tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5460623304490431326..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A "Bright" Leap of Faith on Climate ChangeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62885832185737587092011-08-29T07:47:00.539-06:002011-08-29T07:47:00.539-06:00Further balanced and unbiased summary of the CLOUD...Further balanced and unbiased summary of the CLOUD results are <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. One of its points is the CLOUD nucleation rates due to CR, whilst indicating another reaction apart from SO2, are <i>less than</i> previously thought and have less effect the higher the temperature.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77372474392480231982011-08-28T16:07:28.722-06:002011-08-28T16:07:28.722-06:00Jasper Kirkby, lead scientist on CERN's "...Jasper Kirkby, lead scientist on CERN's "CLOUD" experiment: "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."<br /><br />( http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html )<br /><br />Allen Small: "The news this week from CERN in Europe is that cloud formation seems directly related to cosmic rays."<br /><br />( http://thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/holy-grail-of-climate-science.html )<br /><br />What more needs to be said concerning Small's intellectual integrity?Sidewaysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85207084315356845942011-08-28T01:20:48.580-06:002011-08-28T01:20:48.580-06:00Allen Small
In order to be confident in a theory ...Allen Small<br /><br />In order to be confident in a theory explaining the data you need to specify disconfirming evidence, the lack of which supports your theory. What is it?<br /><br />Well the cosmic ray issue has already long been discussed and does not correlate, in the way it should, in the last 30 years with climate change, see a summary <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. That would not be expected if the theory were true. That is disconfirming evidence which disconfirms the theory, that is reduces its posterior probability of being correct and since other theories have higher posterior probabilities, with the ratio of these posteriors arguing very strongly and robustly against the cosmic ray variation affecting cloud cover as the primary forcer on GW.<br /><br />There is much more summarizing the specifics of this latest paper <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/" rel="nofollow">here</a> <br /><br />Unless you do the legwork you appear to be merely parroting those theories that support your preconceived dogmas.<br /><br />As for me as far as I was concerned it was an open question as to whether CO2 emmissions was the primary cause on GW, that is whether AGW was the most likely explanation of CC. It has been bloggers and pundits like you uncritically selecting any arguments in support of your view and ignoring or otherwise alternative views that has convinced me. More generally it is the low level of critical response and the continual employment of rhetoric and sophistry that has made it clear there is no decent counterargument.<br /><br />Lets be clear the CLOUD results are very interesting and further work might provide more information but this alters nothing over the lack of correlation and/or inverted lead/lag relations determined by other and multiply convergent methods. No further work of the CLOUD kind could possibly explain that away, it is simply the wrong area to look.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52741966758732362752011-08-27T14:28:16.202-06:002011-08-27T14:28:16.202-06:00Needless to say, I disagree. Here is my latest: ht...Needless to say, I disagree. Here is my latest: http://thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/holy-grail-of-climate-science.htmlAllen Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13663655836753638994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74286646736772895022011-08-27T11:31:19.398-06:002011-08-27T11:31:19.398-06:00If you see a comment on any of Small's climate...If you see a comment on any of Small's climate change posts over the last year, they were probably mine. Small is a perfect example of how one's ideology can affect their interpretations. He absolutely refuses to accept the idea that we humans are causing climate change because that would require a solution that goes against his rabid libertarianism.<br /><br />I do agree with Small on one thing though, solutions to climate change will require economic solutions. We can't 'force' people to change the way they use energy unless there is an economic incentive driving it. As I drive by each house in my neighbourhood I'm always asking myself what the price needs to be to have each home generate its own solar electricity instead of buying it off the grid. Once that combination of price and efficiency reaches a tipping point, the industry will explode.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21960538706203097762011-08-27T00:56:58.043-06:002011-08-27T00:56:58.043-06:00Urgh.
Another person pushing the "cloud cove...Urgh.<br /><br />Another person pushing the "cloud cover" hypothesis. It was falsified years ago.<br /><br />The data shows, unequivocally, that correlations between solar activity and cloud formation break down after 1991. Yet the temperature continues to rise. Golly Gee Wilikers, I wonder why?<br /><br />I remember a while ago, some other scientist suggested that rising temperatures would causes moisture from the oceans to move into the high sky and form cirrus clouds, which would reflect radiation back into space, cooling the Earth again. That too, was falsified years ago.<br /><br />Honestly, why do people even bother cranking out these archaic, discredited views when they know they will be called on it?mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.com