RE: Global Warming: Dead Letter

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 07:55:46 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: Suns considered harmful (was: Pluto)"

    Mike Lorrey wrote,
    > The problem with this conclusion is that the previous estimate, which
    > was significantly larger (by several times) than the observations
    > contained in this study, acknowledged that somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3
    > of that estimated change was entirely due to earth orbital and solar
    > dynamical causes, and not anthropic in nature. Since this acknowledged
    > naturally caused portion is larger than the observed reality, then it
    > is logical to conclude that ALL of the observed reality is entirely due
    > to non-human causes, and that the earth's ecosphere is stable,
    > independent of what we are capable of doing to it at this point in
    > time.

    If their estimate of the whole pie was wrong, how do you hold them to their
    estimate for one of the fractional parts? And if the whole pie is shrunk,
    why do you assume that the part you believe is real must now be the whole
    pie. I am sure the other side believes that their fraction is now a bigger
    piece of the smaller pie. Maybe the whole pie shrank proportionally.

    I'm not disputing that your claim isn't right. But it isn't proven and the
    other side isn't defeated or discredited. Remember that this study only
    confirmed satellite data for about 20 years. We are extrapolating much
    further than that into the future, and are relying on previous (unconfirmed)
    data from the past. This study is an excellent step in nailing down exactly
    what is happening, but it is too early to declare victory and stop
    researching. We need to extend our understanding and confirmation of the
    data much further. Also remember that this study said they were "95%" sure
    of their data.

    In other words, your claim is looking good. You are 95% proven and
    consistent with the last 20 years. Why overstate the claim to 100% and
    covering all centuries? Why not take the actual victory as it occurred, and
    keep working toward better?

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP
    <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 08:08:35 MDT