[asa] Re: global warming

Glenn wrote (in part):
>
But Burgy, that is an act of faith

Yes.

and I provided below evidence that that
faith is misplaced in the urban heat island.

I'm unqualified to judge it.

  Science is about checking things out. You should do it and draw
conclusions consistent with what you see.

One more time. I'm NOT a climate scientist and I'm not going to be
one. I can read the IPCC reports and they appear to be firmly based; I
am not going to second guess their data or methodologies.

> But, science, like any other endeavor gets into fads and it is verboten to challenge.

True. But the absence of peer-reviewed scientific articles arguing
your case must be significant.

>We all have knowledge of either telling people or being told by people that
if you do that your scientific career is in jeopardy. I know many grad
students experience this because I have spoken with many who experienced it
and have read of it in the literature.

If I understand you, you argue that reputable persons hold back on
information because of career jeopardy. Perhaps so. But as an argument
here it seems too far fetched to consider.

Now, anyone who challenges GW gets the treatment from many people that you
started out doing to Steve Forbes. Who wants to have everyone say their
credibility is zero????

Steve Forbes' credibility (on this issue) is zero because he doesn't
not have the scientific credentials. If Forbes advised me to invest in
stock A because I can become filthy rich I would rate his credibility
on that point as high.

> > There are feed back loops which people don't take into account.
> Hotter air, holds more water. Hotter seas gives off more water, but
> high in the atmosphere, the water will cool and should form more cloud
> cover to reduce the insolation hitting the earth.

I think Rich has addressed this point. I have nothing to add.

>It is up to them to prove that we should spend trillions of dollars on mitigating what I think is nothing but a political agenda.

Obviously, most people think they have done this. Also -- it ought NOT
be a "political football." Some (on both sides) try to make it such.
That's ungood.
>
>Take a look at this
picture. It shows the thermometer above an airconditioning exhaust
fan--obviously you didn't look much at the previous links I sent.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/WeatherTitusville2.jpg

Burgy, it doesn't take a Ph.D in climate science to know that an running
airconditioner exhaust below the thermometer will affect the temperature. To
not at least say this means that you aren't interested in the data. And
please tell me how on earth you would correct for this problem? You, the
climate researcher, sitting in an office 2000 miles away, don't have a
record of when the airconditioner was on.

Again, I think Rich answered this one.

>You are not the first GW advocate to avoid condemning such a situation and I
find that utterly amazing.

I am not a "GW advocate." But I do think the GW science conclusions
are much more likely to be correct than to be a hoax of any kind. So I
talk about it some, always pointing to the IPCC reports as my
evidence.

But the topic is not all that high on my priorities list.

>If you can't or won't address the issue, you shouldn't say things like
Forbes is a GW denier and his credibility is zero.

Yes I can. It has to do with Forbes' scientific credentials.

>If you can't judge the accuracy of GW data or are unwilling to, it is unfair to judge the
credibility of those who disbelieve in GW in such a negative way.

I judge credibility here the same way I (and you) judge the
credibility of Duane Gish when he espouses YEC. Nothing more.

And BTW I said NOTHING about your credibility. On origins and on oil
it is (with me) very high. On GW it is unknown.

Looks as if I'm outta here for a few days ...

jb

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 11 10:31:23 2008