Comments? Re New York Times defends hiring extreme climate denier: 'millions agree with him'

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

 For the record I purposely put views that I believe are questionable on IP
to stimulate discussion. It's nothing like defending a point of View  to
sharpen the discussion.

Djf
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson () yahoo com>
Date: Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Comments? Re New York Times defends hiring extreme
climate denier: 'millions agree with him'
To: <dave () farber net>
Cc: David Jefferson <d_jefferson () yahoo com>, ip <ip () listbox com>


For IP:

I am stunned to read messages like Mr. Fenello’s on IP, or any other
serious intellectual forum.

Does he think that the world’s climate scientists just forgot the fraction
of the atmosphere made up of CO2, and the fractional change over the last
few decades and millennia?  Does he think that the thousands of scientists
who have studied in exhaustive detail over decades the scattering,
absorption, and re-radiation spectra of CO2, methane, water, and the other
gases present in the atmosphere, and the heat transport caused thereby, and
have studied the heat transport properties of ocean, land, ice, vegetation,
winds, currents, clouds, dust, and volcanos, and have studied variations in
solar radiation and the orbit and precession of the Earth — that they have
all just failed to take into account the atmospheric concentration of CO2,
and hence their conclusions should be viewed with “a little skepticism” for
that reason?

Does he think “a little skepticism” is warranted about theory of
continental drift or the theory of evolution?  Both are implausible at
first thought to amateurs, but both are based on vast amounts of data
accumulated by thousands of scientists over many decades, and both have
reached near universal acceptance among scientists.

No, at this point “a little skepticism” is *not* warranted about the
affects of atmospheric CO2 on climate, or the affect of humans on
atmospheric CO2, at least not by anyone who has not put in the years of
study and toil required to educate himself on the vast body of scientific
literature that supports the conclusion of human-driven climate change.

It is just heartbreaking to hear in the 21st Century otherwise thoughtful,
educated people think that their untrained gut feeling should be enough to
suggest “a little skepticism” on complex scientific matters in which they
have no training.

David


On Apr 23, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jay Fenello <jay () fenello com>
Date: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Re New York Times defends hiring extreme climate denier:
'millions agree with him'
To: <dave () farber net>


All of this fuss over a projected 25% increase of CO2?

To put that in real terms, from .04% of the atmosphere, to .05%.

No doubt the climate is changing, but a little skepticism about the cause
being CO2 is warranted.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



---------------------
David Jefferson



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170423163617:7E05DE6E-2864-11E7-8F94-D4EB3E2BC9DA
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com