Comments on: Responding to Bishop Hill re the Great Global Warming Swindle http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228 Frank O'Dwyer's blog Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:45:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tim Ehrich http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228&cpage=1#comment-1869 Tim Ehrich Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:08 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228#comment-1869 Frank: I am skeptical toward AGW due to the complexities of global climate. It appears a great deal of certainty has been attached to a great many uncertainties. I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle and found many of the arguments worthy of discussion. In particular, the T driving CO2 argument is compelling. The first question I had was how accurate are the records/samples upon which this T driving CO2 theory is based. It seems that 800-years is small in the time scale and I am not certain of the margin of error of the CO2 and the temperature records and the method of correlating them. The Vostok core samples are readily available on the web but I am having difficulty finding the corresponding temperature data. Any suggestions? I believe the scientific method has taken a back seat to ideology. Credibility seems to have become more important than the science. Admittedly I possess a wide streak of idealism and believe the science should speak for itself. Of all the points made in TGGWS the linkage between funding and ideology was the most disturbing. We are proposing to expend tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars on the theoretical solutions of a theoretical AGW. I am willing to be convinced but not based on a concatenated version of the scientific method. Frank:

I am skeptical toward AGW due to the complexities of global climate. It appears a great deal of certainty has been attached to a great many uncertainties. I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle and found many of the arguments worthy of discussion. In particular, the T driving CO2 argument is compelling.
The first question I had was how accurate are the records/samples upon which this T driving CO2 theory is based. It seems that 800-years is small in the time scale and I am not certain of the margin of error of the CO2 and the temperature records and the method of correlating them. The Vostok core samples are readily available on the web but I am having difficulty finding the corresponding temperature data. Any suggestions?
I believe the scientific method has taken a back seat to ideology. Credibility seems to have become more important than the science. Admittedly I possess a wide streak of idealism and believe the science should speak for itself. Of all the points made in TGGWS the linkage between funding and ideology was the most disturbing.
We are proposing to expend tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars on the theoretical solutions of a theoretical AGW. I am willing to be convinced but not based on a concatenated version of the scientific method.

]]> By: Frank http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228&cpage=1#comment-1500 Frank Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:08:02 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228#comment-1500 Tyler, "First of all, as for the Volcanoes…Those measurements taken by the US survey thingy only sampled one volcanoe. That volcanoe also happens to be a dormant one." Because you say so? Where's the evidence? "Second, in response to your lag arguement: FALSE ANALOGY! That’s really all I have to say" Well no, you also need to say why. It's pretty easy to say 'false analogy', demonstrating it is another matter. But I think you may find it a little difficult in this case as I was giving a counterexample, and not making an analogy. Tyler,

“First of all, as for the Volcanoes…Those measurements taken by the US survey thingy only sampled one volcanoe. That volcanoe also happens to be a dormant one.”

Because you say so? Where’s the evidence?

“Second, in response to your lag arguement: FALSE ANALOGY! That’s really all I have to say”

Well no, you also need to say why. It’s pretty easy to say ‘false analogy’, demonstrating it is another matter.

But I think you may find it a little difficult in this case as I was giving a counterexample, and not making an analogy.

]]> By: Tyler Person http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228&cpage=1#comment-1499 Tyler Person Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:39:53 +0000 http://www.frankodwyer.com/blog/?p=228#comment-1499 First of all, as for the Volcanoes...Those measurements taken by the US survey thingy only sampled one volcanoe. That volcanoe also happens to be a dormant one. Of Coarse, an active volcanoe will emit much more CO2 and other gases. In addition, the survey did not consider erruptions, which emit HUGE amounts of CO2. So, actually the claim made by the video is correct, the survey has major flaws. Second, in response to your lag arguement: FALSE ANALOGY! That's really all I have to say to counter your rather weak arguement. If you'd like though, I could give lots of other false analogies to tear the theory of human caused global warming apart...either way, just so we are playing by the same rules. First of all, as for the Volcanoes…Those measurements taken by the US survey thingy only sampled one volcanoe. That volcanoe also happens to be a dormant one. Of Coarse, an active volcanoe will emit much more CO2 and other gases. In addition, the survey did not consider erruptions, which emit HUGE amounts of CO2. So, actually the claim made by the video is correct, the survey has major flaws.

Second, in response to your lag arguement: FALSE ANALOGY! That’s really all I have to say to counter your rather weak arguement. If you’d like though, I could give lots of other false analogies to tear the theory of human caused global warming apart…either way, just so we are playing by the same rules.

]]>