can't wait to finish a discussion with people who don't want to admit that they're wrong. We need action, and you're in the way.

3. As for this particular thread, and the person of Glen Morton, he's a very unlikeable person. He's gone through this thread trying to bully anyone daring to disagree with him, and he quickly hand waves contradictory evidence, while insisting that people answer EVERY SINGLE POINT he makes. I don't think it can be said that we have treated the man unfairly.

 

[Frank Lovell]

It's called a "forum handle". It's for people disinclined to divulge personal information in a open forum on the internet.

Most people would call that common sense.

I see; Well, I suppose one's name is indeed "personal information" -- the single most de facto public "personal information" one possess -- but in retrospect I can certainly see why some folks want to keep their actual identities separate from some of the things they've publicly said and the way they've publicly said them.

Very well then, I was just curious, THANKS! -- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

I see; Well, I suppose one's name is indeed &quot;personal information&quot; -- the single most de facto public "personal information" one possess -- but in retrospect I can certainly see why some folks want to keep their actual identities separate from some of the things they've publicly said and the way they've publicly said them.

Very well then, I was just curious, THANKS! -- Frank

Your insinuation is unnecessary. You might not be sensible enough to realize that anyone with internet access can see what you write on these forums, thus making you a potential target for - well, anything - if they should chose to. The beauty of internet discussion is anonymity. It's both a boon and a curse. A boon because no matter who you are, you can partake in any discussion as long as you stick to the topic. The curse is that people are liable to lying about who they really are, using that to build an argument from authority.

 

[Frank Lovell]

To sum up this to a question that can be answered, I have gone with this one: Why are you guys so mean to each other?

The answer to that question is quite simple, but there are several factors:

1. There are two main reasons for people to reject AGW: Ignorance and politics. There is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is very real (this is not a matter of opinion, but fact). Climatologists are the ones most qualified to establish if AGW is real or not, and their verdict is in. That leaves people to accept or reject established science. Rejecting science is done by ignorant people and people with a political agenda.

2. As AGW is real (according to the consensus among those most qualified to say so), those of us who care about the future of this planet and our own offspring feel extremely threatened by the powerful forces that exist in lobby groups trying to muddy the water when it comes to AGW. As such, we have very little patience for deniers. Something has to be done, and it has to be now. We can't wait to finish a discussion with people who don't want to admit that they're wrong. We need action, and you're in the way.

3. As for this particular thread, and the person of Glen Morton, he's a very unlikeable person. He's gone through this thread trying to bully anyone daring to disagree with him, and he quickly hand waves contradictory evidence, while insisting that people answer EVERY SINGLE POINT he makes. I don't think it can be said that we have treated the man unfairly .

I see. Thanks for that input, it is very insightful for me (if you re-read what you wrote but read it as if you were me or someone else, I think you might see why it is very insightful for me...and then again, maybe you won't).

Just curious, did you give thoughtful read to Drallos' essay?

If so, what did he say that you think is false or irrelevant to Earth's future global climate changes that we humans might face and think I should also regard to be false or irrelevant?

If not, will you?

If not, why not?

And have you noticed that I have nowhere denied (and as far as I've seen, neither has Glenn) that human activity is a contributing influence on global climate? In case you (or others) didn't notice that, let me now stipulate that I (for one who is presently skeptical of the claim that AGW as a major or 1st-order cause of global climate is "settled science") do recognize that human activity does have a contributing influence (one among many, it seems to me that global climate dynamics are colossally complex) on global climate. I'd say more, but first I am still trying to learn whether this is a discussion forum, or just a pontification forum. (I am till seeking yet more insight -- perhaps you might help me find it?)

Thanks! -- Frank

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thau (may I call you Thau -- and I am curious, why a "cybernym" anyhow?), you wrote the above to Glenn.

And why is it noteworthy to "find it hard to be extremely harsh" with anybody here? Why ever "find" on a dialogue list ANY reason EVER to be "extremely harsh" with someone???

I actual am capable of feeling "guilt" over harsh things I say. I was raised to be a better person than that.

For the record, I freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge that my thinking is feeble and fallible and that therefor I could be wrong on anything I say. Does anyone else here EVER even implickly acknowledge that about themselves?

