[LINK] The meaning of climate change denial

[Stephen Wilson]

Tom,

You still miss the point of my process observations.

I don't dip into climatology literature, as it's not my field. Instead I 
follow the science at a distance. I stay informed through New Scientist 
and similar organs. I note that the editorial position of New Scientist 
on climate is pretty much unchanged in thirty years.

Real science is not done by individual non exerts like you dipping into 
the odd paper, put their way by cherry picking lobby groups or 
journalists with an agenda. Real science is not done by lay people going 
"I'll see your favorite paper and raise you my favorite paper". The 
steady refinement of scientific consensus is incalculably more thorough.

Cheers,

Steve Wilson.



On 27/06/2012 9:12 AM, TKoltai wrote:
>> -----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
>
>