--- Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >No, you don't get it.  If the amount man is putting into the atmosphere
> >can be expressed as tons how much is nature putting in?  A hell of a
> lot
> >more.  Second, these trends do not have to be long term.  The Little
> Ice
> >Age just ended.  Could that not effect the amounts of CO2 in the
> >atmosphere?  Also, your "rational" response would be shut down all
> >economic activity.  After all man's contribution is so small and if the
> >98% is the real culprit (or the bigger culprit) curtailing man's
> >contribution would have little or no impact.
> 
> I think that this is a singularly fruitless exchange, Steve. I seem to
> have
> over-estimated your ability to comprehend fairly simple and self-evident
> matters. How do you know that curtailing a 2 percent contribution would
> have little or no impact ? Just answer that one, if you will.

Perhaps it is you who cannot see a larger world view.  Look you refuse to
look at the data and the predictions and see how they square with reality.
 You are a TrueBeliever.

> >>  Of course you can separate anthropogenic CO2 from natural C02. The
> >
> >Oh really, are the CO2 molecules tagged NATURE and MAN-MADE?
> 
> The anthropogenic portion has been added to the atmosphere from
> human activity, released from the carbon sinks, coal, oil, where it
> had been locked away, just as I said twice already. Is that hard to
> grasp ?
> 
> >  > anthropogenic C02 would be locked away in carbon sinks if it were
> not
> >>  for human activity. Your criticism fails because you assume a priori
> >>  that
> >>  just because it is the same 'stuff', then quantity is irrelevant.
> That's
> >>  both
> >>  irrational and unscientific and shows ignorance of myriad examples
> in
> >
> >No, actually this is your assumption not mine.
> 
> You've lost me there. It's impossible to converse with you when
> cannot follow elementary logic.

No, its really simple really.  You made an assumption for me.  Moron's
like me who rely on things like logic call this a strawman argument.  You
assume something about my position that is not true then attack that false
assumption.  It is typical of you, just like your insults.

> >  > nature. Small quantities of a substance can be vital, large
> quantities
> >>  of
> >>  same, lethal. Your prior judgement that you somehow know that two
> >>  percent is unlikely to be important is totally unwarranted and
> totally
> >>  unscientific.
> >
> >Actually no it isn't it is called a belief.  You have them and so do I,
> >and guess what so do all scientist...yep subjectivity is present in
> >scientific research.  Yours happen to be at the opposite end of the
> >spectrum.  Of course since I don't agree with you, I am evil.
> 
> Okay, show us how smart you are and justify your belief. No, not
> especially evil, just having difficulty stretching your intellect.


Its real simple at least in concept.  Micheal has put forward his
subjective probability, I have put forward mine.  We add variances then
use Bayes theorem to update our initial subjective assesments.  Unless one
of us has selected a dogmatic prior (0 variance) eventually the data will
drag us towards common ground.  Why don't you stretch your intellect and
look up Bayesian analysis.

> 
> >  > >Your half a percent is baloney also.  First, the amount of carbon
> in
> >>  the
> >>  >atmosphere is not constant.  Second it can and has flutuated by
> more
> >>  the
> >>  >.5%.
> >>
> >>  Yes Steve. I have read up on all this for years. I am aware of the
> >>  numbers.
> >>  Typically you've missed the point. The system is incredibly complex,
> far
> >>  too complex for us to be able to grasp all the intricacies. To pick
> on
> >>  one
> >>  variable, C02 percentage, as you do, and dismiss its relevance
> cannot
> >>  be justified.
> >
> >But somehow it simple enough for you to make a pronouncement that 100
> >years form now the planet will be catastrophically wamer?  Perhaps you
> >need to do some re-thinking.
> 
> I never said anything about 100 years. I said catastrophe is already
> here.
> The first island disappeared beneath the waves of the Pacific last year.

Island's disappear all the time.  They do it for a number of reasons.  The
Hawaiian Islands will eventually disappear as they mover further and
further away from the hot spot that created them.  To point to this and
say global warming is about as rigorous as sticking your hand outside
noting it is warm and claiming global warming.


