Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
13 comments:
Is Timothy Ball's piece a draft? Let's revisit Christopher Monckton. Instead of discussing several of his numerous arguments simultaneously, how about focusing on one that Tom thinks is most compelling. By keeping the climate change debate structured, folks tuning in to the ivory-bill debate may be more likely to understand what's going on. Tom, pick what you think is Monckton's best argument and challenge us, your readers, to debate it (in one thread). If either side wins handily, Tom can choose the next most compelling argument and challenge us again (for the next thread). At first, Tom may be pelted with arguments. If they are good arguments, Tom may change his mind. If they are poor arguments, the Gore's among us may change our minds.
Why do (almost) all the global warming critics have some ties to the industries that have the most to lose?
http://tinyurl.com/37vw8v
Why can't they just be pure university scientists unbeholden to any industry? (like that exists!)
This is a typical anti-global warming article. The author states his credentials (I have a Ph.D., therefore I know what I'm talking about). The Ivory-bill fiasco shows how that is a weak argument! He then states that the overwhelming majority of climatologists that support the global warming hypothesis are wrong. He then plays the victim card (people are not nice to me because I disagree). But he never provides any evidence for his conclusion. Not one shred of data that would support his conclusions. Kind of reminds me of the .01% of biologists who challenge evolution.
"Why can't they just be pure university scientists unbeholden to any industry? (like that exists!)"
Spinning this scientific debate as a battle of simon pure scientists versus a few Snidely Whiplashes won't fly here. I want commenters that will step up and actually address the scientific issues themselves.
If you reach far enough, you can always find reasons to discredit the opposition (ie, I can safely ignore Jerome Jackson--he's just motivated by sour grapes; I can safely ignore Sibley and Kaufman because they're just motivated by embarrassment over excluding the IBWO from their field guides.) If even that fails, you can always fall back on the old catchall "I suspect they have some hidden agenda".
Bottom line is that if you want to comment here, you're going to need to address the data and logical arguments presented by the opposition. If you're unable to do so, it may be because they have data and logic on their side.
I see no data in the Ball article on which I can comment!
"Not one shred of data that would support his conclusions."
1. Do you agree with everything that Ball writes in the two paragraphs below? If not, specifically where do you disagree and why?
"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."
2. The Monckton pieces linked here contain lots of supporting data and references. Specifically where do you disagree with Monckton, and why?
"...the overwhelming majority of climatologists that support the global warming hypothesis..."
Can you please offer some data to support this statement?
Are you saying that the overwhelming majority of climatologists merely agree with Ball that the earth has warmed since 1680?
Or are you saying the overwhelming majority of climatologists think that a scenario presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" is likely--ie, anthropogenic global warming causing 20-foot rises in sea levels by 2100, resulting in millions of "global warming refugees"?
A reader just suggested that "An Inconvenient Truth" presents no such scenario.
But it does indeed.
Check out this excerpt from a story from ABC News:"The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled in the last 30 years and global sea levels could rise 20 feet by the end of the century, creating tens of millions of refugees, according to his [Gore's] documentary."
Another supporting link is here .
There you go, Tom. No one is going to answer to Monckton. You need a Sibley to tout your cause.
Is there such a person of standing that is willing to take on the establishment? I don't know...I'm just asking.
There are already plenty of highly-qualified, outspoken skeptics of the alleged "consensus".
A partial list is here . If I can't find a better list, I might start building one myself...
Tom,
I have three questions for you:
1. Is there any evidence that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere?
2. Is there any evidence that atmospheric temperatures have been warmer the past decade than they were 100 years ago?
3. Is there any evidence that human activities have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Now be honest. And if your answer to these three questions happens to be "yes," please explain why you are so certain that the conventional wisdom on global warming is "the greatest deception in the history of science."
Yes to all three questions. (As far as I know, every single individual on both sides of the debate would answer yes to all three.)
Note that I never said that the alleged conventional wisdom on global warming is "the greatest deception in the history of science." That quote is from Tim Ball.
"Is there any evidence that human activities have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?"
Yep, but what's funny is how LITTLE can be directly attributed to humans [leaving out respiration, of course!]
So how's about three more points:
Is CO2 the most effective [dangerous? scary?] greenhouse gas?
Is the human contribution to CO2 emissions [sans breathing] the major part of CO2 emissions?
Is there a margin of error in determining past levels of CO2, and if so, what is the margin of error compared to the human-caused fraction of CO2 emissions?
Post a Comment