[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us
Mon Oct 18 10:22:11 CDT 2010
To all --
All of us, whether climate scientists or not (and I assume that most of us on this list are NOT) should be astute enough scientifically to recognize that correlation does not imply causation. While it may be true that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising, and it may also be true that the global climate is changing (as it has done continually since the formation of the planet) that doesn't mean that one "causes" the other.
I remember a presentation at Georgia Tech several years ago by a climate scientist who looked at the available info, including pre-historic info re: carbon levels and global temperatures -- however derived. As I recall, the data appear to support the thought that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere "follow" rises in global temperature by tens to hundreds of years -- although if you plot them on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, the curves appear to be coincident.
>>> <garyi at trinityphysics.com> 10/18/2010 10:22 >>>
Three words for you, Parthasarathy, "...hide the decline."
That should be enough to make anyone very sceptical, but it is just the tip of the melting
iceberg. As far as your comments go, you have commited a sin, and a pretty serious one
too: the fallacy of appealing to authority.
You don't need a climate scientist to evaluate charges of fraud. Again: the question is NOT
how much or why temperatures are changing. The question is did Mann et al fake
temperatures, suppress conflicting scholarship, and then destroy their data when they could
no longer hide what they were doing. The evidence is widely available and overwhelmingly
Not that it should matter, but the Royal Society has just been forced by its membership to
Here's a snippet from the article:
'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent
steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism
has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and
ongoing climate debates.
'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its
message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral
climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'
Focus on the evidence of fraud, not on the evidence of warming. If you find the evidence of
fraud compelling, as I do, then the inescapable corollary is that a hugh load of BS is spewing
from the involved universities, government agencies, and scientific bodies. Talk about an
On 17 Oct 2010 at 1:37, parthasarathy k s wrote:
[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
Dear Dr Gary Isenhower,
More information about the RadSafe