Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:36:38 -0600
Quiet, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting
rage.
James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.
James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.A fair question. The discovery that CO2 doesn't trap heat. That
leinbacker wrote:How about the fact that Mars and Earth are experiencing "global
On Mar 2, 6:09 pm, James SchrumpfRidiculous. Science advances by testing hypotheses. NOT the same
<jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quiet, "Mark Stahl" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'mwhich is sad since science can't advance without skeptics and
transmitting rage.
"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wroteThat "The scientific debate about whether there is a global
in
messagenews:Xns98E6F3D65176Fjaschrumpfadelphiane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-In your considered scientific opinion, what's wrong with it?
dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101293.html
http://tinyurl.com/yv3qbx
The Climate-Change Precipice
By David Ignatius
Friday, March 2, 2007; Page A13
The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming
problem is pretty much over. A leading international group of
climate scientists reported last month that the evidence for
global warming is "unequivocal" and that the likelihood it is
caused by humans is more than 90 percent. Skeptical
researchers will continue to question the data, but this isn't
a "call both sides for comment" issue anymore. For mainstream
science, it's settled. * * *
This is so wrong from a scientific viewpoint it's unfunny.
warming problem is pretty much over," and that "For mainstream
science, it's settled."
It's still going strong in the journals, even if the skeptics
are tarred with the "holocaust-denier" brush.
debate.
thing as skepticism.
Note please: skepticism that is just rote and mechanical is no
more skepticism than it's a bottle of rum. Doubt to be meaningful
has to actually point to something that is unlikely.
warming"? The southern icecap has shrunk continually over the past
three years:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.
ht ml
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole
had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence
that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes
in the sun.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with
the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said."
* * *
Of course, global warming advocates feel otherwise (from the same
article), AND manage to misquote him:
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific
opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's
Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most
recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his
dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such
as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's
climate and virtually no influence on Mars. "
* * *
Except that he doesn't. He said that "Man-made greenhouse warming
has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in
recent years"; nothing there about "dismissing" the greenhouse
effect that keeps Earth warm in the long run.
It's this _insistance_ that we _know_ the cause of current warming
trends -- which may have ended, actually -- which flies in the face
of science's usual pace of make hypothesis -- test hypothesis --
derive model -- generate theory (to put it simply).
What hypotheses have been made and verified? What trends have been
predicted and measured? None that I've seen mentoned in the MSM.
I've seen lots of measurements of ice cores and C14 in trees or
whatever, but the short time scale we've been working on (the last
30 years?) preclude any real long-term measurements of climate
cycles.
Merely making a hypothesis is not science; making a _falsifiable_
hypothesis is. So tell me: what evidence would falsify the
"mainstream scientific opinion"?
would do it.
What would ever convince you?
No, it's known that CO2 is a GHG, that's not being argued. The
hypothesis seems to be that human-originated carbon output is causing
global temperature increases. If you'd like to propose another, I'll
listen -- but don't quote the actual givens and pretend those are
what's being discussed.
What would convince me are studies showing direct correlations
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over several climate
fluctuations in the geologic record. Can you point to any?
Which hypothesis would that falsify?
That is what would convince _me_. Davis is being very evasive about what
would falsify AGW for _him_. He keeps twisting what I write and
pretending astonishment at it, rather than explaining what could possibly
convince him that AGW is a failed hypothesis.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Play like your couch is on fire!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: Randolph M. Jones
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- References:
- Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: Mark Stahl
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: leinbacker
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: Jeffrey Davis
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: Jeffrey Davis
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- From: Randolph M. Jones
- Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- Prev by Date: Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- Next by Date: Re: Who's Greener?
- Previous by thread: Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- Next by thread: Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading