Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:11:31 -0400
<fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180881731.789763.257820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 3, 1:33 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<fredfigh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180824231.934909.147230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*I* have made no conclusion at all. To the contrary, as I've made
clear
in
other posts, there isn't enough data to warrant conclusions. There is
no
*conclusion* to my comment about the sun, simply a logical inference.
It seems that you inferred an increase in the solar constant despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
Based *only* on the data I mentioned, that other planets are getting
warmer
as well, then the logical inference *is* that a common factor is
involved,
and that common factor is the sun.
One supposes that you might have checked to see if actual
measurements of the solar flux agreed with what you were
being told.
Which I *would have done* if I wanted to draw a conclusion. You were wrong
when you claimed I drew a conclusion. Please admit your error and get over
it.
Remember, the people making up the "Mars is
warming too it must be the sun" argument are the same
people promoting "Intelligent Design" and young Earth
cosmologies.
Are you drawing the conclusion then that *only* the people who are promoting
"Intelligent Design" and young Earth cosmologies are claiming that the sun
is the cause of warming? Moreover, can you prove to a scientific certainty
that the solar flux is *not* the cause, or even the major contributor? Just
as important, are you going to assume that, merely because I raised the
question, that I believe it to be so?
Well, yeah, that is what they say, right?
"They" who?
Slight warming initiated
greater than normal rates of sublimation back in the 1990s and now
the Martina Greenhouse effect is extending that, right?
Is it? Do you have clear, verifiable data either way?
The problem simply isn't as easy as some folks want to believe.
Agreed. That is why when somebody says, hey Mars is warming too
it must be the Sun, you really ought to check to see if they are an
idiot or not.
If they are drawing a conclusion based solely on that, then yes. If they
draw a logical inference from that- and it *is* a logical inference- then
maybe, since there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.
Even Phil
Plait has jumped onto the humans-are-evil Al-Gore-worshipping bandwagon.
He
has definitely stated that human-created greenhouse gases are the cause
of
global warming, when there simply isn't enough data to show that.
Increasing
temperatures *does not necessarily mean* that humans- that is, the United
States- is at fault. As a scientist *and* a skeptic, he should know
better.
Maybe as a scientist *and* a skeptic he knows better than you?
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect. This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years. He *does not* have that data. *There isn't sufficient data to draw
the conclusion that humans are responsible*. We don't know enough about the
planet to draw any such conclusion. We've only been collecting reliable data
on a global basis for around 200 years. If the most extreme Creationist view
was accepted, that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago, that means we
only have data for about 3% of the time. If you take the view provided by
the geologic evidence that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, the
paucity of data is even worse. Make no mistake, "global warming", regardless
of its scientific validity, has become a religion. Just *try* to get a grant
to show that humans *aren't* the cause. *Science* has increasingly less and
less to do with the solution- notice the increase in "consensus" when it
comes to talking about science. *Science* does not involve *consensus*-
politics does. The *consensus* was that Galileo was wrong. The *consensus*
was that physical traits, such as a lost limb, were passed on to offspring.
The *consensus* was that life arose through spontaneous generation.
Something is right or wrong scientifically because the data from a repeated,
appropriate experiment says it is, not because a bunch of people agree on
it. In this case, I use the term "appropriate" to represent an experiment
that is actually testing what is intended and which does not have a
mechanical or other failure in the test apparatus that compromises the data.
Sometimes an experiment can be designed to test a given hypothesis but
because of bad design actually measures something else, and the results
misinterpreted.
Do-gooders stopped a lot of controlled burns because "burning is bad"-
notice how many more wildfires we have now. I can talk from personal
experience about the fire in Los Alamos several years back- which
happened
as a *direct result* of stopping the controlled burns.
And yet one of the proposed 'solutions' to this problem is to
selective
thinning, removing the largest trees, leaving the small stuff. As I
am
sure you understand that worsens the fire risk. To reduce fire risk
they should remove the understory and leave the largest trees. The
proposal is a sham, the promoters simply want the wood. Those
are ALSO the same folks who told you Mars was warming because
the solar flux was increasing.
Who told me that?
Will we make things worse in the long run, as
the save-the-trees-by-any-means crowd did by stopping the controlled
burns?
Or will we make ti worse in the long run as the 'thin-the- forests'
crowd
want to do?
Exactly. What we do about the climate will have effects for centuries. It's
hardly a denial of the problem to ask that we stop and think about what we
are going to do before we do it, rather than simply do what seems to be
faddish at the moment. Look at the previously mentioned compact florescents-
they will certainly reduce energy use, but they *will* introduce more
mercury into the environment. Should we rush to change our bulbs, or wait a
little longer until LED lighting is improved to the point where it's
affordable, and save even more energy while producing less pollution?
Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem?
Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to
answer
those questions.
Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.
In what way, since he doesn't know what I think about it?
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3.
In what way? How can you disagree with me without knowing what I think about
those questions?
Regarding 4, I am not clear
that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.
Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Jonathan
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- References:
- NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Stan Marsh
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Prev by Date: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Next by Date: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Previous by thread: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Next by thread: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
