[Vision2020] American Institute of Physics: Physics of Radiative CO2 Forcing: Was: University of Idaho Argonaut, 1-25-11: Bret Zender: "Climate change is not to be ignored"

Wed Feb 9 10:57:16 PST 2011

It is interesting to compare your list of reasons to undermine the
credibility of climate science, with the tactics employed by some
critics to undermine the credibility of evolution science, as
described at the bottom of this post, from the article "Forbes Rich
List of Nonsense."  Your argument against the credibility of climate
science is similar to the tactics of some creationists against
evolution science.

The physicists at the American Institute of Physics likely have a
better understanding of the modern physics of gravity than you or I.
And their analysis of climate science, fundamentally dependent on
physics, reveals an exhaustively studied scientific basis, both
theoretically and empirically, for the radiative forcing of human CO2
emissions being a significant driver of the current warming Earth
climate.

Read American Institute of Physics analysis of the physics of the
radiative forcing of CO2 at website below:

The Discovery of Global Warming                      January 2011
Basic Radiation Calculations

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
-------------------------
It is credible and well researched science on the issue of
anthropogenic climate warming, such as is presented by the American
Institute of Physics, and numerous other scientific organizations in
many nations around the world, that supports the scientific consensus
that human impacts on climate are significant and increasing in
magnitude, as we continue CO2 emissions at a high rate, driving up
atmospheric CO2 levels.

Your position, whether just for debate or offered in all sincerity, is
advocating taking extreme risk based on a low probability of
scientific error.  Consider the statement on the risks of global
warming by Nobel Laurate economist Paul Krugman in an interview by
Zakaria on CNN, with Krugman and Lomborg, Dec. 13, 2009:

Transcript in full at website below:

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/13/fzgps.01.html

"You have to guard against the substantial possibility of really
catastrophic change."
-----------------------------
Forbes’ rich list of nonsense

Filed under: Climate Science Reporting on climate— group @ 6 January 2011
Guest commentary from Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia with input from
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/#more-5984

Quote below from website article above:

"Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by
Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style,
anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of
obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first
glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on
closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number
of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard;
this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of
science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given
science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks."
--------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 2/4/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> His terms are a little imprecise, but anthropogenic global warming is
> not anywhere near as established as gravity or evolution.  It's a
> science where we have 150 years of somewhat reliable data in a field
> where you have to have 30+ years of data just to be able to say anything
> at all about climate.  Is it warming, on average, right now?  Yes.  Do
> we know how much of it is due to man's carbon footprint?  I would say
> no.   The ice cores show that temperature has gone up and down over the
> last few thousand years.  We're recovering from the little ice age.  I
> wouldn't place any bets on global warming or global cooling right now.
> Why?  Because we don't know why the temperature has risen in the past.
> We suspect the Sun is involved, but we can't really say.
>
> I will say that the Global Climate Change Media Machine is being
> successful in getting across their narratives.  They've turned a new,
> more-or-less untested science into a science that people believe is as
> solid as the law of gravity.  This is despite their earlier efforts to
> try to make people believe that there was little variation until evil
> man came around and screwed it all up, what I like to call the Hockey
> Stick Era.  Despite their resistance to criticism, including (if the
> Climate Gate emails are to be believed) conspiring to get around FOIA
> laws, they eventually had to concede that their famous graph had
> statistical problems.
>
> For this and other reasons, I'll still be skeptical about climate
> forecasts more than three days ahead.  I will continue to avoid stepping
> off of high places, though.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Other journalistic offerings from the Argonaut on the problem of
>> anthropogenic climate warming have been rather lacking, but I thought
>> this article covered some important points concisely, while being
>> entertaining.
>>
>> Given gravity is just a theory, for fair and open minded debate and
>> education in the public schools, physics classes should present the
>> theory of levitation, don't you think?  This makes as much sense as
>> insisting creationism be taught in physics classes.... After all,
>> evolutionary biologists might be just as fraudulent and or incompetent
>> as some insist climate scientists are, ditto for physicists and their
>> "theory of gravity."  Just a theory, remember!
>>
>> http://www.uiargonaut.com/sections/opinion/stories/2011/jan/12511/climate_change_is.html
>>
>> Climate change is not to be ignored
>> Bret Zender | Argonaut
>>
>> I get this weird aura sometimes. It's that sort of
>> "Alice-in-Wonderland"-like sense of being in a place where reality
>> isn't at all what you know, love and thought it was. It's like reality
>> came home violently drunk and slapped you around and said it was
>> cheating on you. Then it swiftly apologizes and says it's sorry and it
>> should never have done that and didn't mean any of it, but things are
>> never quite the same again.
>>
>> I felt that aura while reading a news story at ClimateScienceWatch.org
>> about the newly elected Republican House majority disbanding Nancy
>> Pelosi's Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
>> That's right — disbanding. Why are they doing this?
>>
>> In the words of Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), the climate
>> scientists might have been the perpetrators of a "massive
>> international scientific fraud." In James Sensenbrenner's mind,
>> science is an organization — a competing organization like any other,
>> driven by its own profit.
>>
>> In other words, it's something they have a reason to commit fraud for
>> — as though scientists will finally get to show numbers in the black
>> this quarter. Some say you can only perceive the world as it appears
>> through your own eyes, and it's hard to find a better example of that
>> than James Sensenbrenner.
>>
>> Disproving global warming at this point is like trying to disprove
>> evolution or gravity. It's not about disproving Darwin — it would be
>> like uncovering the Illuminati, Bigfoot, King Arthur and the hidden
>> alien knowledge Egyptians used to build the pyramids at once.
>>
>> That's how big of a conspiracy this would require within the
>> scientific community. It would be a conspiracy within NASA, the
>> National Organization for Science, the Pew Center, and 99 percent of
>> the scientific community. So many people have tested the evidence and
>> theories out there that you can barely find a single reputable
>> scientific organization that contests it.
>>
>> And yet, another glance down the page reveals this other gem of a news
>> story: "Sarah Palin Supports Teaching Creationism in Schools." Great.
>> She declines to say what she believes is truth but the controversy
>> should be taught in schools, slipping back to the core argument that
>> "debate is always healthy." This is the 2008 Republican nominee for
>> vice president. This is the woman who was a heartbeat away from
>> becoming the leader of the free world.
>>
>> Do we teach the controversy to gravity? Do we allow the view that
>> Yggdrasil drags the planet along by its tentacles a fair shake right
>> up there with Einstein? Do we let Holocaust deniers present their side
>> of the Anne Frank story?
>>
>> No. Schools teach the truth. They teach science.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>