Clearly Frank, you have read almost nothing I have written. I say that very thing all the time.

I suggest before you label us all one thing or another, you go back and take a look at the record.

Why are most of you here?

I'm here to discuss the data.

Now, If nobody else here finds the implications of Earth's history of global climate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentrations problematic

Well the science does seem to indicate that AGW is a very strong possibility.

If there are reasons why I should think human CO2 production or other human activities exert MAJOR (relative to all the other colossal natural influences that have Fourier-conspired collectively to cause multiple truly huge swings in Earth's last 700,000,000 years of pre-human history) 1st-order influences rather than possibly only 2d- order or 3rd-order influences, I would like to hear about them so I can examine them for merit for myself.

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. It is simply part of the physics of the C=O bonds and their vibrations

2. Isotopic evidence shows that we are major contributors to the recent upswing in terms of atmospheric CO2

3. Projections made using forcing functions which have CO2 as a major forcing seem to predict reasonably well the actual events that occured later on (since you have read all the posts here you will recall the posts discussing the 1988 Hansen article as well as the graph I posted from that article showing relative forcings from the different aspects of the model.)

 

[Frank Lovell]

Your insinuation is unnecessary. You might not be sensible enough to realize that anyone with internet access can see what you write on these forums, thus making you a potential target for - well, anything - if they should chose to. The beauty of internet discussion is anonymity. It's both a boon and a curse. A boon because no matter who you are, you can partake in any discussion as long as you stick to the topic. The curse is that people are liable to lying about who they really are, using that to build an argument from authority.

Right. Well, my name (and other info) has been publicly available most of my life in the phone book, and I have been internetting on public forums for close to 20 years now, always using my real name. I agree that my doing that deprives me of the benefits of waxing anonymously, but I can live with that and also with what I publicly write. I have also seen the kinds of mindlessly stupid and insulting things people have said publicly on the internet (and you have SURELY seen such, too) precisely because they wrote it with cybernym-protected anonymity, and whatever else (good or horrible) you or anyone else can truthfully say about me, that I hide behind a cybernym at least ain't one of them.

I realize that that and $5 will still get me a bitter, lukewarm cuppa coffee in some airports, but there it is.

That all now said, I do not have a serious problem with folks posting under a cybernym (been living with 'em for years and years), I just get curious from time-to-time about why so many folks who seem to be serious about engaging in serious dialogue in which they (presumably) wish to be taken seriously elect to do so. Ah well...

By the way, if you see me make an argument from authority, I expect you to smack me down on it but good (and if you are right that I was indeed making an argument from authority, I will thank you for busting me on it)!

-- Frank

 

[Gracchus]

Now I admit that I haven't read every post, or checked every citation in this thread.

What I have seen, however, and not just from this thread, is that climate change has been supported by evidence from numerous sources, and is accepted by a vast majority of climatologists.

I have also noted that GLMorton focuses on one set of data, a problematic temperature difference between two locations, and ignores things like, tree rings, ice cores, vanishing sea ice, melting permafrost, methane release, de-forestation, changing albedo, positive feedback loops, shifting ecosystems, and reason.

He says warming has happened in the past, but fails to see that the speed of the change and its magnitude are cause for concern. There is going to be a significant, even a huge impact on human civilization.

Sometimes, you just have to step back and look at the big picture.

Because, of course, the problem goes beyond the greenhouse effect. The oceans are polluted, dying, and the fisheries are seriously depleted. The human species has initiated an ecological disaster, but Mr. Morton is far up "de longes river in Africa".

 

[Baggins]

>YAWN< -- Frank

Masterful. I bow before a superior intelligence

 

[Frank Lovell]

For the record, I freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge that my thinking is feeble and fallible and that therefor I could be wrong on anything I say. Does anyone else here EVER even implicitly acknowledge that about themselves? --FL

​

I actual am capable of feeling "guilt" over harsh things I say. I was raised to be a better person than that.

Clearly Frank, you have read almost nothing I have written...

Well, of course I admit that all I have read of your posts is what you've posted on this particular sub-forum (I've only been a "newby" on ChristianForum a few days, and this particular sub-forum.

...I say that very thing all the time...

