Re: [asa] Re: Secular Albedo changes.

On 6/25/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is great -- both the climate alarmists and the climate skeptics are
> acting like YECs! Everyone who disagrees with me is a YEC! You don't like
> my views on local property taxes -- you're a YEC! You don't like what I
> ordered for breakfast -- you're a YEC! My tie is ugly -- you're a YEC!

I read it differently, David. What Rich wrote eas "Like YEC and ID they just
said it's wrong without providing better predictions." That's just calling
attention to a similarity in methodology, one which may (or may not) be
appropriate.

Actually, I find the anti-GW arguments in general to be a cut or so above
the YEC arguments. (I still reject t hem, primarily on the basis of "how can
so many qualified scientists be in consensus and be wrong?)

Glenn's historical data seems to be a decent (if not compelling) argument; I
wonder if it has been addressed by the IPCC. I search the net but did not
find any rebuttal from them.

Rich faults the anti-GW people, however, for not providing "better
predictions." It seems to be true that they have not provided the in depth
computer models used by the IPCC. Their models are more simple -- a rise in
CO2 is either

1. Not to be feared
2. Not due to human influences
3. Or both

CO2 level is now at 368 or so. I wonder if Singer and the other contrarians
have calculated at what point the level might be too high? Surely there must
be SOME level (79% comes to mind) at which it has an effect. Anyhing over
that leaves too little oxygen.

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 25 15:47:37 2008