Athlon 4 XP-M 2400+ ?

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:47:00 GMT, "Dean Kent"
wrote:

Oh my, the Kentster has lost his umm, kewl!


Oh my, George thinks clever one liners makes an argument. What I will do
is point out the logical fallacies that pervade your argument...


One party? - nope I never said that.

You said "In business, if you had an accounting error...". By definition,
this means one business in the 'class' of businesses, of which there are
established practices for keeping data and analyzing it - so the only reason
this would not be true is if a *specific* business had the problem.
Interestingly, you completely missed (or ignored) the proper analogy, which
seems unusual for one so practiced in the art of logic and analysis.

If a corporation was 2billion units
and 30% off in its resource calculations its officers would likely be in
jail - see Fastow et.al.

You obviously aren't as critical in your own arguments as you are of others.
Once again "A corporation" is a single party. The reason that they would
be in jail is because other corporations have shown that it is possible to
be more accurate. If it were not possible, then it would not be criminal to
be inaccurate. Show me where any scientist has shown they can be more
accurate in determining historical climate data and in predicting future
climate and you *might* have the semblance of an argument. Instead, you
continue to prattle on about something that has absolutely no correlation
(your favorite requirement, IIRC) to what we are talking about.

This is called a "False Analogy", which is defined as: "In an analogy, two
objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that
since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails
when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P." Business accounting and planning is most
certainly completely different than collecting data on historical climate
trends and predicting future trends.


This is a gargantuan amount and what I'm trying
to get at is the (in)validity of modeling a system based on grossly
erroneous data and the presence, or absence in this case, of that data.

The point *I* am trying to get at is that *no* scientist has better data,
and therefore we are seeing scientists come to different conclusions using
the same data - and there is currently no objective method of verifying
which one is correct. This is not intentionally misleading, nor is it
criminal. It is simply people making a best guess based upon insufficient
data and trying to influence people about what kinds of choices they might
want to make in their lifestyles. The absolute worst case is that someone
is right and someone is wrong. You are trying to claim that you *know*
which is which, even when experts in the field disagree.

This is called "Appeal to Authority", of which one definition is: "While
sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point,
often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if
experts in the field disagree on this issue." Experts most certainly
disagree on this issue.


2) There is a small matter of inertia that one must take into account
when
making decisions. If I am steering a small watercraft and see an
iceberg
ahead, I can wait until I am pretty damn close before verifying that it
is,
indeed, an iceberg - but if I am steering a huge tanker I have to take
action much earlier for obvious reasons. Therefore, the longer it takes
for actions to take effect the sooner one must take action. This means,
of
course, that one may have to make more guesses.

Colloquial prattle..

This is simply an attempt to trivialize the rebuttal without actually
providing any substance. A form of 'ad hominem' attack.

You said "would you make a 100 year plan", as if you could equate a business
plan with a global resource plan. The difference in magnitude is
gargantuan. If you want to change course in business, it requires only a
few years of planning and implementation at most. If you want to change
human global events, it requires tens, or even hundreds of years of planning
and implementation. If you made a 100 year business plan, you would have
to make many, many, many more guesses about what might happen, some of which
would most certainly not occur - and you would need to make contingency
plans for all of the most probable events.

FWIW, I've worked at a company that actually *has* a 100 year plan. The
entire point of having such a plan is to be prepared (as best as one can)
for long-term events and to try to take any surprises into consideration.
This same company has 20 year, 5 year and 1 year plans as well. It happens
to be a damn successful company in its market (It is a Japanese company).


I didn't give a scientific site - no need. It was an article in a
reputable newspaper which publishes both POV(s) - seemed suitable for the
purpose. The author is a bona fide scientist who has written widely on
this subject and others. She's worth paying attention to IMO - look her
up: Baliunas.

Again - a false "Appeal to authority". You are trying to claim that an
Astrophysicist who writes for a 'newspaper' will be more likely to
understand climate than a Geologist and Oceanographer. Perhaps you might
take your own advice and look up Wallace S. Broecker. Since he is a
confirmed expert in the field, I think it is rather disingenuous (or
completely ignorant) to claim that he is less of an authority on the subject
than she.


Interesting that you have to take what I've said as a paragraph and
logical
connection of units and break it up into fragments in order to attack it -
the usual Kentster style when cornered. I'll reiterate and try to
summarize: if your data is so bad that you don't have a clue how the
system
works, any models based on that data and its assumptions are rubbish, i.e.
GIGO - I *think* you understand the term - and are a total waste of human
effort and computer time. IOW they should do the research and quit
issuing
hysteria-inducing doom warnings.

Interesting that you will make statements of 'fact' without any supporting
evidence. This is a form of "Subverted Support", which is defined as: "An
explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. The
explanation is fallacious if the phenomenon does not actually happen of if
there is no evidence that it does happen."

Show *which* data is wrong, and why. Please make sure it isn't simply what
George says, but that it is something that you have references for, or that
you can show is self-evident. It also cannot be data that is simply being
questioned by *some* experts in the field, but is *generally accepted* in
the scientific community as being 'bad'.

So, let's use your own argument. Without evidence that the data is, in
fact, 'bad', your entire argument is rubbish. Perhaps *you* should do the
research and quit issuing claims that have no basis in fact.


You don't think that the proposals being made will wreck the current
system? You don't seem to know much of the system we have, it's
sophistication and ultimate fragility in the face of tampering.

Ah! You are now using *exactly* the same argument as those whom you are
demonizing. This is called "Slippery Slope", which is defined as: "In
order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of
increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope
is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator."

This is what you are legitimately objecting to with regards to the 'hysteria
lobby', but then use it yourself to argue against the proposals they make!

The point is that *if* the argument is correct that human activities are
causing global warming, then *not* doing anything may wreck the current
sytem. It may, in fact, be less of an impact in the long run to implement
some changes today, even if they cause discomfort and economic distress. I
am not saying that it is absolutely true that any measures are required, I
am saying that there are reputable scientists who believe it is true, and
they probably should not be waved off as wackos or having some vested
interest, which is what you have done to this point.


Look, at the worst, even if the CO2 warming theories are correct, what
we'll end up with is a climate which *might* approach the climate when all
the little fossil critters/plants we're burning were alive. We can never
actually ever quite get there, because much of the fossils, as fuel, is
inaccessible or uneconomic. It's also a fact that we have other
convenient
uses for the fossil fuel and as the reservoir diminishes, the cost and
price will adjust to discourage its use for just burning.

What you are saying here is that CO2 comes *only* from the burning of fossil
fuels. Are there not other sources of CO2, perhaps in certain kinds of
rocks, from polar ice or even in the ocean water? Could changing the
climate also cause some of these sources to release additional CO2? I
don't know, but that seems to be the impression I get from some of the
theories being proposed. You claim that the economic system is fragile,
but how fragile is the environment?

This is known as "Fallacy of Exclusion", which is defined as: "Important
evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from
consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is
called the "principle of total evidence"."

So... add in a
bit of variation for the earth's orbit and we might be a fair ways better
off than the climate when "dinosaurs roamed the Earth".:-)
IOW the "all
life will be extinguished" scenario ain't gonna happen.

This sounds an awful lot like presumption. Do you have any actual data to
back up this theory? Has it been proposed and reviewed by the scientific
community that is debating the issue?

If not, this is called "Begging the Question", which is defined as: "The
truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is
simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more
difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion."

