[Phys-L] Re: [Political Action] The nature of the lack of proof (climatewarming)

[palmer at SFU.CA (Leigh Palmer)]

Sorry to bust in without reading, but I have a couple of points to make
on this topic. I am an opponent of the Kyoto process. I consider it to
be scientifically ungrounded and, potentially, economically ruinous.
Canada has signed on, but I expect (hope, really) that the ridiculous
process will peter out before it does too much harm. Larry is a friend,
but I don't know his views on this subject. I mean no malice.

On 17-Dec-04, at 1:00 AM, Larry Woolf wrote:

> Here's how the National Academy of Sciences discusses this issue for
> the
> public:
>
> <http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp>

"The rapid rise in both surface temperature and CO2 is one of the
indications that humans are responsible for some of this unusual
warmth." [op. cit.]

logical fallacy: *post hoc ergo propter hoc*

If two events are consecutive they are causally related. In this case I
am not even aware that the indicated warming occurs after the carbon
dioxide increase. Unless that is demonstrated the argument is equally
strong (i.e. fallacious) that warming causes the carbon dioxide
increase.

"Other surface temperature data sets differ somewhat from those shown
here, but in all of them the modern temperatures are generally greater
than during the past several hundred years." [op. cit.]

In all of them, eh? Satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature
are more extensive, less biased to northern cities and, perhaps,
deserve some attention. These "surface temperatures", by the way, are
really measurements of atmospheric temperature taken at the Earth's
surface.

> <http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp>

"A climate model projection that includes both natural processes and
human activities closely matches actual measurements of 20th-century
temperature changes."

...

"The same climate model without human activity (natural processes only)
does not match the strong warming that occurred during the past few
decades." [op. cit.]

This example demonstrates clearly that models can be made to fit data
better if one has more free parameters to use.

> <http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?
> OpenDocument>

"The committee was made up of 11 of the nation's top climate
scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of
Sciences, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner." [op. cit]

logical fallacy: *ad hominem*

(The validity of an argument depends upon who is making the argument.)

The National Academy of Sciences is not discussing this issue; it is
selling a point of view. In my opinion it is not doing a very good job
of doing so, scientifically speaking.

Leigh