Denys,
Thank you for a reply that is well-stated, polite, and thought-provoking.
One of the mistakes that is most often made by non-experts who engage in the AGW debate is to confuse weather and climate. If we have an unusually warm summer, people want to attribute it to AGW, and if we have a severe winter, others say that disproves AGW. The fact it that weather is always and has always been variable, and only long-term trends matter when talking about climate change. The .75 degree drop in global average temperature that you mentioned, if true and if it continues, would certainly refute the notion that we are in the throes of a long period of rising global temperatures. As you point out, the warming of the planet after a cooling cycle is a long, drawn-out affair, so a one-year dip is probably not enough of a hiccup to arrive at a firm conclusion about a reversal of the trend.
The rather facetious remarks about the thermonuclear device in the sky, and whether that could be the source of the warming is, of course, irrelevant to the debate. The AGW proponents have never claimed otherwise. What they claim is that the balance between solar energy absorbed by the planet and that which is radiated back into space has been altered. Your remark that carbon dioxide is a part of nature is certainly true. I did not mean to imply that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but I see that my choice of words seems to give that impression. The point I was trying to make is that burning fossil fuels does tend to release pollutants into the atmosphere, and that finding renewable and cleaner sources of energy is a good thing, regardless of the truth or fallacy of the AGW theories. I think thoughts along those lines are behind much of the fervor of the AGW proponents: the consequences of significant global warming are potentially disastrous, and if we wait until the theory is undisputed, it will be too late. Taking steps to reduce carbon emissions is the prudent thing to do in the absence of absolute certainty.
In a private email, you stated: "The bottom line is: we don't know." I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, and that was largely the point of my earlier post. I was moved to write that post by the vehemence of your denial of AGW, and your use of words like "hoax." We all have a tendency to choose sides, and then dig in our heels. I think that approach to any question is counter-productive, and I hope to avoid it. That's why I rail against the conservative/liberal labels.
In closing, I want to thank you for adding "AGW" to the lexicon of this community. It is definitely a more accurate term for the issue.
Regards,
John Clogg
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your HotmailŪ-get your "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