> >
> >>  >As for my attitude be reckless, so is yours.  Yours it the "lets
> leap
> >>  >before we look" and oh well if its a 5000 foot cliff we just leapt
> off
> >>  of.
> >>  >  You have pushed the Precautionary Principle so far past its
> intended
> >>  use
> >>  >its laughable, and I think unethical.  Your version of it can be
> used
> >>  to
> >>  >justify stopping any type of activity.
> >>
> >>  More garbage. Where have I suggested that we "leap" to ? I'd be a
> whole
> >>  lot happier if I could see some solid strategy that gets us all out
> of
> >>  this
> >>  fix. Just wish that I could. But yes, I believe - it seems
> blindingly
> >>  obvious -
> >>  that knowing what we already know, what is already observed,
> established
> >
> >What do we know?  That temperatures have increased according to the
> >surface data.  However that data has serious flaws.  That the various
> >predictions form GCMs are revised downwards with each iteration.  That
> the
> >GCMs predicitions for the troposphere are way way off?  That the whole
> >global warming issure rests so heavily on the GCMs that just can't seem
> to
> >make good predicitions.
> >
> >Here is what we know, at least from what I have read.
> >
> >1.  Temps have increased, however how much is due to man is unclear.
> >2.  That there are significant problems with many of the data sets used
> in
> >this analysis
> >3.  According to the satellit data there is little or no warming in the
> >troposphere (which according to prevailing theory there should be...if
> >there is warming at the surface).
> >4.  Much of the warming was during the late 1800's and first half of
> the
> >1900's, when CO2 emissions were lower than in the later half of this
> >century
> >5.  The 11 year solar cycles seem to play a fairly important role.
> 
> As I recall, the troposphere discrepancy that was pushed so hard by the
> fossil fuel lobby has since been discredited, if I remember rightly, it
> was an
> error because the satellite was orbiting at a different height to that
> used
> in the calculations.  Has the position been updated ?

Oh yes a really long time ago.

First, the Wentz-Schaebel analsysis did not bring the actual data back
into alignment with the predictions of the GCMs, so even if that analysis
was right, which it was not, it wasn't enough.

Second, Wentz and Schaebal were wrong.  Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John
Christy went back and fixed the data a satellite at a time (instead of
applying an average to all satellites).  Further, they found an offsetting
error that they corrected for.  Thus, the end result was that there was a 
cooling trend in the troposphere (GSMs predict warming and lots of it),
but this trend was not statistically significant.

> But, IMO, you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle. You think
> that if you can juggle some numbers and get them to agree, that's it.

No, I think what we should do is look at the data and try to determine if
there is warming.  Not start with the assumption there is warming then try
to find data that supports that conclusion.

> Why
> don't you start with what is observed for real out there - look at the
> thinning
> of arctic ice, the rising sea level, the changing distribution of

While the arctic ice sheets have been thining and shrinking there has been
little evidence of rising sea levels, AFAIK.

> vegetation,
> etc, - and consider what those observations are telling you so very
> clearly ?

Thining ice sheets could be a sign of global warming, that is correct. 
That is one correct predicition...to how many failed ones?

> 
> >  > and
> >>  accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, we certainly
> do
> >
> >Really?  What about the Lepzeig Decleration or the Oregon Petition? 
> Even
> >the IPCC has said that the question of attribution has not been
> >sufficiently addressed.
> >
> >>  have to
> >  > stop a great many activities as rapidly as we possibly can. Any
> activity
> >>  that
> >>  causes gross environmental effects MUST be revaluated and moderated
> as
> >>  fast
> >>  as possible.
> >
> >So turn off your computer and your AC and don't use any motor vehicles
> for
> >a week.
> 
> I do, as much as is practically possible and still allow me to survive.
> I have
> designed every aspect of my lifestyle to minimise environmental damage.
> It's not easy to find a balance. Unfortunately a minority of individuals
> with consciences trying hard to tread softly isn't going to solve the
> problem

Not easy?  Then why do you talk like it is?


> 
> >  > >AS for rationality you have yet to exhibit any.
> >>
> >>  I see your preference for what you call 'rationality' over any other
> >>  mode
> >>  as pure prejudice and intellectual laziness; in fact, one symptom of
> the
> >>  disease that's causing the global crises.
> >
> >Yeah, well at least I have looked at the data, which seems to more than
> I
> >can say for you.
> 
> What a cheap jibe Steve. If you want to insult me, at least try a bit
> harder
> to come up with something a little more original. Perhaps you could even
> be inspired and stimulating if you excercised your imagination a bit ?
> Try it. I'm sure you won't come to any harm.

And what about all that psycho-babble bullshit you and Jamey have been
indulging in?  Maybe I should accuse of sodomizing dogs or something, that
was a nice touch by Jamey.

Steve



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%