My advice: enjoy
what we have, play with your "toys", try not to take more than you need
and
stop worrying - it's only the interest you pay on trouble before it's due.
If life is "too sweet" do some charitable work.

Prejudicial Language: "Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or
moral goodness to believing the proposition."

You are suggesting that everyone else should abide by your personal views on
life, because if they don't they will probably regret it. While it is
perfectly reasonable, and perhaps even admirable, to hold such views - it is
in no way reasonable or admirable to act in a fashion that may be adversely
affecting others simply because you don't want to stress out.


Facile, fatuous suggestion based on what?

So, if you suggest without basis that any scientist that proposes global
warming is a fact has some vested interest in it, you are being rational and
mature - but if someone suggests that you might have some vested interest in
it he is being immature? The basis of my statement is that you continue
to talk about the effect it will have on 'the system', which I interpret to
mean that you and yours will suffer some kind of uncomfortable side effects.
That would mean you have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Like many businesses, we thrive
on change - we'd likely make a bundle out of the economic turmoil created
by the meddlers, hand-wringers, head-nodders and finger-waggers. Do you
not understand how things work at all?

Straw man. "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.". Whether I
understand or not who may or may not benefit has absolutely nothing to do
with the issue.

Hell, even the petro/energy
companies would make out like bandits - it gives them another excuse for
"adjusting" prices and rates. I have to emphasize: you will not like the
results the GW activists are after here!

Another statement of fact without any evidence. Note that I have not
stated *anywhere* in this thread that I agree or disagree with either side.
What I have done is point out that there is a debate in the scientific
community, and the evidence is not entirely clear one way or the other. It
may well be that it is all nonsense, but it may also turn out that there is
some truth in the disaster theories.

What I have heard from you is that it is all bunk, and should be completely
ignored - and that anyone who believes it has no critical thinking skills or
has a vested interest in promoting it. Conspiracy theories indeed!



Another Kentster trick - put words in the mouth of the adversary. I've
already acknowledged that human activity has certainly affected the
climate
- how could it not?... the very day we crawled out of the slime? The
current issue on climate change is about predicted catastrophe based on
junk *data*, which demonstates a fundamental misunderstanding of a
system... and model extrapolations thereof.

Another set of George fallacies.

1) Fallacy of definition: "The definition includes items which should not
be included". Adding in the statement "...the very day we crawled out of
the slime" is once again disingenuous at best. Humans have had a much
greater effect on the environment during the past 100 years than in the
entire previous 100,000 years. It might even be argued that we have had a
greater effect than any lifeform that has ever lived on the planet. The
issue at hand is how much the past 100 years has affected the climate, and
whether it is occuring at an increasing (perhaps even logarithmic) rate.
There are estimates that 100,000 years ago that there were about ten
thousand 'pre-humans' on the planet, and about 10,000 years ago there were
five million humans. 2,000 years ago there were about three hundred
million people. 100 years ago there were about 1.5 billion. Today there
are over 6 billion. There comes a point where the rate of change occurs
exceptionally quickly. The question at hand is whether human activity has
yet reached that point with regards to effect on the environment or not.

2) Make statements of 'fact' without basis, and then build an entire
argument on it as if it is logical. Once again, provide evidence that the
data is junk. It may be controversial, it may be under discussion, but you
haven't shown that it is actually *junk*.

3) Claim that recognized experts in the field have a fundamental
misunderstanding of the system, and that their models are wrong - not
because of evidence, but based upon an unsupported claim that the data is
'junk'.


Anyone who though that the ocean was "too big for us to..." was a fool.
The issue of overfishing is a different problem which can be managed best
at the local level - actually from what I see it's more about ocean
dredging. Let's not extend this into new areas... which you may want to
quarrel over - find someone else for that.

The point here is that in many cases the correlation between two events is
not seen until the real damage has been done. At that point, the only
possible action is to take aggressive and extremely disruptive action. I
don't wish to discuss overfishing either, because that isn't even the entire
story. There are other issues involved that *all* relate to human
activity.


What? That was not an attack - only an observation based on your
demonstrated knowledge.

Ad Hominem: "The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed
out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a
person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps".

In this case, it was an attempt to discredit my abilities rather than
sticking to the issue. You make the assertion that " ..is as incapable of
critical observation
of what is being presented as you.", which has only been established in
*your* mind. Then you make the emphatic statement "I am not", which is
supposed to solidify the argument that you are better at critical judgement.
No evidence has been presented other than your statement.

It is, in fact, nonsense. You are setting yourself up as an expert (or
more of an expert) in critical thinking, then claiming that the data is junk
without any other evidence than your claimed expertise, then you conclude
that I am 'incapable of critical observation' because I don't discount the
data as you do. If you cannot see the fallacy in that, you are pretty deep
in...

For the record I have never claimed to be a
"ex-chemical engineer" - quotes have a purpose for other folks...
apparently the Kentster can use them at will to bend the facts. You know
taking an assumed falsehood and extending with prejudicial presumption, to
belittle someone is an ourageous deceit.

Oh! Favorite George trick. Play the victim now. Oh, are you hurt?

Look in the mirror to see whom you are talking about. You are now
referring to the most common tactic you use. Frame something in quotes to
set it off as questionable, make assumptions based upon nothing but your own
beliefs, then belittling the other person in an attempt to 'prove' your
argument. See above for the most recent example.

Note that all of my posts prior to this had no personal attacks or
statements of my own beliefs. I simply presented references from a
reputable scientist who is an acknowledged expert in the field, and a few
stories based upon his research and papers. It is *you* who turned it into
a personal attack - of the media, the people presenting the theory, and
anyone who expressed even the faintest indication that they thought the data
might be valid.


I've watched enough scientists, even good ones, jostling for NSF grants
around pompous bureaucrats with "pockets full". I know how it works...
and
of course, they'd have to find another line of work in the absence of
their
present sinecures.

This is not evidence, George. This is a syllogistic error: "Some scientists
are influenced by money. There is money in global warming. Therefore, any
scientist advocating global warning must be influenced by the money".
Otherwise known as an Illicit Major.


The fact that you would bring this up in this context is outrageously
indecent - a reflection of your gutter-level debating habits..

Oh, get off your high horse, you pompous ass.

with the
usual assumption that only you are in possession of the facts.

Jesus, you have absolutely no shame at all...

That person
and I had some interesting discussions - other people even urged us to
continue when the "horse" was getting tired. Those discussions were
conducted with a mutual respect - a lot of useful facts came out... we
both
learned from each other, though I freely acknowledged at the time that I
learned more than he did. The discussions are on the record here in
Usenet, the private comms. will remain just that but I have no doubt of
the
respect I received. Have you no shame?

Obviously you don't. I recall the conversations vividly, and actually
wondered why he kept his cool during the initial stages of the conversation.
The fact that you eventually realized his expertise isn't a testament to
your intelligence at all. In addition, this individual is respectful of
*everyone*, no matter how rude, ignorant or disrespectful a person is. That
also isn't a testament to you, but certainly is a testament to him.


I know how to read a graph and make sense of it... when the numbers are
related. I'd hoped that maybe I could waken you up to the holes and
misrepresentations posing as facts - lost cause I guess.

Lost on who? You make statements of fact without presenting any evidence.
When asked to eludicate, you generally just make some derogatory noises
about the other person's capabilities and try to change the subject or make
it go away. You have proven yourself to be everything you have accused me
of being - which is typical tactics for someone of your ilk.

I also have quite
extensive knowledge of modeling techniques and what it takes to build a
valid mathematical model.

