Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

ďťż<PRE>
You ( Fungus ) wrote:
ÂŤ The [AGW] problem is politics, not science.
This is why I believe that nothing will ever be done
until it's to late to avoid a lot of (unnecessary) suffering. Âť

Again, I say:

Over giga¡years, long¡term, the earth/cosmos is cooling.
Short¡Term, relatively speaking, evolution alters the climate.

Until about 305 million years ago, for example, before fungi learned
to digest lignin (trees)*, CO₂ levels diminished and O₂ levels shot up,
cooling the planet. The coal we use today came from that era.
[ *: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Rocks_and_coal ]

As we burn that coal, the opposite is happening:
O₂ levels are dropping and CO₂ is rising, heating the planet.
For (mere) ¡decades¡ now, the ice caps have been melting.

So enjoy the heat now, while you can, it won't last.

Bottom line:

Science is sober, Religion is drunk.
Drunk is more fun, but it might kill and/or anger you and yours.
Those who breed like rabbits, die like rabbits.

 

[fungus]

On Dec 21, 6:42 am, Bill Ward &lt;bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com&gt; wrote:

OK, fine.  That confirms your troll status.  If you ever do get any
evidence that CO2 can affect surface temperature, please post and explain
it.   Until then, in a.g-w, you're just background noise.

a) Evidence has been provided.

b) The experiments have been done, they work

c) You're in the monority, you're the one making extraordinary
claims. It falls on *you* to providing some evidence to back
up your viewpoint, not us.

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 20 Des, 21:51, AGWFacts &lt;AGWFa...@ipcc.org&gt; wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:35:26 -0800 (PST), fungus

openglMYSO...@artlum.com&gt; wrote:
Getting back to climate though, the voices of
scientists are getting through and apparently 97%
of them are saying the current climate change
is very likely to be man made.

Nearly 98% of the experts on the subject agree that humans have
caused climate change.

If you want to pretend you discuss science, at least
get the right perspective. By 1615 100% - 1 person
thought that the earth was the centre of the universe.
That one dissedent was Gailileo Galilei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Although highly unlikely, there is half a chance
that you might have heard about him.

Science is not about popularity or number of votes.

Rune

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

At the moment, would you describe the condition as varicose
veins, ie. severely collapsed capillaries?

Not according to the wound care doctor I saw a few weeks ago.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:11:55 -0800, fungus wrote:

On Dec 21, 6:42 am, Bill Ward &lt;bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com&gt; wrote:

OK, fine.  That confirms your troll status.  If you ever do get any
evidence that CO2 can affect surface temperature, please post and
explain it.   Until then, in a.g-w, you're just background noise.

a) Evidence has been provided.

I'll consider that a blatant lie unless you post a link to the post where
you provided it.

b) The experiments have been done, they work

Again, you need a cite, not just an empty claim.

c) You're in the monority, you're the one making extraordinary claims.
It falls on *you* to providing some evidence to back up your viewpoint,
not us.

Nope. It's your claim that CO2 heats the surface, it's up to you to show
and explain the evidence you believe proves your claim. Simple lies
don't carry any weight at all. They just confirm your desperation, as
does your snipping.

Your strategy of attempting to fool those more ignorant than yourself has
failed because there's no one left in that category. You stand exposed.

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/20/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that
pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well
known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.


No.

There is no evidence of any connection between the efficacy of vaccines
and CO2's effect on climate.

You are simply trying to change the topic away from climate "science" to
something that can be defended scientifically (immunology). That is
because climate "science" cannot be defended scientifically. Why you
believe a physical theory which cannot be defended scientifically is a
mystery to me. Personally, I use the scientific method to decide what I
do and don't believe, but then I have never been a religious person.

Peter,

Analogies seem to create difficulties for you. I'll try to avoid them.

Saying that a thing is so doesn't make it so.
Saying that a thing is not so doesn't make it not so.
There are many things that have generally been believed to be so that
are in fact not so.
There are many things that have generally been believed to be not so
that are in fact so.

It is generally accepted by farmers and scientists alike that the
interiors of greenhouses in direct sunlight become much warmer than the
external ambient, even warmer than houses built of opaque materials.

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
gasses".

Saying "Not so" won't make the effect go away. I provided examples of
this behavior related to other subjects. Take those examples for what
they're worth.

Jerry
--
"I view the progress of science as being the slow erosion of the
tendency to dichotomize." Barbara Smuts, U. Mich.
ÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight.

What attribution might that be?

It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I
did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 7:44 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Science is not about popularity or number of votes.

...

I agree entirely. It is obviously about evidence, but more subtly, it is
about the interpretation of evidence. When I entered high school shortly
after WWII, there were still prominent physicists who denied the
existence of relativistic effects, saying either that the measurements
were wrong or that conclusions from them weren't justified. There were a
few left by the time I got to college, but most of them had died. Your
claiming that CO2 has no affect at all on earth's temperature startles
me. The question of how much effect it has might be open to rational debate.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
&lt;columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/20/2011 11:43 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight. And yes: I think that
pointing to widespread blind spots that people use to "refute" well
known truths such as the efficacy of vaccines is relevant here.


