[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

[Jim Kinney]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:50 AM, david w. millians <millia at panix.com> wrote:

>
> Jim Kinney wrote:
> > As far as I can tell the only consensus in the field is that CO2 and
> > methane are "greenhouse gasses" and that an accumulation of them will
> > cause a change in global average temperature. What is under hot debate,
> > often with political and economic overtones and undercurrents, is how
> > much change and how fast. It is well understood from analysis of Venus
> > that a high CO2 atmosphere will act like a thermal blanket.
>
> Seems obvious, but is it? I don't know. And that's the best way to
> approach science. I am concerned with some of the lockstep behavior in
> all of this; I *think* maybe we have started to affect things- goodness
> knows we don't get weather like we used to in Athens, but that could
> just be part of a cycle. There's just not enough data...
>

Actually there is enough data to support a very generalized conclusion that
anthropogenic CO2 will have a impact on a global, not local, climate with an
effect of raising the average surface temperature over time. Due to politics
and economics, the tremendous amounts of data needed to reasonable
accurately predict the rate of change in that surface temperature is not
currently being collected. To do so will require a global effort scaled up
from something similar to the Manhattan Project but scaled for global
deployment. Most developed countries don't want the data at the political
level. Knowledge of the impact to their economic system of what they will
have to do to mitigate their impact is too great of a change from business
as usual.

Weather changes noticeable at the local level are in the normal fluctuation
zones for short-scale observations. A warmer or colder winter in a
particular region is neither proof nor refutation of global climate change.
"My marble is red therefore all marbles are red" is a logical fallacy and
similar to the arguments espoused by proponents and opponents alike when
using a local data set to justify their particular viewpoint.

>
> > Professor Lindzen is a very reasonable voice of opposition in some of
> > the conclusions presented by committees of climate science paper
> > reviewers.
>
> And we need more voices like his...
>
> > He also is an opponent of  linking smoking to lung cancer
> > (he's a smoker).
>
> ...except for the fact that he's a gold-plated idiot. Sheesh. You want
> to be an idiot, that's fine*, but please don't muddy the waters for
> people who aren't smart enough to know better. Correlation is causation
> here. Not everybody who gets lung cancer smokes- but it's a 4:1 ratio.
>
> *not near me, please.
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>



-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091202/c72d0dbb/attachment.html