As do many of the scientists who are on each side of this issue. I don't
think you are adding anything of value with your bull****.

I've "built" regional energy planning models,
worked on national energy models and whole host of other govt. policy and
business related models. I don't need lessons here and I DO NOT NEED YOUR
PERMISSION to express my opinions

No, you don't - and I didn't say you did. In fact, look back and read again
what I posted. I was simply pointing out that there are respected
scientists who believe that there is evidence we are adversely affecting the
climate, and that there may be something we can do about it. It has been
*YOU* who continue to make derogatory statements about such scientists, and
those who post links to their works. I DON'T NEED YOUR APPROVAL to post my
opinions and rebuttals - whether you wish to make editorial remarks such as
sigh and :-[] and every other pompous ass statement you seem to think is
alright for you to make.


What harsh Winter? Have you competely misunderstood everything you've
read? If you're referring to the mini-ice age, it lasted ~500years and
was
a total climate shift - all seasons.

Whoops! I thought I saw you mention something about a recent cold winter in
Europe, but now I can't find it. Either someone else wrote it, or I totally
misremembered something. My apologies.

As for the 'Little Ice Age', yes, I am familiar with it. If you had read
the link *I* posted, it was a theory about how it occurred. The entire
premise is that since a natural warming trend created a mini ice age, a
human caused warming trend could do the same. So the conclusion was that
we should not ignore the possibility that our own actions may hasten another
such 'cooling period' (versus the other theories of a 'hot' Earth).


My scam accusation is based on fundamental flaws in the data collection,
which are the result of a misunderstanding of that data and the system it
reflects.

It may be your opinion, but you have certainly not proven that the data
collection is flawed, nor that it is misunderstood. Those are simply claims
made by you without substantiation.

I *do* think it's amusing when the usual suspects

Another of your typical tactics, which is to make ad hominem attacks to try
and invalidate the arguments of others based on something other than the
facts.

use some
slightly unusual weather to bolster their hysterical harassment on climate
change and yet when it goes the other way, it becomes only one instance of
weather for that year... an abberation, whereas climate is now a different
thing altogether.... not to be confused with weather.hilarious

The entire point that you seem so bent on avoiding is that there has been an
increasing warming trend over the past 100 years, and the question is
whether it is being influenced by human activity. The question is also what
we might expect in terms of climate changes because of this trend, and
whether there is anything we can do to alter it. Whether it is advisable
or not to attempt to alter it is another question that has to be answered.
However, it is most certainly pompous and self-righteous to claim that you
have the answers, and that anyone who believes differently than you is
critically impaired or has some vested monetary interest in the issue.

Some things, however, never change...

Regards,
Dean


Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:29:19 GMT, "Dean Kent"
wrote:

Your post was misthreaded by my newsreader so I've no idea where this will
turn up on the news server threads. If it's miscast, maybe it'll give
others who are not interested a rest from this.

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:47:00 GMT, "Dean Kent"
wrote:

Oh my, the Kentster has lost his umm, kewl!


Oh my, George thinks clever one liners makes an argument. What I will do
is point out the logical fallacies that pervade your argument...

What you have done is nit-pick at peripheral issues of whether IYO, with
your logical fallacy dictionary firmly in hand, the logic is sound when you
keep side-stepping the *problem* of grossly erroneous data being applied to
quantitative methods.

I think it's time to clean this thread up a bit and get back to a less
emotional level.

So let me put some facts to you: in quantitative methods, the *first* rule
of "good modeling" is that you absolutely must have "good data". That
means accurate data points and a good understanding of system behavior...
how the data points came to be and how they react to endogenous and
exogenous change, if you like. To build a "model" without those
fundamentals is utterly futile... with meaningless results as the outcome.
Now there are undoubtedly smallish data errors in many functional models
but as long as they are sufficiently small the system *is* apt for
changing, tuning and improvement while still being a useful metric for
evaluating the system... which is very obviously not the case here.

As I said in my previous post, I have extensive experience in mathematical
model building - something you curiously brushed aside with your usual
vitreolic bile - "bull****".... not a very convincing uhh, "position".:-[]
I also work with others who have similar experience and expertise - IOW I
am not some isolated island of opinion here - and this is an axiom of model
construction: if you dont have good data, either go out and "mine" it or
don't bother. I have given you my opinion on the "outcome" of the
self-confessed gross errors (see below) in the GW system. You can disagree
with me if you like and *prefer* to believe the contrary but from what
you've said so far, you don't seem to be in a very good position to really
argue the details.

snip

This is a gargantuan amount and what I'm trying
to get at is the (in)validity of modeling a system based on grossly
erroneous data and the presence, or absence in this case, of that data.

The point *I* am trying to get at is that *no* scientist has better data,
and therefore we are seeing scientists come to different conclusions using
the same data - and there is currently no objective method of verifying
which one is correct. This is not intentionally misleading, nor is it
criminal. It is simply people making a best guess based upon insufficient
data and trying to influence people about what kinds of choices they might
want to make in their lifestyles. The absolute worst case is that someone
is right and someone is wrong. You are trying to claim that you *know*
which is which, even when experts in the field disagree.

Obviously you do not understand the modeling process - no ad hominem here,
since its become quite obvious. As noted, bad data and good modeling are
mutually exclusive. When 30% of the data cannot be accounted for and its
"behavior" is unknown, i.e. the "missing sink", it's umm, BAD.:-)

At least you have acknowledged that they *are* using the "same (bad)
data"... and in that respect they *are* the single indictable entity. This
is not a question of someone, anyone, having "better data" = it's about
misapplying it.

snip

I didn't give a scientific site - no need. It was an article in a
reputable newspaper which publishes both POV(s) - seemed suitable for the
purpose. The author is a bona fide scientist who has written widely on
this subject and others. She's worth paying attention to IMO - look her
up: Baliunas.

Again - a false "Appeal to authority". You are trying to claim that an
Astrophysicist who writes for a 'newspaper' will be more likely to
understand climate than a Geologist and Oceanographer. Perhaps you might
take your own advice and look up Wallace S. Broecker. Since he is a
confirmed expert in the field, I think it is rather disingenuous (or
completely ignorant) to claim that he is less of an authority on the subject
than she.

Again I don't need to "appeal" to "authority". Categorizing Ms. Baliunas
as a somone who "writes for a newspaper" is disingenuous... or ignorant.
Her scientific credentials are unimpeachable and within Astrophysics, the
study of the sun's influence on Earth's climate is certainly a valid
domain.

snip

Show *which* data is wrong, and why. Please make sure it isn't simply what
George says, but that it is something that you have references for, or that
you can show is self-evident. It also cannot be data that is simply being
questioned by *some* experts in the field, but is *generally accepted* in
the scientific community as being 'bad'.

So, let's use your own argument. Without evidence that the data is, in
fact, 'bad', your entire argument is rubbish. Perhaps *you* should do the
research and quit issuing claims that have no basis in fact.

Well right from your own reference:
http://www.whrc.org/globalwarming/culprits.htm. Odd that this URL is not
indiviually addressable though (why would they lock the page out like that
?) and you'll still have to click through to "The Culprits"... where you'll
find the 2billion tons/30% "confession".

I'll add here that, while hysterical "results" are not scarce in the public
info, usually in combination with some freak weather event, the actual
numbers on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and even scientific
temperature variations are *very* umm, "elusive". The uptake of CO2 by
"sinks" is, quite frankly, fudged - see the URL.

snip
This is what you are legitimately objecting to with regards to the 'hysteria
lobby', but then use it yourself to argue against the proposals they make!