No.

There is no evidence of any connection between the efficacy of vaccines
and CO2's effect on climate.

You are simply trying to change the topic away from climate "science"
to something that can be defended scientifically (immunology). That is
because climate "science" cannot be defended scientifically. Why you
believe a physical theory which cannot be defended scientifically is a
mystery to me. Personally, I use the scientific method to decide what I
do and don't believe, but then I have never been a religious person.

Peter,

Analogies seem to create difficulties for you. I'll try to avoid them.

Saying that a thing is so doesn't make it so. Saying that a thing is not
so doesn't make it not so. There are many things that have generally
been believed to be so that are in fact not so.
There are many things that have generally been believed to be not so
that are in fact so.

It is generally accepted by farmers and scientists alike that the
interiors of greenhouses in direct sunlight become much warmer than the
external ambient, even warmer than houses built of opaque materials.

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air. Nothing
stops convection in the climate system. Heat is not "trapped", it is
simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
"GHGs".

Saying "Not so" won't make the effect go away.

Your effect is not there, so it can't "go away". GHGs have nothing to do
with greenhouses. Your analogy is bogus. You are believing something
that is "in fact not so".

I provided examples of this behavior related to other subjects. Take
those examples for what they're worth.

Don't worry, we will.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:14:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 7:44 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Science is not about popularity or number of votes.

...

I agree entirely. It is obviously about evidence, but more subtly, it is
about the interpretation of evidence. When I entered high school shortly
after WWII, there were still prominent physicists who denied the
existence of relativistic effects, saying either that the measurements
were wrong or that conclusions from them weren't justified. There were a
few left by the time I got to college, but most of them had died. Your
claiming that CO2 has no affect at all on earth's temperature startles
me. The question of how much effect it has might be open to rational
debate.

Jerry

This may help you understand the issue:

&lt;http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=504&gt;

(vanAndel's "Note on Miskolczi's theory")


&lt;http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf&gt;

(Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi 2007)


&lt;http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503&gt;

(Miskolczi E&amp;E 2010 paper on optical depth)


&lt;http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm&gt;

(Ken Gregory on Miskolczi)

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight.

What attribution might that be?

It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I
did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Why do you think I attributed that to you?

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion. Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example. And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point. The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination. So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
&lt;columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:31:27 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
&lt;allnor@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:06 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:





On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply.  In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

The eugenics example is relevant because

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
increase the temperature.

The first part of that sentence directly contradicts the second part.
Pick a story and stick to it. Here, I'll help you:

The constant-pressure specific heat of air is about 1.01 kj/kg-K. The
constant-pressure specific heat of CO2 is about 0.84 kj/kg-K.

&lt;http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html&gt;
&lt;http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html&gt;

Selective breeding works.
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Not nearly as much as does mouthing off when you have no earthly idea
what you're talking about.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 7:06 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply. In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
emotional plea to the reader. There are many other examples of how to
communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader. It was a poor
choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
and science.

Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
they are using thier position to provide information for the general
public, and yet you appeal to your own authority. Scientists
communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
equiped to make value judgements about public policy. And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact. Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment. Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

 

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:44:49 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
&lt;allnor@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 20 Des, 21:51, AGWFacts &lt;AGWFa...@ipcc.org&gt; wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:35:26 -0800 (PST), fungus

openglMYSO...@artlum.com&gt; wrote:
Getting back to climate though, the voices of
scientists are getting through and apparently 97%
of them are saying the current climate change
is very likely to be man made.

Nearly 98% of the experts on the subject agree that humans have
caused climate change.

If you want to pretend you discuss science, at least
get the right perspective. By 1615 100% - 1 person
thought that the earth was the centre of the universe.

Idiot.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air. Nothing
stops convection in the climate system. Heat is not "trapped", it is
simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
"GHGs".

I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface.
The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism.
Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive
by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that
warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻ

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
&lt;columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

On Dec 21, 7:06 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:





On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor &lt;all...@tele.ntnu.no&gt; wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply.  In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

The eugenics example is relevant because

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
increase the temperature.
Selective breeding works.

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
emotional plea to the reader.  There are many other examples of how to
communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader.  It was a poor
choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
and science.

Again, less than a century ago, very few people questioned
eugenics, much the same way few people question the present
climate 'research'. And the same way eugenics was at the
core of politics in the '30s, the climate 'research' is at
the core of politics today.

I can hardly think of a better example. If you can suggest
a better one, please do.

Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
they are using thier position to provide information for the general
public, and yet you appeal to your own authority.

Where did I do that? Where did I use *my* authority
as the deciding factor? If anything, I have referred
to the book by Svensmark, whwere the fallacy of
the climate 'research' is described in detail.

 Scientists
communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
equiped to make value judgements about public policy.

There are few instances in history where science
and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
of them.

 And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact.  Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment.

There is afundamental difference between medicine and
climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
nations or the world at stake. Sure, the medical test
subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
be limited to that individual. Get the climate debate
wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

 Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
experience as argument for not mixing politics and
science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
I will wear such labels with pride.

Rune