[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Squonkriff at aol.com:

> Quoting Squonkriff at aol.com:
> 
> > Dear Platt,
> > May i ask you  an additional question please regarding this issue?
> >  
> > The  background:
> > That the Earth's climate is and has been, over  geological  time, thermally 
> > fluctuating seems to be broadly agreed  upon.
> > However, the preconditions for thermal fluctuation (TF) are  disputed:
> > 1. Natural Solar systemic cycles.
> > 2.  Technology.
> > Assuming TF is preconditioned by the relationship between  Earth's orbit 
> and  
> > the Sun over geological time (1), then  technological influences (2) may be 
> > ruled  out.
> >   
> > Here is my question:
> > How may we be sure that present TF is not  being catastrophically enhanced  
> by 
> > technological  influences:
> > 3. 1 + 2. ?
> 
> For the same reason we  can't be  sure that solar activity won't bring on 
> a period of global cooling, as was  widely predicted by scientists in the 
> 70's.
> 
> Regards,
> Platt
>  
> Mark 20-02-07: Hi Platt,
> Thank you.
> I don't feel you have addressed my question.
> My question asks if technology may be enhancing TF.
> You state the direction of TF cannot be reliably predicted by science  and 
> site an example from the 70's.
> Points:
> 1. The 70's scientific prediction of global cooling is based on the  same 
> science you cite as criteria for accepting the validity of TF in the  first
> place.
> You remind me TF is a valid empirical observation and  then bring into 
> question an extrapolation from the same empirical  observations which display
> cyclic 
> behaviour over geological time which may  indicate we are over due for ice 
> age conditions.
> Substituting the term, 'prediction' for 'extrapolation' may suggest  science 
> is on a par with astrology which i feel would be a mistake.
> 2. Therefore, science was and is correct in its extrapolations; the next  ice 
> age is over due but don't hold your breath because it may not even begin for  
> thousands of years as observed in the geological cycles.
> 3. Non of this addresses my question unfortunately, because there is no  
> previous data concerning the effects of an Industrialised Global civilisation to 
> 
> observe and extrapolate.
> 4. To sum up:
> a. My question concerns how we may deal with that which is as yet not  fully 
> understood.
> b. Your response deals with that which is fully understood.
>  
> Please feel free to have another go Platt.

Sorry. I'm too dense to follow your argument. I just seems to me that if 
predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about changes in global
climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong now, especially when
some scientists who supposedly know about such things say the dire predictions
made by Al Gore and others are wrong. If you see a flaw in that more or less
common sense argument, please let me know. Thanks.

Regards,
Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/