The point is that *if* the argument is correct that human activities are
causing global warming, then *not* doing anything may wreck the current
sytem. It may, in fact, be less of an impact in the long run to implement
some changes today, even if they cause discomfort and economic distress. I
am not saying that it is absolutely true that any measures are required, I
am saying that there are reputable scientists who believe it is true, and
they probably should not be waved off as wackos or having some vested
interest, which is what you have done to this point.

The fact that "they" wave their critics off as mere crass profiteers, as
though they had clean hands in the matter, is ample reason and
justification to take a crack back at them. This is a common, and now
predictable, tactic of the junk scientists. They only deserve to be
treated in kind.


Look, at the worst, even if the CO2 warming theories are correct, what
we'll end up with is a climate which *might* approach the climate when all
the little fossil critters/plants we're burning were alive. We can never
actually ever quite get there, because much of the fossils, as fuel, is
inaccessible or uneconomic. It's also a fact that we have other
convenient
uses for the fossil fuel and as the reservoir diminishes, the cost and
price will adjust to discourage its use for just burning.

What you are saying here is that CO2 comes *only* from the burning of fossil
fuels. Are there not other sources of CO2, perhaps in certain kinds of
rocks, from polar ice or even in the ocean water? Could changing the
climate also cause some of these sources to release additional CO2? I
don't know, but that seems to be the impression I get from some of the
theories being proposed. You claim that the economic system is fragile,
but how fragile is the environment?

In the GW activist lexicon, CO2 from fossil fuel is the "culprit". The
oceans, in the form of their plant life, are the major sink for CO2 - this
is not new knowledge. CO2 breathed out by living organisms seems to be
considered a zero-sum game since it is part of the plant animal/carbon
cycle... and gets recycled. Of course that does bring up the question of
over-population which from my POV is one of the primary problems which
needs to be addressed.

This is known as "Fallacy of Exclusion", which is defined as: "Important
evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from
consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is
called the "principle of total evidence"."

Now, now - put that logic dictionary away. It's not helping.

So... add in a
bit of variation for the earth's orbit and we might be a fair ways better
off than the climate when "dinosaurs roamed the Earth".:-)
IOW the "all
life will be extinguished" scenario ain't gonna happen.

This sounds an awful lot like presumption. Do you have any actual data to
back up this theory? Has it been proposed and reviewed by the scientific
community that is debating the issue?

No presumption required - the "data" is in the (generally accepted) theory
of fossil fuel existence. IOW the carbon in the fossils, both plant and
animal, used to be surface level carbon on Earth, in the same animal/plant
carbon cycle as we currently exist... only there was more of it. By
burning fossils, we are unlocking a fair sized portion of it back into the
cycle. AFAIK there has been no exogenous source of carbon - minute traces
from asteroids maybe? The bottom line is that system must have been
balanced before fossilization. I don't think I need to elucidate
further???

snip

So, if you suggest without basis that any scientist that proposes global
warming is a fact has some vested interest in it, you are being rational and
mature - but if someone suggests that you might have some vested interest in
it he is being immature? The basis of my statement is that you continue
to talk about the effect it will have on 'the system', which I interpret to
mean that you and yours will suffer some kind of uncomfortable side effects.
That would mean you have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

No - we *all* have a vested interest in economic stability. There's no
selfish motivation on my part.

snip

Hell, even the petro/energy
companies would make out like bandits - it gives them another excuse for
"adjusting" prices and rates. I have to emphasize: you will not like the
results the GW activists are after here!

Another statement of fact without any evidence. Note that I have not
stated *anywhere* in this thread that I agree or disagree with either side.
What I have done is point out that there is a debate in the scientific
community, and the evidence is not entirely clear one way or the other. It
may well be that it is all nonsense, but it may also turn out that there is
some truth in the disaster theories.

What I have heard from you is that it is all bunk, and should be completely
ignored - and that anyone who believes it has no critical thinking skills or
has a vested interest in promoting it. Conspiracy theories indeed!

I've shown you - actually you pointed me to those particular illustrations
- the contrived graphs and the self-confessed gross errors used in what is
presented as valid quantitative results. I've taken a side here - you
claim not to; if the data and its treatment gets more convincing I might
change my opinion. I believe I'm informed enough about the chemistry and
modeling aspects to declare it "junk"... for the moment.



Another Kentster trick - put words in the mouth of the adversary. I've
already acknowledged that human activity has certainly affected the
climate
- how could it not?... the very day we crawled out of the slime? The
current issue on climate change is about predicted catastrophe based on
junk *data*, which demonstates a fundamental misunderstanding of a
system... and model extrapolations thereof.

Another set of George fallacies.

1) Fallacy of definition: "The definition includes items which should not
be included". Adding in the statement "...the very day we crawled out of
the slime" is once again disingenuous at best. Humans have had a much
greater effect on the environment during the past 100 years than in the
entire previous 100,000 years. It might even be argued that we have had a
greater effect than any lifeform that has ever lived on the planet. The
issue at hand is how much the past 100 years has affected the climate, and
whether it is occuring at an increasing (perhaps even logarithmic) rate.
There are estimates that 100,000 years ago that there were about ten
thousand 'pre-humans' on the planet, and about 10,000 years ago there were
five million humans. 2,000 years ago there were about three hundred
million people. 100 years ago there were about 1.5 billion. Today there
are over 6 billion. There comes a point where the rate of change occurs
exceptionally quickly. The question at hand is whether human activity has
yet reached that point with regards to effect on the environment or not.

Tsk, tsk - that dictionary again.:-) Take a look at the graphs again -
0.6C over 100years is not a huge temperature difference, especially when
the data is so fuzzy... i.e. not measured at the same points and using the
exact same equipment as before. Check out the tropospheric abberation
which does not follow the GW claims for behavior... and check out the
oscillations... which were large enough to have "scientists" trying to get
us worried about the "upcoming ice-age" in the 70s.

2) Make statements of 'fact' without basis, and then build an entire
argument on it as if it is logical. Once again, provide evidence that the
data is junk. It may be controversial, it may be under discussion, but you
haven't shown that it is actually *junk*.

3) Claim that recognized experts in the field have a fundamental
misunderstanding of the system, and that their models are wrong - not
because of evidence, but based upon an unsupported claim that the data is
'junk'.

They tell us themselves - you only have to look.

snip


It is, in fact, nonsense. You are setting yourself up as an expert (or
more of an expert) in critical thinking, then claiming that the data is junk
without any other evidence than your claimed expertise, then you conclude
that I am 'incapable of critical observation' because I don't discount the
data as you do. If you cannot see the fallacy in that, you are pretty deep
in...

AFAICT I simply know more about quantitative modeling than you.shrug...
hardly surprising since I've worked in the field for years. As noted, the
data is freely available and is obviously umm, flawed and admitted to be so
by the GW proponents.... "grossly" is my, I think fair, characterization.

For the record I have never claimed to be a
"ex-chemical engineer" - quotes have a purpose for other folks...
apparently the Kentster can use them at will to bend the facts. You know
taking an assumed falsehood and extending with prejudicial presumption, to
belittle someone is an ourageous deceit.

Oh! Favorite George trick. Play the victim now. Oh, are you hurt?

No not at all but you went on one of your rants based on uhh, false
presumption. You think I should not have corrected your lie?... when it
was the foundation for another of your bileous attacks?

snip

The fact that you would bring this up in this context is outrageously
indecent - a reflection of your gutter-level debating habits..

Oh, get off your high horse, you pompous ass.

with the
usual assumption that only you are in possession of the facts.

Jesus, you have absolutely no shame at all...

Uhhhh - stealing my line.:-[]

That person
and I had some interesting discussions - other people even urged us to
continue when the "horse" was getting tired. Those discussions were
conducted with a mutual respect - a lot of useful facts came out... we
both
learned from each other, though I freely acknowledged at the time that I
learned more than he did. The discussions are on the record here in
Usenet, the private comms. will remain just that but I have no doubt of
the
respect I received. Have you no shame?

Obviously you don't. I recall the conversations vividly, and actually
wondered why he kept his cool during the initial stages of the conversation.
The fact that you eventually realized his expertise isn't a testament to
your intelligence at all. In addition, this individual is respectful of
*everyone*, no matter how rude, ignorant or disrespectful a person is. That
also isn't a testament to you, but certainly is a testament to him.

Your recall is obviously less than perfect. I will *not* go into details
but that person and I had several discussions - some went his way, some
turned out mine and some were left unresolved; he was always generous in
his treatment in all cases. If you have doubts about the veracity of that
go look them up - all of them. You cannot possibly know about any private
comms we had nor their ramifications... unless he told you, which I'd kinda
doubt. You are simply wrong here and you had no right to bring it up in
this context.


I know how to read a graph and make sense of it... when the numbers are
related. I'd hoped that maybe I could waken you up to the holes and
misrepresentations posing as facts - lost cause I guess.

Lost on who? You make statements of fact without presenting any evidence.
When asked to eludicate, you generally just make some derogatory noises
about the other person's capabilities and try to change the subject or make
it go away. You have proven yourself to be everything you have accused me
of being - which is typical tactics for someone of your ilk.

You quoted a URL with graphs - same one as above - that's all the evidence
that's needed.

You know the problem here is that you know less than I about chemistry,
earth chemistry and modeling and yet when I suggested this, you accused me
of ad hominems and went off on a series of bileous attacks and direct
insults. From my POV it seems that you superimpose your level of knowledge
on the comments made by others and use that to discredit them. It is *not*
my intention to beat my chest on my expertise here and I was reticent about
"advertising" what I know. I wish it had not been necessary.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

(George Macdonald) wrote in message ...

Your post was misthreaded by my newsreader so I've no idea where this will
turn up on the news server threads. If it's miscast, maybe it'll give
others who are not interested a rest from this.

That's OK, yours didn't even show up on my server at all...



What you have done is nit-pick at peripheral issues of whether IYO, with
your logical fallacy dictionary firmly in hand, the logic is sound when you
keep side-stepping the *problem* of grossly erroneous data being applied to
quantitative methods.

What you have done is to make claims about the nature of the data that
you have not proven. You keep saying that the data is grossly
erroneous, but have yet to point out exactly where it is erroneous,
and just how 'gross' the error is. You make a statement like "Their
sums don't add up", and follow it up with things like "junk data", as
if it is an established fact. You have never shown exactly where
their sums are bad, or exactly which data is bad.


I think it's time to clean this thread up a bit and get back to a less
emotional level.

Agreed.


So let me put some facts to you: in quantitative methods, the *first* rule
of "good modeling" is that you absolutely must have "good data".

You have to define 'good data'. If you are implying that the data
must be absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be accurate, then I suggest you
are wrong. I suggest instead that the data must simply be generally
accepted as having a reasonable probability of being 'good'.

For example, astrophysicists have developed models of the universe
with data that has an even greater probability of error than what we
are discussing. Big bang theory, anyone? Age of the universe?
There are any number of theories of the universe that are based upon
other theories, that are based upon other theories, etc.

Another example is physics, where models of how particles work are
made even though we can't really observe them, only their apparent
affects on other things. Heisenberg uncertainty principle, anyone?


That
means accurate data points and a good understanding of system behavior...

No, it doesn't. What it means is that you start with what you know to
be true, then you add your best measurements and make a hypothesis.
Then you test the theory with all new data that comes in and see if it
somehow 'breaks' the hypothesis. At some point in time, when the
scientific community is satisfied that enough tests have been made, it
becomes an accepted theory. Then you use it as the basis for another
hypothesis, and so on. There are many, many theories that are based
upon the presumption that the underlying theories are correct. In the
case of astrophysics, for example, those theories are being modified
pretty frequently... but it sure doesn't stop them from coming up with
new theories and models of the universe.

how the data points came to be and how they react to endogenous and
exogenous change, if you like. To build a "model" without those
fundamentals is utterly futile... with meaningless results as the outcome.
Now there are undoubtedly smallish data errors in many functional models
but as long as they are sufficiently small the system *is* apt for
changing, tuning and improvement while still being a useful metric for
evaluating the system... which is very obviously not the case here.

See above. I think you are being far to restrictive in your own model
of how things work.

Furthermore, what you have continued to state is that "the data is
junk" and "GW is a scam". What you may actually be trying to say is
that there are those who are taking advantage of the fear and using it
for their own financial gain. Of this there is little doubt.
However, to claim that 'GW is a scam' is to claim that there
absolutely, positively is no global warming caused by human
activities.



As I said in my previous post, I have extensive experience in mathematical
model building - something you curiously brushed aside with your usual
vitreolic bile - "bull****".... not a very convincing uhh, "position".:-[]

Your background has nothing to do with it. What is required is data.
Wallace S. Broecker has extensive experience in oceanography and
geology, and numerous awards from the scientific community, but that
hasn't prevented you from questioning *his* proposals. Why do you
think it protects you?

I also work with others who have similar experience and expertise - IOW I
am not some isolated island of opinion here - and this is an axiom of model
construction: if you dont have good data, either go out and "mine" it or
don't bother.

If someone has presented data, and you claim it is wrong, then the
onus is on you to show what is wrong. What you have done is make a
nebulous claim that it is bad, but given no specifics. With your
knowledge and background, this should not be difficult to do, should
it?

I have given you my opinion on the "outcome" of the
self-confessed gross errors (see below) in the GW system.

Once again, you fallaciously make an association that is not there.
What is said is that the accuracy of the data is in question, not that
it has been *proven* to be wrong. This is another example of a
logical fallacy - 'possibly wrong' is not the same as 'absolutely
wrong'.

You can disagree
with me if you like and *prefer* to believe the contrary but from what
you've said so far, you don't seem to be in a very good position to really
argue the details.

George, you haven't presented *any* details at all. What you have
done is make claims of 'junk science', 'junk data', 'erroneous data',
'gross errors', etc. but have provided absolutely nothing that even
resembles 'detail'.

What you have also done is present more than an opinion. You have
presented something as being a fact: "global warming is a scam" and
similar statements are positive statements of fact, not just an
opinion. Sure, sure, everything you say is an opinion, but when you
use it to refute what someone else's opinion is, then you move beyond
the simple expression of an opinion - now you have to present the
*proof* that the other person's opinion is wrong - because that is
what you are claiming.



Obviously you do not understand the modeling process - no ad hominem here,
since its become quite obvious. As noted, bad data and good modeling are
mutually exclusive. When 30% of the data cannot be accounted for and its
"behavior" is unknown, i.e. the "missing sink", it's umm, BAD.:-)

See above. Perhaps I don't misunderstand as much as you seem to
think. Perhaps the problem is not at this end at all.


At least you have acknowledged that they *are* using the "same (bad)
data"... and in that respect they *are* the single indictable entity. This
is not a question of someone, anyone, having "better data" = it's about
misapplying it.

OK - so, show me how it is being misapplied. One party says "The data
seems to indicate that human activity is contributing to global
warming". The other party says "The data seems to show that global
warming might be occurring naturally". The same data, opposite
conclusions. What makes one 'misapplying' and the other one 'properly
applying'?


Again I don't need to "appeal" to "authority". Categorizing Ms. Baliunas
as a somone who "writes for a newspaper" is disingenuous... or ignorant.
Her scientific credentials are unimpeachable and within Astrophysics, the
study of the sun's influence on Earth's climate is certainly a valid
domain.

You misunderstand what the fallacy is. It does not mean that the
person being referenced isn't an authority. It means that authorities
disagree - and this is certainly the case here. Mr. Broecker is also
an authority, so exactly how does Ms. Baliunas authority trump his?

Did you read the reference I gave?
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvi...roecker99.html


Well right from your own reference:

One refrence, which I later said was not the one I was originally
looking for. I provided another one later, which I indicated was what
I really had wanted to show but couldn't remember the name of the
individual. The other reference I provided was an 'editorial' on the
research that Mr. Broecker has been engaged in, and therefore has more
bearing on this discussion.

And you accused me of nit-picking?

http://www.whrc.org/globalwarming/culprits.htm. Odd that this URL is not
indiviually addressable though (why would they lock the page out like that
?) and you'll still have to click through to "The Culprits"... where you'll
find the 2billion tons/30% "confession".

This commentary has *nothing* to do with the validity of the data.
Yet another attempt to discredit through innuendo. Please stick to
the *data*, which is the question at hand. Motives have absolutely
nothing to do with this, as the data can be good or bad regardless of
motives.


I'll add here that, while hysterical "results" are not scarce in the public
info, usually in combination with some freak weather event, the actual
numbers on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and even scientific
temperature variations are *very* umm, "elusive". The uptake of CO2 by
"sinks" is, quite frankly, fudged - see the URL.

George - specifics!!! How is it fudged, and by how much? Do you have
any data to refute it? Do you have any evidence that this data is not
accepted by the scientific community as being the most accurate we
have available? Are you implying that scientists never fudge anything
in order to make their models? Please ask Ms. Baliunas exactly how
astrophysicists determine the age of the universe, or the existence of
black holes, or the number of galaxies in the visible universe, or the
lifecycles of stars, or the shape of the Milky Way galaxy or any
number of other theories and models astrophysicists regularly use to
'explain' the universe?


The fact that "they" wave their critics off as mere crass profiteers, as
though they had clean hands in the matter, is ample reason and
justification to take a crack back at them.

Who are "they"? Exactly whom are you referring to? We are getting
into the realm of the 'nebulous statements of fact' again that have no
basis or bearing on the discussion. If global warming is a scam, I
want to see the evidence that it *is* a scam, not that you personally
think so, or that you and your friends think so. This is not
evidence. It is another fallacy, called 'appeal to popularity'.

This is a common, and now
predictable, tactic of the junk scientists. They only deserve to be
treated in kind.

Um - are you justifying your statements by saying that IKYABWAI is a
valid scientific rebuttal?


In the GW activist lexicon, CO2 from fossil fuel is the "culprit". The
oceans, in the form of their plant life, are the major sink for CO2 - this
is not new knowledge. CO2 breathed out by living organisms seems to be
considered a zero-sum game since it is part of the plant animal/carbon
cycle... and gets recycled. Of course that does bring up the question of
over-population which from my POV is one of the primary problems which
needs to be addressed.

Regardless of the source of CO2, the real question at hand is whether
it is possible that our involvement in adding CO2 to the atmosphere
can create climate changes that would adversely affect our 'quality of
life' here. The paper that I referenced discusses many of the
concerns you have mentioned with regards to historical data and
climate modeling, however the conclusion is what I find most
interesting:

"The fact that we are unable to provide satisfactory estimates of the
probability that a conveyor shutdown will occur or of its consequences
is certainly reason to be extremely prudent with regard to CO2
emissions. The record of events that transpired during the last
glacial period sends us the clear warning that by adding greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere, we are poking an angry beast"



Now, now - put that logic dictionary away. It's not helping.

Yes, it is. It is forcing you to stop using fallacious arguments to
'prove' your point.


[snip}


No - we *all* have a vested interest in economic stability. There's no
selfish motivation on my part.

The point of the comment was to show that anyone can assign 'motive'
to others, but it has absolutely no bearing on the *facts*.


I've shown you - actually you pointed me to those particular illustrations
- the contrived graphs and the self-confessed gross errors used in what is
presented as valid quantitative results. I've taken a side here - you
claim not to; if the data and its treatment gets more convincing I might
change my opinion. I believe I'm informed enough about the chemistry and
modeling aspects to declare it "junk"... for the moment.

You can declare whatever you want, but the onus is on you to prove it.
To call it 'junk' means you have to show it is wrong. Thus far, you
have presented absolutely nothing that even resembles proof. There is
nothing wrong with stating that you believe something is 'junk', but
to then use that as an established fact to build a proof is - well,
something less than what I would expect of someone claiming that
models must be based upon solid facts. It would be accurate to
categorize it as 'questionable' or 'likely inaccurate', but 'junk' is
a statement of fact that it *is* inaccurate, and I challenge you to
prove that it is, and to what extent.



Tsk, tsk - that dictionary again.:-)

Magicians use misdirection for a particular reason. Why don't you
stick to the issue of proving your case rather than trying to
misdirect by assigning labels and 'clever' statements that you can use
in a derogatory manner?

The reason for the dictionary definitions is to show that thus far you
have failed to present a logical argument. Everything is based upon
statements that you have provided no proof for, experts that are on
one side of a controversy and claimed expertise in various areas -
none of which has *anything* to do with the data itself. You have yet
to show that the data is junk (though it is not absolutely, positively
known to be accurate)


Take a look at the graphs again -
0.6C over 100years is not a huge temperature difference, especially when
the data is so fuzzy... i.e. not measured at the same points and using the
exact same equipment as before. Check out the tropospheric abberation
which does not follow the GW claims for behavior... and check out the
oscillations... which were large enough to have "scientists" trying to get
us worried about the "upcoming ice-age" in the 70s.

OK, let me see if I understand this argument. The CO2 concentrations
are increasing 'smoothly' on the chart, but the atmospheric
temperature is not (the oscillations), and the 'dip' in the 1970's
proves that there is no correlation, or that the 'numbers are fudged'?

Let me ask a question: What other events might have a small impact on
global temperature for short periods of time?

Is it possible that some temperature measurements may have been
'masked' by other events, such as volcanic eruptions? Some scientists
think it is possible: http://www.scjai.com/technote143.html

So, is it possible you have come to a 'conclusion' using insufficient
data, and therefore your analysis is 'junk science'?


They tell us themselves - you only have to look.

Again - stating that the data *may* be inaccurate, or that it has some
probability of being inaccurate is *not* the same as saying it *is*
inaccurate. It is *you* who are making a false analogy.


AFAICT I simply know more about quantitative modeling than you.shrug...

Prove it. You can state whatever you want, but without proof it is
just nonsense...

[big snip]


You know the problem here is that you know less than I about chemistry,
earth chemistry and modeling and yet when I suggested this, you accused me
of ad hominems and went off on a series of bileous attacks and direct
insults. From my POV it seems that you superimpose your level of knowledge
on the comments made by others and use that to discredit them. It is *not*
my intention to beat my chest on my expertise here and I was reticent about
"advertising" what I know. I wish it had not been necessary.

The problem is that you make claims that either have no bearing on the
discussion, or that you expect to be taken as 'fact' without any
evidence. To back it up, you try to present yourself as being more of
an 'expert' and expect this is enough to 'prove' you are right. When
pressed for detail, you always say 'look it up' or 'see for yourself'.

Provide the proof. Show the data that is wrong. Provide something
other than innuendo, ad hominems, and bold claims of expertise. Thus
far, you have not.

Regards,
Dean



Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...

BTW, any person with a rudimentary knowledge of science would have to ask
how the 2billion/30% was arrived at? Given that the 7.2b total is
correct,
then that the 2b taken up by the oceans is close, how did they arrive at
2billion as the "error" and the "remainder" is pumped into the atmosphere.
Assuming a "remainder" figure based on a presumed error in a previous
subtrahend is faulty accounting. Something is awry here - a 5th grader
who
knows how to do his sums would be asking how they arrived at a missing
sink
of 2b. The 3.2b being "pumped" into the atmosphere is apparently not a
known calculated figure - it's a damned remainder.

Um, it seems to me that they pretty clearly state the issue:

Atmospheric increase (3.3b +/-0.2) = Fuel Emissions (5.5b +/- 0.5) + Land
Use Emissions (1.6b +/-0.7) - Oceanic Uptake (2.0b +/-0.8). What is left is
1.8b (+/-1.2) that is 'unaccounted for'. It is not known what the cause of
the 'imbalance' is, but the fact that it is unknown does not make it wrong.
It simply means that it is unknown where the 'excess' carbon goes. There
are investigations and theories, but apparently we currently lack the
ability to measure/detect all possible sources.


Something else bother me he those numbers sound big - yes they are big
numbers - but they are meaningless to anyone, layman or scientist, without
the corresponding numbers for normal human and plant life CO2, as well as
other natural causes such as forest fires, bush fires, volcanic activity
etc., which is being "pumped" into the atmosphere. Some perspective is
necessary here, even if it's only the ignorant masses they want to appeal
to on their Web site. It's not good enough for me but make up your own
mind.

I believe that this is partly covered by "Land Use Emissions" (actually
labeled as "Net Emissions from Changing Land Use"). The calculation is
meant to show where the *additional* CO2 comes from, not where the 'normal'
CO2 comes from. You can see here that research is ongoing in this area:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Program...rbonrecent.htm so it
is not like anyone is ignoring it.


You have to define 'good data'.


Heisenburg - something I studied in chemistry - has nothing to do with
this
context and nobody is claiming astrophysical models accurate enough to
predict the end of all life on earth... though there is the odd suggestion
that the asteroid will hit one of those days. Apparently the 2019 date
has
been discarded but the probability is considered higher for 2039(?) or
so.:-)

Basically, you're getting your "models" confused - your examples are of
systems which are evaluated from a more qualitative, probabilistic
standpoint. When a scientist wants to stand up in public and say that his
model predicts a 7°C increase in global temps in the next 100years I want
to know how fungible that 7°C is... but they never tell. If he doesn't
qualify things so, then to me, he's saying it's accurate.

I don't believe I have confused anything. In the models referenced,
scientists have the same problem - so they make assumptions based upon
various existing measurements and theories. This is no different than one
group of astrophysicists claiming that the age of the universe is 8-12
billion years, while another group claims it is 14-17 billion years, etc.
The fact is that we know that there are huge, dare I say *gargantuan* holes
in our knowledge of stellar evolution and stellar distance measurement.
But, predictions and models are built anyway!


This *is* how quantitative modeling is performed - qualitative
modeling/analysis is less restrictive in its rules but has very limited
value for the climate model purpose.

What you need to know (or believe you know) is the margin of error, stated
within, say, a 95% probability (meaning, there is a 5% chance your margin of
error is wrong). This allows you to build a model and state what the
probable range of valid results is. Having 'imprecise data' does not
prevent you from building a model, and does not imply that the model is
useless. Again, I suggest that you are either intentionally being
restrictive for purposes of this discussion, or your personal experience is
restrictive


Nope - that last sentence doesn't make sense to me at all. Even the
increase in Earth's population, and where it concentrates, has an
influence
on climate. The *global* warming in itself is not very convincing: a
claimed 0.6°C in 100years some of which is undoubtedly due to natural
cycle
*is* worthy of note. The scam is in the fearmongering... the "hydrogen
economy" is a scam... telling people that driving a Frankenstein
drivetrain, hybrid vehicle is environmentally friendly is a scam. People
who drive down to the Sierra Club meeting in their monster SUVs - I've
been
assured this is the case - are scammers.

I agree that there are scammers, and I also agree that there are hypocrites.
It is also extremely likely that some, or even most, of the measured climate
changes are 'natural'. But there are reputable scientists who believe that
human activities do have a measurable effect, and that it is increasing.
This is not necessarily a scam, and it may be prudent to consider the
possibility that someone's lifestyle may have to suffer in order to prevent
even worse consequences in the forseeable future. IOW, there is, IMO, a
middle ground where reason rules vs. fear/anger/etc.

At this point, I think (as you have indicated) that further discussion is
going to get us nowhere. Either my impression of your original position was
incorrect, or you have slightly softened it. The point has been made (on
both sides), scientists are continuing to investigate and argue, and people
continue to drive cars and burn fossil fuels.

Regards,
Dean

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 06:54:25 GMT, "Dean Kent"
wrote:

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...

The important point is that they do not seem to understand the system.
Clarity does not appear to me to be their forté.

The important point is that a complete understanding of the carbon cycle is
not a requirement for recognizing that human activities are having an impact
on CO2 levels, and that CO2 levels seem to have a direct correlation to
atmospheric temperature.

Believe your Web sites if you wish. The quantitative evidence of
catastrophic effect is not very convincing - the correlation and the
suspect numbers have already been covered.


No the Land Use Emissions does not measure what I was referring to, which
is is the absolute number for CO2 exhaled by humans/animals from their
lungs, from plant CO2 photosynthesis effects and of course from "natural"
burning. IOW how much *extra* is the burning of fossil fuels adding to
the
entire equation?

This is what is known as a 'straw man' argument. You find the weakest
point, and focus on that as a rebuttal of the entire argument.

It may seem that way through your own personal template.... based on what
level of expertise? Look, there is a carbon cycle which exists if we burn
no fossils at all - increase the population of the world and the amount of
carbon cycling through the system increases. From my POV it's kinda
important to know with some level of precision how much extra fossil fuel
adds to that base load... otherwise teh scale of the thing is not known.
Now maybe they know so I have to ask why do they not tell us?

The issue with global warming has to do with rate of change. The rate of
change of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rate of change of average global
temperature. The historical models show that there is a correlation between
those two, and recent direct measurements (over the past 100 years) have
shown that both have been increasing, and seem to be increasing rather
rapidly.

Why do we have to keep repeating ? The increase in global average temps of
..7°C over 100years *is* in some part due to a cyclical warming and is not
"rapid" by historical standards at all. The measure of CO2 is imprecise at
best and of recent vintage as far as accuracy goes. We are given a rate of
change of 1.5ppm with absolutely no reasonable explanation of how it was
arraived at - I guess they think we won't notice.:-) Again, all water
under this bridge.