You do? Well, if indeed you freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge your own fallibility, then I am very pleased to learn that! In nearly 20 years of I/N dialoguing on many contentious topics I rarely meet brother so intellectually candid, and I am mighty pleased to make your acquaintance!

...I suggest before you label us all one thing or another, you go back and take a look at the record...

Good advice! But I don't recalling labeling you anything, I just asked a question (revisit what I wrote, it is quoted at the top of this post], one which you have now answered and I very much liked your answer!

...I'm here to discuss the data.

Cool -- me too!

Just curious, did you give thoughtful read to Drallos' essay?

If so, what did he say that you think is false or irrelevant to Earth's future global climate changes that we humans might face and think I should also regard to be false or irrelevant?

If not, will you?

If not, why not?

...Well the science does seem to indicate that AGW is a very strong possibility.

Heck, I (a skeptic of the present claims that it is "settled science" that human activity is a major cause of global warming and not just a contributor -- one among many -- to global climate change) go further than that -- I freely acknowledge that human CO2 emissions do absolutely factually exert an influence (one among many) on global climate -- I'm just not yet persuaded that human CO2 emissions exert a 1st-order influence, relative to all the other short, medium- and long-range natural influencers that have kept Earth's global temperatures historically MUCH higher than today (punctuated with huge cool periods here and there, rendering Eath's present global temperature to be a rather rare temperature), and I don't have any reason yet to think those other natural processes are not still at work just as they have been over the last 600+ million years.

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. It is simply part of the physics of the C=O bonds and their vibrations...

Yes, quite so! Who denies that???

2. Isotopic evidence shows that we are major contributors to the recent upswing in terms of atmospheric CO2...

Yes. Who denies that?

3. Projections made using forcing functions which have CO2 as a major forcing seem to predict reasonably well the actual events that occured later on (since you have read all the posts here you will recall the posts discussing the 1988 Hansen article as well as the graph I posted from that article showing relative forcings from the different aspects of the model.)

Here I am not sure (yet) that I can agree in total. I think the dynamic is more complicated, and that the "forcing function models may not be correct. As Glenn has presented (and as is also discussed by Drallos), there is much data indicating that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow (rather than precede) global warming episodes. I (fallibly) think causes of X precede X, not vice-versa (I grant I could be wrong, but presently I find this somewhat troublesome -- don't you???).

It is NOT (and never has been) my contention that there is no global warming.

It is NOT (and never has been) my contention that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that human CO2 emissions exert no influence on global warming.

It IS my present contention that global climate dynamics are colossally complex and involves many natural process influences, some of which are presently well-understood, some of which are not well-understood and possibly some of which we are not yet even fully aware.

Over the last 600+ million years (99.9+&#37; of which was pre-human industry history), Earth's global climate has been cooler than present about 10-12% of that time, and much MUCH warmer than present about 80-82% of that time, and at Earth's present temperature less than 5% of the time (during geologically brief moments while on the way down or on the way back up again), and all with Earth's atmospheric CO2 being WAY, WAY higher than it is today. Why anyone thinks the colossal natural forces that contributed to this dynamic over the last 600+ million years are now no longer at work and all we need to do is "fine-tune" human CO2 emissions and we can keep Earth at our present comfy (but historically quite rare) temperature just BLOWS MY MIND!

But then, as "Baggins" will doubtless remind you, since I am politically a (little-l) libertarian Republican I cannot possibly be even accidentally onto something.

Please, give Drallos's essay a thoughtful read, then let's discuss -- am I asking too much?

-- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

I see. Thanks for that input, it is very insightful for me (if you re-read what you wrote but read it as if you were me or someone else, I think you might see why it is very insightful for me...and then again, maybe you won't).

Just curious, did you give thoughtful read to Drallos' essay?

If so, what did he say that you think is false or irrelevant to Earth's future global climate changes that we humans might face and think I should also regard to be false or irrelevant?

If not, will you?

If not, why not?

And have you noticed that I have nowhere denied (and as far as I've seen, neither has Glenn) that human activity is a contributing influence on global climate? In case you (or others) didn't notice that, let me now stipulate that I (for one who is presently skeptical of the claim that AGW as a major or 1st-order cause of global climate is &quot;settled science&quot do recognize that human activity does have a contributing influence (one among many, it seems to me that global climate dynamics are colossally complex) on global climate. I'd say more, but first I am still trying to learn whether this is a discussion forum, or just a pontification forum. (I am till seeking yet more insight -- perhaps you might help me find it?)

