[LINK] The meaning of climate change denial

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Stephen Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 6:52 PM
> To: Link List
> Subject: [LINK] The meaning of climate change denial
> 
> I dip occasionally into the interminable debate between
> Koltai and the 
> Rest of the Link World. I wouldn't be the only one dumbfounded by the 
> man's obstinancy.  What can it mean that an intelligent 
> person feels SO 
> VERY MUCH IN THE RIGHT to buck science?
> 

Because generally, the answer to your question, is that those that
question AGW apparently have more facts (that don't change,) than most
of the AGW advocates, and the volume of evidence is sharply stacked
against Climate changed caused by humans.
However, I still have lots of unanswered questions e.g.: Why were the
very persons that are now expounding Global Warming; in 1971 espousing
the exact oppopsite:

Vis:  

Science  9 July 1971:
Vol. 173 no. 3992 pp. 138-141
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate

   1. S. I. Rasool,
   2. S. H. Schneider

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide
and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It
is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase
diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For
aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce
the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence
of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented
with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in
global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the
surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of
several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is
believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a
new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above
Venus.
As reported
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748
548/

> 
> I hope I'm not drawing a long bow, but humoring loonies like Koltai 
> might regrettably embolden any number of others with fringe 
> barrows to 
> push.
> 

And I also don't stoop to name calling when light on facts. 

But Stephen, just to show you I'm prepared to anti up when the chips are
down.... if you can find 31,000 degree qualified non-loonies to sign a
petition that votes in favour of AGW, then I will change my surname to
"looney", just to honour your commitment to the cause of AGW.

Let me repeat that: If You, Stephen Wilson, go out and find 31K+
non-loony Masters (or better) qualified scientists to sign a petition
attesting to human created Global Warming, then I will change my name by
deed poll to "Tom Looney" - Hell, just to show you there's no hard
feelings, I'll let you even drop the bar to B.A. with at least a minor
in any of the classic sciences. 

I'm guessing the chances of you being successful and the planet
temperature going up by 2.7 - 4 degrees in the next century from human
emitted NOX/SOX/CO2 etc etc... Are about equal.

But Stephen, What I am doing is getting people talking about science
that is apprently, according to many learned people, defective. And when
science is defective, it needs to be debated, until it is no longer
defective. So please, don’t bother trotting out the denigrating
terminology, dive in the deep end. Do some research, find some stats...
Throw them at me. Prove me wrong - please!
Start here: http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20120312_FourHorsemenPart1.pdf

By the same token - and I re-iterate - I have no problems with a
particle polution tax. Provided it is spent on alleviating respiratory
problems, additional aged care and isnt merely paid into consolidated
funds. I think that would be an excellent way for the world to be able
to afford to take care of it's advancing age baby boomer population.

Then again, thinking like that needs a progressive enlightened
Government.
I keep waking up each morning in excited anticipation that overnight
someone in Government grew some non-american cojones and every night I
sing myself to sleep with the "Maybe Manyana" song. 

But there is one thing I am sure of. The outrageous claims of Hansen et
all in 1981, 1988 were quite far off the mark and were scaremongering
tactics. Regardless of explanations... 

The evidence against Anthropological Global Warming is substantial (even
with the severe data reconstruction on the part of public data
management agencies). So the question remains, why is Government
accepting it as if it was proven.

In all of this two elements are undisputed:

1. CO2 density follows temperature by approximately 800 years. (Source:
Hansen J. - The Ted talk...)
2. It is impossible to tax an economy back into recovery. (Source: Any
person with a calculator)

TomK