the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Ryan McDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: An Al Gore Disciple is in the house!

Kenstrain wrote:

Recently I've noticed the apparent anti-correlation (your FACT
quoted above) being used as an argument against CO2 related
warming. There is also the argument that at earlier times there
was no causal correlation (indeed that the CO2 concentration is
determined by prior temperature history rather than the other way
round).

If that apparent anti-correlation is not causal it probably should
not be used in an anti-global warming science argument, even if its
political utility is clear (for example for the fossil fuel
industry:" look, we do no harm"). If it is causal the implication
is that human activity is affecting the climate (but not in the way
predicted by the naiive climate models).

I wonder if that could be partially due to cloud formation related
to soot and other pollution, as well as non-anthropogenic changes
(or some other anthropogenic cause).

I don't follow the literature on this though, nor do I have an
opinion on whether there is causality.

You have some valid points. I use that fact to illustrate that climate science is not an open and shut case, but that we still have a lot to learn before we can rely on computer simulations. It shouldn't be misconstrued as any kind of absolute proof. I don't want to be guilty of the rigid, dogmatic attitude of people who run around saying ALL scientists are in agreement and it's absolutely proven.

People like Chato send me into a rant with their "ALL scientists agree; only cranks don't" nonsense. There's plenty of evidence to lead one to a different conclusion than the worst-case-imaginable scenarios pushed by the Al Gore crowd.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow