>>>>Here is your chance to go beyond special pleading, what percent of involved   
   >>>>scientists deny?  What are their best arguments and what do they know that   
   >>>>others don't or have considered and rejected?  Sources requested it goes   
   >>>>without saying.   
   >>>   
   >>>I would expect all scientists to deny something. The question is in   
   >>>this case, what do you think they are denying?   
   >>>   
   >>>Q1. Is the earth warming?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.   Most (but not all) agree that it has been warming over the last   
   >>>200 years. A smaller group doubt that there has been statistically   
   >>>significant warming over the last 20 years. Some of the more rabid   
   >>>'warmists' even claim to doubt that there was any significant warming   
   >>>before about 1945. i.e. there was no Medieval warm period and no   
   >>>Little Ice Age. I am unaware of of their views on the Roman or   
   >>>Babylonian warm periods.   
   >>>   
   >>>Q2.  Does CO2 contribute to global warming?   
   >>>   
   >>>A. An almost unequivocal 'yes'. The argument is about how much CO2   
   >>>contributes to global warming. There are many scientists who consider   
   >>>for a variety of reasons that its effect is overstated by the IPCC by   
   >>>a factor of 3 or more.   
   >>>   
   >>>Q3.  Are there any other factors which might contribute to global   
   >>>warming?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.3.1  30 years ago the answer to this question might largely have   
   >>>been 'Uuh?' Much work has been done since then which suggests that the   
   >>>sun's own cycles may play a part, particularly through its magnetic   
   >>>fields affect on the radiation bombarding the earth. The Russians are   
   >>>the strongest supporters of this but there are still a considerable   
   >>>number of scientists who deny that it has any relevance.   
   >>>   
   >>>A3.2.  There are a considerable number of scientists beavering away in   
   >>>the background attempting to derive past climate data from a zillion   
   >>>different types of proxy. The statistics of this type of work are   
   >>>necessarily fuzzy but there are reasonably convincing arguments   
   >>>emerging for a variety of cycles within the earth's climate with   
   >>>periods ranging from 11 years to more than 25,000 years. So far it is   
   >>>anyone's guess as to what the present climate variations might owe to   
   >>>various combinations of cycles.   
   >>>   
   >>>Q4.  Is computer modelling of future climate reliable?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.  One group say 'yes'. Another group says 'no' and points to the   
   >>>failings of the forecasts of the last 20 years. Many of the latter   
   >>>group are of the opinion that while computer modelling can be useful   
   >>>models are not the real world.   
   >>>   
   >>>Q4.  Do we have historical temperature data of useful quality?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.  For practical purposes all agree that we lack useful and reliable   
   >>>historical data. That's about where agreement ends. Many believe that   
   >>>the inadequacies can be made good by suitable adjustments. There are   
   >>>two schools of thought about adjustments; some think that more recent   
   >>>temperatures should be corrected by raising them. Others think that   
   >>>more recent temperatures should be corrected by lowering them. The   
   >>>logic behind the adjustments made to many common sources of temprature   
   >>>data is unknown. There is a wide spread of low level concern about the   
   >>>relibility of much of the presently available data.   
   >>>   
   >>>Q5.  Do we fully understand the mass-flows of the carbon cycle?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.   Many of those working in the field tend to act as though they do   
   >>>but that their certainty is unjustified by periodic discoveries of the   
   >>>significance of previously previously ignored phenomena.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>Q6.  Is it going to be as bad as the news media says it is?   
   >>>   
   >>>A.  Those in the pulpit are screaming 'Yes, Yes, Yes!'. Meanwhile   
   >>>there are those in the back of the church trying to point out that   
   >>>even if Greenland melts it will take several thousands of years.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Now, I defy you to frame a meaningful question which leas to a simple   
   >>>X% answer across that range of aspects.   
   >>   
   >>You failed to tell us what percent of climate scientists reject human input   
   >>into the current changes and projected problems thereof.   
   >>   
   >I wasn't asked.   
   >   
   >I expect it would be very small, even amongst the so-called 'deniers'.   
   >   
   >>There is nothing you raise that is not common fodder for climate science   
   >>consideration.  What are here questions only are not yet answers.   
   >   
   >Exactly. And while that condition remains no self-respecting scientist   
   >should express themselves with certainty on matters of climate change.   
   >>   
   >>THe vast majority know of these possible factorss and remain unmoved absent   
   >>the evidence that would refute what is now known.  In any area of science   
   >>there are the minority who have questions, of such consensus is not formed.   
   >>   
   >Your evidence for this is ...? And what does it matter? Like gravity,   
   >the causes of climate change is not a matter upon which we get to   
   >vote.   
   >   
   Gravity ala newton is now superseded by einstein's general theory as   
   the new consennsus,ie. "vote" in physics.   
      
   >>Science goes with evidence, not questions absent evidence coming from them.   
   >   
   >In that case, is it appropriate to label people as deniers simply   
   >because they point out where the theory does not fit the evidence?   
      
   Questions are not evidence.  Special pleading about segments of a model is   
   not evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)