On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Frank Wood wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> I don't think the author was denying that c02 traps heat. His
> argument was that first there
> was an increase of temperature which was then followed by an
> increase in co2 which then
> started the feedback process.
This is essentially the explanation the Real Climate site made. I
don't see how this can be construed as a criticism of the GW theory.
> The point my friend was making that scientists seem unaware of the
> risks of a policy that
> drastically reduces co2 which obviously would prevent developing
> nations from
> industrialising thus ensuring continuing, famine and many deaths.
I have seen no evidence that the scientists are unaware of this issue.
However, that should not be the PRIMARY concern of the climate
scientist because he/she is a layman in this area.
> If it was not for fossil fuels we would be back in the middle ages
> so it is a little hypocrital
> for us to demand that developing countries rein back on fossil
> fuels. China of course has
> effectively stuck two fingers up to the West and who can blame them?
We in the US have certainly not demanded this. Bush et al denied there
was any problem. Obama of course thinks there is a problem.
> It is perfectly understandable to aim for a greener life but as my
> friend says until we lead
> by example we cannot lectures others or expect them not to
> I feel that it is scientists' duty to call for caution when
> advocating a drastic reduction in
> carbon emissions. At the moment it seems to be that scientists leave
> that problem up to
> the politicians.
Scientists are generally very cautious in suggesting policy. They
generally think they should spell out the science and leave the policy
choices to politicians. Stafford railed against this attitude (In
"Platform") on the grounds that having specialized knowledge conferred
responsibility. He felt (and I agree) that scientists are much too
reticent regarding public policy.
> As regards ice cores I will post tomorrow studies that show that
> there are serious flaws in
> current arguments based on ice cores.
Frank, you and I are laymen re. climate science and I at least will
remain a layman. I have neither the interest nor the time to peruse
numerous studies on climate science. I will continue to rely on
committees such as the IPCC and web sites such as Real Climate. I
think you are wasting your time and mine in searching for evidence to
disprove GW. As I argued in my long post earlier, there is good reason
to rust the scientists to get it right most of the time. By the way,
you never responded to that argument...???
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:17:19 -0500, BARRY A CLEMSON <[log in to unmask]
>> Thanks for posting this, I was not familiar with the Real Climate
>> and found it quite impressive. It seems to me that their writing
>> the posts from the IPCC that they show) are precisely the sort of
>> nuanced and cautious discussions that you have been asking for.
>> My reactions to your friends comments:
>> 1. I found the Real Climate explanation for the CO2 lag to be
>> perfectly reasonable, i.e., it fits with what I know about the
>> behavior of complex systems with feedback loops. And the argument
>> greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun seems pretty unassailable
>> to me.
>> 2. the comments about the GW crowd wanting to de-industrialize and
>> force poverty on the world seem a bit ludicrous to me. Climate
>> scientists are just as wedded to our excessive live style as any of
>> us. The "deniers" always claim the roof will fall if we try to do
>> anything about our greenhouse gas emissions. The history of pollution
>> control and conservation demonstrates otherwise.
>> I think that this piece is a good example of why honest climate
>> scientists are pulling their hair out and getting a little shrill. A
>> nuanced and cautious discussion of ice cores & CO2 (i.e., one thread
>> in a large tapestry) elicits a layman conclusion that the whole field
>> is loony.
>> I go back to my earlier conclusion: We are forcing our ecosystem
>> toward new basins of stability with almost zero understanding of
>> the thresholds are, i.e. we are in a dense fog but know that there be
>> cliffs SOMEWHERE ahead ... and we are speeding up when we should be
>> slowing down.
>> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Frank Wood wrote:
>>> I have had various discussions with people off line re Global
>>> Warming and a friend of mine who had a degree in Computer Science
>>> and English Literature gave me permission to post his view on the
>>> debate. I am doing this because I suspect people are fed up with my
>>> style of debate and also as this friend of mine is of academic bent,
>>> his arguments might appeal more to the academics on this list.