The issue with the carbon cycle is that in order to fully understand the
impact of our activities, it is important to understand where the carbon
comes from, and where it goes. We can make reasonable guesses about the
amount of CO2 created by our industrial activity, we can measure the
difference in the atmosphere, and we can make reasonable guesses about the
'absorption' of it by land and sea. IOW, we know we create more than what
shows up in the atmosphere, but we don't know where all of the excess goes.
Not knowing where that excess is going is not an indication that we don't
know how much we are producing, that we don't know how much is being added
to the atmosphere, and we don't have a good model of what effect that has on
global temperatures.

Again repeats: where the carbon comes from is known; where it goes is
clearly misunderstood. I have yet to see a single source of info give a
scientifically valid number for the global, average amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. More than "reasonable guesses" are required here before we
proceed with legislation which will overstress and likely break the system
we have.


Research? From what I see at that last site, they can't make up their
minds whether to call an oceanic uptake a source or a sink.

As with most scientific research, there are questions still to be answered.
However, that does *not* prevent us from building models and making guesses
about what the data means. It is done all the time in many scientific
fields. Theories and models are built that are then discarded or modified
as more information becomes available. Even the detractors are using the
same uncertain data, so it is completely fallacious to claim that one
conclusion is more reasonable or likely than any other that is based upon
that data.

GIGO.


I can assure you I've seen the results often enough in my own work. You
cannot get the accuracy claimed by applying quantitative methods to the
data they apparently have. Even slight imprecision in the raw data can
lead to wild, extreme point results.

None of the references I have provided have made any definitive claims a
specific number. Even the site you continue to try and discredit says that
the increase is *projected* to be between 1.8F and 6.3F in the next century.
That *is* a pretty large variation. It is also mentioned that none of this
is a certainty, but that there is a good probability for it, and that even a
1.8F increase in temperature may have a significant impact on the
environment. Not that this is based upon the known rate of change of CO2
and temperature, with the uncertainty of the carbon cycle factored in.

So, once again, I see absolutely no justification for your strong sentiments
about the proponents of global warming. And again, it is true that some
will try to make financial and political gains as a result. But is this not
true of *every* major issue - such as terrorism, budget crises, child
abductions, etc.? Just because there are people who will take advantage of
the situation does not mean that the issue should be pooh-poohed as a scam.
There appear to be some proponents of the theory who are rational and have
laid bare all of the knowns and unknowns exactly as you would like - and
their conclusion is the opposite of what you seem to be claiming is the only
rational conclusion.

In this case the major proponents of GW are those who gain - not some
scummy bystanders; self-interest is a different issue from climbing on
someone else's bandwagon. This is also about power and control and the
ignorant politicians are only to ready to take it as their "platform" for
unnecessary, restrictive legislation and economic tampering. See your own
State for a recent example of what happens to energy supply under political
meddling. The recent decisions to classify CO2 as a pollutant are madness.

Your original statements about Ms Baliunas being a 'real scientist' was
seemingly intended to imply that none of the proponents were 'real
scientists'. Hopefully that has been laid to rest. You also stated that
proponents had something to gain, without providing anything other than
conjecture as evidence. It is clear that you don't have any such evidence
other than the fact that there are some scientists who will do such things.
Hopefully that also has been laid to rest as a rational rebuttal. You
stated (or implied) that the data is 'junk', but that has also been
addressed and it appears that your objection is primarily with the carbon
cycle not with the CO2 = temperature measurements and correlations. What
we appear to end up with is that the CO2 *is* increasing, and the average
global temperature is also. Humans *do* contribute additional CO2, but it
is unknown how much of this can be handled naturally and at what point
'environmental saturation' may occur. So, we are left with the possibility
that we could be causing temperatures to increase more quickly than we will
be comfortable with in the next century, or we might cause a small ice age -
or we might find that nature can handle whatever we throw at it.
Personally, I think the latter is the least likely, and I also think that
the issue is not that all life will become extinct ('life' will be around
long after humans have become extinct, IMO) - but that the environment may
become hostile for human life, and *we* may be significantly impacted. This
is something that I would not like to see, not only because I have kids that
may have to deal with it, but also because I have plans to be around for
quite some time. :-).

All of the above has already been covered. You are the one who is making
the rebuttals - not me... I made the original point and I stand by all of
it: the data is clearly, in significant part, junk which does not stand up
to analytical process and is unsuitable for predictive modeling. The
"results" reflect this.

As you mentioned in your last post - you are not going to be swayed,
presumably because you already have your mind made up. That is your
choice, of course. While I am certainly open to arguments either way, I
have seen nothing in your posts that actually refute what the proponents are
claiming. This is not surprising, considering the fact that there are
quite a number of people - reputable or not - who are investigating the
issues. If they haven't been able to convincingly refute it, I would be
very surprised and impressed if you could do so in a few days time using a
few Usenet posts.

Like I already said, believe what you read on Web sites - I can't make you
see the discrepancies in the data presented. I'd already made my decision
on this, based on anayltical skills I've used for years in my work with
quantitative modeling, well before reading any of Ms. Baliumas' material -
it was just a relief, from the usual propaganda, to find that there was
someone with credentials to stand up...and that there was a media source
willing to carry it.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...

Like I already said, believe what you read on Web sites - I can't make you
see the discrepancies in the data presented. I'd already made my decision
on this, based on anayltical skills I've used for years in my work with
quantitative modeling, well before reading any of Ms. Baliumas' material -
it was just a relief, from the usual propaganda, to find that there was
someone with credentials to stand up...and that there was a media source
willing to carry it.

I composed a long reply, but it isn't worth continuing this. Suffice it to
say that while you have your opinion, there are many, much more reputable
experts in the field that disagree. While you may be an unsung genius who
knows more than all those actually measuring an analyzing the data, I rather
doubt it. This is another of the typical threads here where instead of
sticking to facts, it becomes a mishmash of accusations of motive,
reputation and claims of expertise without substance. We might as well be
talking about AMD and Intel here, for all the reasoning being used...


Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??

Dean Kent wrote:
addressed and it appears that your objection is primarily with the carbon
cycle not with the CO2 = temperature measurements and correlations. What
we appear to end up with is that the CO2 *is* increasing, and the average
global temperature is also. Humans *do* contribute additional CO2, but it

I'm not even there. Correlation is not causality. Ever open
a warm soda? Atmospheric CO2 will increase if temperatures
increase from any cause. I've run ionic models, and the
magnitude is correct.

-- Robert

"Dean Kent" wrote in message
m...

Now I have an actual reason to doubt the conclusion...

Worded poorly - I should have said I can review the arguments from a
different perspective... :-).

Regards,
Dean

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:48:16 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

Dean Kent wrote:
addressed and it appears that your objection is primarily with the carbon
cycle not with the CO2 = temperature measurements and correlations. What
we appear to end up with is that the CO2 *is* increasing, and the average
global temperature is also. Humans *do* contribute additional CO2, but it

I'm not even there. Correlation is not causality. Ever open
a warm soda? Atmospheric CO2 will increase if temperatures
increase from any cause. I've run ionic models, and the
magnitude is correct.

A soda can preferably doesn't have any live vegetation in it though... in
fact a whole (aqueous, saline) ecosystem in itself.:-) The "sink" is *not*
dissolved, pressurized CO2.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...

I think we agree on one thing - pity you couldn't resist your final jabs.

Pot - Kettle - Black.



http://www.techcentralstation.com/10...1051-450&CID=1
051-050103F

Pity you can't resist being 'right'.

http://www4.nas.edu/news.nsf/isbn/03...6?OpenDocument


Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??