Thanks! -- Frank

Ok, so your beef - just like Glen's - is that you don't agree with the scientists - who are trained in doing these kinds of evaluations - on how much the ongoing climate change has to do with human meddling?

Why, then, do you think Glen makes a good case for skepticism when he rambles on about misgivings with two weather stations in the mid-west? Wouldn't it be better if you, or him, presented a case where you get a peer-reviewed paper by someone with a relevant degree that presents evidence for the climate change being mostly natural? Note that said evidence must make it clear that what we know of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is wrong, and that human release of greenhouse gases is either dwarfed by the natural emissions (the evidence points to the contrary at the moment) or that greenhouse gases doesn't have a big impact on the climate.

I have not read Drallo's essay. Does he also rant about individual temperature measuring stations?

 

[Baggins]

And have you noticed that I have nowhere denied (and as far as I've seen, neither has Glenn) that human activity is a contributing influence on global climate? In case you (or others) didn't notice that, let me now stipulate that I (for one who is presently skeptical of the claim that AGW as a major or 1st-order cause of global climate is "settled science") do recognize that human activity does have a contributing influence (one among many, it seems to me that global climate dynamics are colossally complex) on global climate. I'd say more, but first I am still trying to learn whether this is a discussion forum, or just a pontification forum. (I am till seeking yet more insight -- perhaps you might help me find it?)

Thanks! -- Frank

I, like you, do not know to what degree we are affecting the global climate. Climatologists themselves seem to be unsure beyond saying it is significant.

that being the case I believe we should attempt to modify our behaviour, the worst that can happen if we do is that we retard growth in GDP in the developed world by a few percentage points over the coming decades, and even if AGW turns out to have been pie in the sky we will have readied ourselves for something that will happen - the end of fossil fuels.

The flip side of that coin is that we do nothing and AGW turns out to be as bad as the worst predictions. That will lead to a break down in modern human society, it will lead to widespread migration and starvation and no country - not even the mighty USA - will be immune, human progress will be retarded and even reversed .

To me it is a no-brainer, the penalties if we over react are miniscule compared to the penalties if we under react, in fact if we over react we will husband a finite source and drive the movement to future power sources that will be necessary within decades anyway, so some might say it is a positive.

I say this as an oil man with a lot to lose personally from a huge reaction against fossil fuels, but science is science, I can't see how any scientist can see past a consensus of experts, to do so is massive hubris, people who do are nearly all, as I have said, driven by political rather than scientific disagreement with AGW and that, frankly, makes me angry ( which probably comes across ) and quite disgusted.

Mr Morton should try his luck on sites ( and he probably does ) where there aren't scientists trained in statistics who can sink his arguments so easily as Thaumaturgy has done here.

It is quite obvious that one man is dealing in statistically based science and one man is dealing in bluster, hand waving and obfuscation.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Just glanced over doctor Drallo's essay. It's not a peer-reviewed paper and it presents faulty information. For example, Drallos asserts that the earth has been cooling if we look at a 2000 year time scale. That's patently false, as evidenced by the famous hockey-stick graph which I have presented earlier, and here once again:

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, of course I admit that all I have read of your posts is what you've posted on this particular sub-forum (I've only been a "newby" on ChristianForum a few days, and this particular sub-forum.

Then you've seen me say ad nauseam that I could be mistaken and that I would welcome a valid correction.

You do? Well, if indeed you freely, frequently and explicitly acknowledge your own fallibility, then I am very pleased to learn that!

It has been explicitly stated numerous times on this thread alone. Not to mention the numerous times in all my posts.

But further you'll note I'm one of the few people who obsessively provides supporting citations for my points in full knowledge that I could be wrong.

Good advice! But I don't recalling labeling you anything, I just asked a question (revisit what I wrote, it is quoted at the top of this post]

If you asked rhetorically if any of us here accept our own fallibility you got your answer.

Just curious, did you give thoughtful read to Drallos' essay?

I have not read it yet.

