Robert, Conceptually speaking, anything is conceptually possible, and on that basis all the conditional biases you mention are meaningful and relevant. Still, it's pretty obvious that the consumption of fossil fuels releases CO2 changes the transparency of the atmosphere to radiation. The interesting part of the dispute is why there is one at all. I think it's because we switch languages sometimes, with 'code word' political meanings in place of ordinary practical meanings. The issue seems to have little to do with the science. The scientists know their models don't fully reflect the physical system, they also know their models have been getting incrementally better and better, continually reinforcing the atmospheric chemistry theory that goes into them. Those are things a practical approach are based on, not cause and effect statements with all sorts of social overtones.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 10:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics Owen, I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint that we simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global warming. My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global warming trend. Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global complex system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are affecting the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for crying out loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist couched the issue: There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities that contribute a great deal to oil. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
