Comments on: The skeptic who wasn’t

It speculates about CO2 fingerprints in the upper stratosphere, but the empirical graphs are out-of-date, the page is not well written and doesn’t give any quantitative way of ascertaining how much cooling is due to ozone and how much to carbon. It asserts that carbon might do more cooling from 40-50km, but how much more? That was my point from the start… we can’t tell “how much”. This is conjecture.

Saying that there is “some” indeterminate amount of stratospheric cooling possibly due to carbon isn’t that useful. This is not evidence to change economies, or predict major warming. We also know ozone levels were falling, and that there is no way to quantify and split the two effects in the stratosphere. Even doing it vaguely is fraught with problems. Ozone has at least three mechanisms for changing temperatures (UV absorption, Greenhouse gas absorption and emissions), all competing with each other at different altitudes. Its confounding. There is no evidence of catastrophic or even serious effects.

Even if stratospheric cooling were solely due to CO2, and correlated well with CO2, that is not evidence that CO2 heats the planet.

And it’s true, Sceptico should be “Skeptico” – In the UK and Australia we spell the word “Sceptic”. I’d been inconsistent, so I’ve fixed it. Thanks.

BTW _ Anyone can throw up a list of 10 or 1500 links to “scientificky papers”. It would take me hours to read each paper (that the poster probably hasn’t read) and explain it and explain why it’s wrong or irrelevant, or been debunked. I don’t respond to this kind of dishonest lazy ambit claim. Timewaster. It’s only reasonable to expect that people who are polite and well informed could explain the empirical evidence that carbon causes major warming, and also provide a link to a paper or two to back up their statement.

So, I guess you’ll be providing explanations and links to papers to back up your claim of “numerous” and “wealth” of empirical evidence, or conceding that your statement was baseless?

Report this

0 1

By: Tel

Tel — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:56:21 +0000

Its pretty typical of deniers to pretend that deregulated capitalism will get them out of anything, but as we can see from recent evidence, once again the poor and middle class suffer more than rich folks. sorry, but “capitalism fixes everything” is hardly a respectable position.

If there were no benefits to being rich, then the entire concept of wealth would be meaningless. In effect your honest position is that everyone should be equal, and there should be no rich and poor.

Although a superficially attractive concept, if people are unable to trade directly in material goods, they will trade in other currencies such as favours. You end up with a Blatnoy / Vornoy economy and all animals are equal, but some more equal than others. You might try to pass laws against this but even the illegality becomes a commodity open to trade.

Of course, the various proposed Emission Trading Systems will inevitably also result in winners, losers, profits and losses. Let me assure you 100% that the middle class and poor will suffer more than rich folks under every scheme open for discussion.

Report this

0 0

By: G.S. Williams

G.S. Williams — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:46:33 +0000

Hi,all,

Just a small point on Sceptico or Skeptico. The spelling depends on whether you’re American or English.

In American it’s, “SKeptico”; in English, “SCeptico”.

Does that help? I hope so.

G.S. Williams
Howick,Manukau City, Auckland, New Zealand

Report this

0 0

By: Michael Dickens

Michael Dickens — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:15:08 +0000

Unfortunately, you spelled it wrong again: it’s Skeptico.

Report this

0 0

By: Fefnir

Fefnir — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:56:29 +0000

Well, that’s rather unfortunate. I spelled ‘Sceptico’ wrong unintentionally while trying to hilight how misspellings of the name have abounded! Rather unfortunate indeed.

Report this

0 0

By: Fefnir

Fefnir — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:46:05 +0000

It seems to me, Miss Nova, that instead retaliating, a traditional fight-or-flight reaction indicating fear or nervousness, you may want to consider an essential part of the process: being impartial and unbiased in the face of results. Skeptiko (note the spelling) was not merely ‘throwing links’, but using them as a dramatic device to demonstrate the wealth of evidence your claim disregarded by its assertion. I’m confident that if you simply stepped outside the confirmation bias at the heart of your evidence, you would see that all odds are stacked against you.

Now, you have three feasible choices: one, you examine the numerous pieces of evidence presented and declare question 1 anwered, conceding your false evidence; two, you choose to disallow the evidence presented by way of false logic and your desire to be ‘right’, and you continue to make a mockery of the data that disproves you; or three, give credible sources and disprove those that contradict, or concede. In any scenario, your ad hominem posting has left you with a metaphorical black eye, and your insistence on denying proper questioning neccessary to the determination of factual data is, at the least, unprofessional.

So basically, disprove or concede.

Report this

2 0

By: William Pinn

William Pinn — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:19:58 +0000

Ironically religious persons would never make the mistake of assuming that mankind or its emissions is more powerful than natural causes (aka: God, Zeus, Mother Nature, etc.).

Report this

0 0