Hi, Fluxon -
"Picky," eh...? :) I should think a scientist would value accuracy and precision.
: Previous climate change have very strong orbital components.
: Other factors are more uncertain and less important. You
: should know this.
(hehe) No, I shouldn't know this - but, you have failed to explain it here. All you've done is 'charge' me with something in a quickly dismissive manner.
: Yes, correlation is not causation but that was what he was
: trying to drive at (I was not, only stating that today's
: CO2 level does not lag like earlier times).
Fine - but what you were driving at is the suggestion that today's rising temperature _is_ caused by human activity, more than simply correlated with it.
: You are wrong about the cosmic ray/cloud theory. If that was a
: good theory, scientist would be jumping on the bandwagon!
: So, NO, it has NOT proven to be a good theory and that is
: not just an opinion of mine.
You're asking us to believe that "absence of jumping on bandwagon proves absence of merit in the theory." It could as easily indicate "absence of supportive funding" and/or "absence of ability to take nice measurements of primary theory vectors". You're asking us to _infer_ a particular thing from the absence of visible-to-you interest within a particular community of people. If a stealth-designed aircraft does not produce a blip on a radar screen, does the aircraft lack substance...?
: He claims that there is no observational fact for CO2 warming,
: but then tagged on a 2006 data that does show the CO2
: effect in the atmosphere(at least he's honest on this
: point, but he should have rewrote his paragraph if that's
: the case!).
As I said earlier, "No need to be snide." You have no idea why the article came together as it did. To infer and then imply a lack of honesty on the writer's part goes a step too far. You don't have "sufficient scientific evidence" to make such an inference and implication - and that you think you do necessarily makes me wonder how well-substantiated your many other assertions really are.
: He's saying he was on a gravy train but now knows better. I am
: saying that ALL 3 of his claims are WRONG on the 90%
: probability scale. If 1 is wrong by that scale that is bad,
: but all 3 are wrong by that scale.
I don't accept the premise that you're the arbiter of probability and therefore of what is "bad".
: So, yes, I stick to my conclusion that he's not a scientist
: when he got all 3 claims wrong (to a high probability). It
: seems that his job is to do carbon accounting with computer
: programming on contract from the government and does very
: little climate science if any.
Hmm; okay - but he was "steeped in the global warming culture" and therefore does have some authority from which to speak. Further he's a mathematician, a fact which suggests he's capable of rigorous mentation.
To say that "the world decides by probability" is to say "the world accepts correlation plus some undefined amount of seemingly-supportive evidence as being causation, for all practical and political purposes."
I note that computer modeled prognostications concerning "the number of AIDS cases" in various countries have proven quite fallible. This, despite the air of _certainty_ with which such prognostications had been announced and published.
I think anyone of normal intelligence has reason to expect that a pronouncement written or spoken as being true ought to be true and not just "probably true" by some unmentioned criteria.
--hobie
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
