Originally Posted by JimSmith
I don't know Bot. To me you deal with things in some kind of order. I usually like to try to understand what the originator's post means before I try to counter it. In this case the originator posted some data that appeared to have no bearing on his point. Until he clarified that, by either acknowledging the data was not meaningful in the context of his post and provided new data, or established why the data was meaningful, merely posting more data to sustain an argument about a point no one understands is generally not useful.
Well, that didn't happen. But not solely due to old300D's posts. In fact the originator never addressed GS's comment. More data, without context would not necessarily help. Jim
I guess I'm not making myself clear. My belief concerning the warming phenomenon is based on actual data that I have collected and analyzed that is relevant to one small area over limited time. I have read and in some cases studied what other folks have published over greater time scales and larger geography. Their observations fit my own. The result is that I have sympathy for a particular argument.
But I am not wedded to or invested in that perspective. I think the data are far too noisy to make a strong causal argument. I think the correlative argument is more compellingly presented by the side I favor than by the other side. That is also the overwhelming consensus of scientists who study climates and scientists whose research is intimate with weather and climate. But science is not a popularity poll. Science is about facts, theory, and parsimony of explanation. Until the proponents develop a theory that is robust, reliable and predictive it will not be convincing to people who believe alternative explanations. And that's how it should be.
The latest theory suggested for the global warming trend is astronomical. It is at this time, strictly correlation (and in my opinion, pretty compelling in that regard). It is up to climate scientists to account for the solar energy trend. I believe that there will be a reasonable physical explanation of the input and I believe it will happen within a year. It is so important that it simply cannot be ignored. Nor should it be.
Imagine for a moment that the warming trend is indeed, solar in origin. Does that mean that man has NOT affected the climate? Ah, that's the rub, isn't it? It may well be that the warming trend is solar in origin but made worse by human activity? We will never know if we don't work on it.
What I appreciate about Jayhawk's contribution is that at least he is looking at data. From what I have seen, the majority of politically active people don't give a damned about the data, they are looking for ways to sway public opinion to their side and global warming is just one more lever and wedge that professional party hacks will use to divide the public. Fuck'em.