>>> He is not an agent of the evil anti GW corporations but someone who
>>> carefully weighs up arguments. IMO his arguments are balanced but
>>> also he is not afraid to speak his mind on these issues. I would
>>> also recommend that people read the comments on both of the links
>>> that he gives.
>>> There is no evidence in the geological record (ice core data) that
>>> CO2 has ever caused temperature to rise. If anything the data points
>>> the other way. The ice core data from Antarctica indicates that co2
>>> starts to rise about 800 years(+/- 200 years) AFTER the temperature
>>> rises. Al Gore conveniently ignored this in his film An Inconvenient
>>> Truth but it is not even questioned by pro global warming
>>> scientists(see here acknowledgement of this data at RealClimate and
>>> the explanation they try to advance for it, whilst still keeping co2
>>> in the driving seat, as it were, of climate change)
>>> For what is in my view a more balanced explanation see here.
>>> Note the sentences "Amplification is speculation. Itís a theory with
>>> no evidence that it matters in the real world." The alleged
>>> amplification by CO2 of an initial warming that everyone agrees is
>>> not caused by CO2 is what the proponents of AGW have to prove. Its
>>> not enough just to keep repeating it and demonising the opposition.
>>> CO2 may simply be a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere with no
>>> serious implications for climate at all. Its one thing showing it
>>> can cause warming in a little laboratory experiment and quite
>>> another predicting the climate future of the earth based on that. It
>>> is doom laden predictions like this, lacking evidence, that to my
>>> mind make AGW proponents similar to the latest in a long line of
>>> Armageddon cults.
>>> This subject needs balance. Sure there is a risk (in my opinion
>>> small) that AGW is real and that the end of the world is round the
>>> corner etc. But the pro global warming folk seem to think there is
>>> no risk or cost to the planet from shutting down fossil fuel
>>> industries. In reality the lives of hundreds of millions of people
>>> if not billions are imperilled by the stone age, deindustrialized
>>> scenario implied by this. The poverty stricken developing world has
>>> a more realistic grasp of this than many complacent middle class
>>> academics in the West who have adopted the AGW ideology basically as
>>> part of their career structure. When we can run our own country on
>>> solar panels and wind turbines then we can speak with authority to
>>> the rest of the world what fuels they should be using. I think the
>>> word eco-fascist is not too strong for those who want to force
>>> deindustrialization and therefore poverty on the world. [The term
>>> "Eco Fascist" is gaining prevalence in the GW debate, even that
>>> respected organ Resurgence uses it, albeit in the context of how
>>> tribal cultures are being disrupted by enivironmental activists -
>>> Frank Wood].
>>> There's a big difference between applied science, such as a motor
>>> engine, a bridge, a computer, where one can in some sense
>>> empirically validate the scientific principles involved, ie we can
>>> see these things working and take the science seriously. In my view
>>> theoretical science. eg global warming has to be taken with a big
>>> pinch of salt as we cannot determine easily whether we are being
>>> soft soaped or not. In a hundred years we'll all be dead, as they
>>> say. The claims of these theoretical scientists have to be very
>>> carefully sifted through, as scientists are just as fallible and
>>> corrupt as other human beings, especially when much research is
>>> grant driven(No Problem = No Grant) and it is almost impossible to
>>> actually disprove what they are saying as you are basically dealing
>>> with probabilities one way or the other. And when, as Climategate
>>> showed, they are actively destroying evidence)eg conspiring to
>>> destroy emails) and manipulating the scientific data("tricks" "to
>>> hide the decline") then one's BS detector quite naturally goes into
>>> the red.
> ~~~~~~ For
>>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
>>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
>>> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-
>>> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -
>> BARRY CLEMSON
>> Cybernetica Press Inc
>> Denmark Rising is now available at my web site
>> For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
>> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
>> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-
>> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -
> For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
Cybernetica Press Inc
Denmark Rising is now available at my web site
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html