From: Martin Striz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 15:11:24 MST
On 11/25/05, J. Andrew Rogers <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Martin Striz wrote:
> > On 11/24/05, J. Andrew Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> A common misconception fostered because it is useful to some
> >> ideological factions. When global temps rise, CO2 levels tend to
> >> rise, not the other way around.
> > Ah, yes, the grand conspiracy of the cabal known as the entire
> > scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> > (that bastion of political ideology), a body which collates published,
> > peer-reviewed data from hundreds of papers, representing the findings
> > of thousands of scientists, has deteremined that humans are
> > contributing significantly to the global climate changes that we are
> > facing. But Mr. Rogers knows better.
> Where did I state that humans are not contributing to climate change
> or that elevated CO2 levels do not contribute to atmospheric
> warming? Oh yes, that's right, I did not.
> There are so many shining examples of poor reasoning and
> rationalization when it comes to the topic of global warming that it
> is appalling, though that is true with most topics. You are just
> adding to that noise, by parroting dogma rather than, say,
> downloading the Vostok data.
Parroting what dogma? Please identify the specific claim that is
parroted dogma. I made but one reference and one claim, dealing with
the IPCC. Are you saying that their findings are dogma? Useless
noise? I was addressing your implied statement that supporters of the
idea of anthropogenic climate change are "ideologues" who misuse data.
CO2 is a known heat-trapping agent, which han be demonstrated
experimentally, and the IPCC -- certainly not an ideological body --
has concluded that CO2 is a large contributor to anthropogenic climate
> Far more is attributed to the scientific community by ideologues on
> this matter than is actually claimed by the scientific community for
> the most part. Are CO2 levels a valid and significant mechanism for
> driving climate change? Certainly.
Which makes your earlier assertion that CO2 levels are a trailing
indicator of temperature increases irrelevant. You agree that they
causally contribute to it.
> Are CO2 levels the primary
> mechanism of climate change on earth? Doubtful given the evidence,
> though it likely contributes.
That's under dispute. Within the realm of anthropogenic environmental
influence, CO2 may be the *most* important factor, but it's not the
most important out of all factors contributing to global climate
change. It's the actual degree to which human activity influences
climate change that is the real debate.
> Conflating the first case with the
> second or correlation with causation is a serious failure of most
> people's understanding of this topic.
And yet you just admitted it's causally linked.
>Unless, of course, the topic
> of interest is CO2 levels rather than climate change -- a distinction
> with a real difference.
It's a distinction only if CO2 levels are insignificant. If, as many
scientists, most of them non-ideologues, believe that CO2 is the
leading anthropogenic cause of climate change, then it's significant.
Especially if human activity per se is significant.
> It is ironic that these failure modes are essentially identical to
> the failures in reasoning of the Creationist/Intelligent Design
> crowd, except that the shoe is on the other foot. Careful reasoning
> is frequently only useful when it supports a position one already
> agrees with.
Blabbering. Please don't ever insult my intelligence by comparing me
to creationists. Creatioinsts don't do much research on evolution.
I've done my homework on climate change.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT