<div>[Vision2020] A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming</div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-April/069550.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-April/069550.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From post above by Paul Rumelhart:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"We rebel skeptics?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For one thing, many of the "skeptics" are trying to disprove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, so your statement that "we rebel skeptics are not trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis" I quoted at the bottom here, is simply false.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps more importantly, your comment misrepresents the hard work of thousands of scientists who have worked for decades on understanding our planet's climate. <strong><em>As if scientists, who are skeptics by training, have not been rigorously and skeptically</em></strong> <strong><em>analyzing and testing the fundamental physics regarding CO2 atmospheric impacts (and other climate variables), for over a century? Now "rebel skeptics" are rebelling against conformist scientists, who are no longer skeptics?</em></strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why should I trust Warren Meyer's analysis or presentation of climate science, that I have gathered in part relies on MIT's Richard Lindzen's climate science theories (that have been peer reviewed and found to be faulty)? You wrote you thought Meyer did "rather well" with presenting science. Really?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Meyer is exposed as presenting questionable, actually, faulty, analysis on climate science by Bennet Kalafut (what a name!) a PhD student in physics (<strong>Bio:<br></strong>PhD student, single-molecule biophysicist <strong>Education/Experience:<br>
</strong>MS, physics, U. of Arizona; BS, physics and mathematics, magna cum laude, Tulane University <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46102/bennett_kalafut.html">http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46102/bennett_kalafut.html</a> )</div>
<div>on his blog at the following website. I'll offer an excerpt:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://stochasticgain.blogspot.com/search/label/Warren%20Meyer">http://stochasticgain.blogspot.com/search/label/Warren%20Meyer</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"I just caught Meyer claiming--despite my link to his original post, and despite the link to Lindzen in his, that he never claimed that climate models "use" feedbacks, that I'm making a straw man argument, and that he didn't use an obviously bad analysis of feedback from a set of Lindzen slides as reference. It's "I don't know what Kalafut's talking about, it's a straw man argument!" in a way to make me seem like a liar and a loon. Again: Not cool. Mr Meyer: you've been caught. Perhaps your understanding of the science has matured in a year, but that doesn't retroactively correct your past blunders nor does that retroactively turn criticism of your past statements into straw-man arguments."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>For those who are interested in climate science from a reliable source, I recommend the following websites, from the</div>
<div>American Institute of Physics, on the history of the science regarding CO2 impacts in our atmosphere, etc.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></div>
<div>------------------<br> </div>
<div>I would dismiss your "rebel skeptics" efforts with a shrug and a laugh, if it were not for the fact that the junk science promoted (for whatever reasons) in general is blocking efforts to address human impacts on climate, that have a high degree of probability, according to well researched and rigorous science, of causing profound changes to our planet. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The public, and many politicians and corporations, are being hoodwinked into accepting continued and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, by clever pseudo-scientific garbage, some of which is exposed in the analysis "How to cook a graph in three easy lessons" from well published climate scientist Raymond Pierrehumbert ( <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierrehumbert/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierrehumbert/</a> ):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="4">How to cook a graph in three easy lessons</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/</a></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/1/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div>Keep in mind<br>that we rebel skeptics are not trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis,<br>we're merely, well, skeptical of some of the claims and some of the<br>science. Read or watch more to find out some reasons why.<br>
<br>Paul<br><br> </div>