Here I am not sure (yet) that I can agree in total. As Glenn has presented (and as is also discussed by Drallos), there is much data indicating that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow (rather than precede) global warming

Regardless of following or preceeding there is a possible feedback loop that can go both ways. But in point of fact if something is capable of inducing global warming (which we established just a few sentences ago) and we are responsible for a major up-tick in pumping it into the atmosphere at historic levels, then I think it is reasonable to assume that we can and might have an impact.

episodes. I (fallibly) think causes of X precede X, not vice-versa (I grant I could be wrong, but presently I find this somewhat troublesome -- don't you???)

No, in that increased temperatures may be able to cause the release of CO2 does not mean that increased CO2 cannot cause increased temperatures. That is a logical fallacy.

.

It IS my present contention that global climate dynamics are colossally complex and involves many natural process influences, some of which are presently well-understood, some of which are not well-understood and possibly some of which we are not yet even fully aware.

Indeed they are complex. That means that if we get it wrong we might end up screwing something up colosally.

Over the last 600+ million years (99.9+&#37; of which was pre-human industry history), Earth's global climate has been cooler than present about 10-12% of that time, and much MUCH warmer than present about 80-82% of that time, and at Earth's present temperature less than 5% of the time (during geologically brief moments while on the way down or on the way back up again), and all with Earth's atmospheric CO2 being WAY, WAY higher than it is today.

No one is arguing that the earth has never had a different climate or climate isn't variable. The key is that current climate is possibly impacted by our activities. If we don't moderate our impact we might be responsible for events that will harm us in some way.

Why anyone thinks the colossal natural forces that contributed to this dynamic over the last 600+ million years are now no longer at work and all we need to do is "fine-tune" human CO2 emissions and we can keep Earth at our present comy (but historically quite rare) temperature just BLOWS MY MIND!

Then you've missed the point of what many of us on here have been saying.

But then, as "Baggins" will doubtless remind you, since I am politically a (little-l) libertarian Republican I cannot possibly be even accidentally onto something.

And what if you're wrong? What if we could have done something and our failure to live more modestly in regards to fossil fuels means we destroy vast swaths of our civilization?

As a libertarian do you waste things at an alarming rate? Do you burn parts of your home down simply because you can and no one can tell you otherwise?

I don't think so. This is why I don't understand why conservation and moderation are so seemingly foreign to more (ironically named) "conservatives".

Please, give Drallos's essay a thoughtful read, then let's discuss -- am I asking too much?

I will read his essay. However, I am growing quite tired of being told what I need to do by others. What are you reading on the other side?

 

[Frank Lovell]

Ok, so your beef - just like Glen's - is that you don't agree with the scientists - who are trained in doing these kinds of evaluations - on how much the ongoing climate change has to do with human meddling?...

No, you have that backwards. My beef is that the implications for the future of Earth's global climate that arise from the history of Earth's global climate temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not seem to be carefully and fully considered/addressed by all climate scientists, which causes me to have a beef with those scientists who are making the present claims of AGW and with those politicians who are intensely but (in my feeble, admittedly fallible view) prematurely politicizing the present claims of AGW and criticizing we skeptics for being skeptical rather than helping us understand where we are going wrong in what we see as good reasons for being skeptical.

...Why, then, do you think Glen makes a good case for skepticism when he rambles on about misgivings with two weather stations in the mid-west? Wouldn't it be better if you, or him, presented a case where you get a peer-reviewed paper by someone with a relevant degree that presents evidence for the climate change being mostly natural? Note that said evidence must make it clear that what we know of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is wrong, and that human release of greenhouse gases is either dwarfed by the natural emissions (the evidence points to the contrary at the moment) or that greenhouse gases doesn't have a big impact on the climate....

I'll present my case, Glenn will present his case. Ask me questions about my case, I'll answer them.

...I have not read Drallo's essay...

Why not? By my asking you to give a careful read to Drallos' essay (it is only 11 pages, including charts, diagrams and references), do I ask too much?

If I ask too much and you will not give it a read, then I don't think you have anything to offer me about what is wrong with the reasons (reasons which Drallos well-articulates better than I] behind my present skepticism of the present, highly politicized claims of AGW (unless you are omniscient or at least can read my mind).

...Does he also rant about individual temperature measuring stations?

No.

-- Frank