Hello Andrew, On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 17:33 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 4/01/2013 4:57 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Classic confirmation bias.
Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Actually Andrew and I have a history of debates that end when I cite references to support my claims and he refuses to provide any. You can consulte the list archives for examples.
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
Unfortunately, the physics and chemistry are real, and factual. The title of Al Gore's book was rather apt, "An Inconvenient Truth". It relates to the electromagnetic frequencies that will "excite" various molecules. The CO2 will absorb radiation in a band which is predominated by the outgoing heat radiated from earth into space. The same is true of methane. What then happens is that some of the heat is reradiated back to earth. The effects might look insignificant, but on a global scale, they are very important. Global warming and climate change are based on very real measurements and physics of a slight change in the balance of the incoming and outgoing radiation. If you up the level of the insulation with the same energy coming in, then the "body" will come to a higher equilibrium temperature to be able to radiate the heat out through the increased insulation. And, yes, CO2 and methane and some other chemicals do have that effect. Next, the anthropegenic matter. What any one of us does is almost unmeasurably insignificant, but when the same is done by million, nay billions of people, the impact adds up. If you deny climate change and global warming, it suggests that you are either incompetent, illiterate, innumerate, gullible, or greedy, or some subset of all of that. There are some dissenters who have a measure of numeracy, but still will not put all the pieces together. Yes, it is an inconvenient truth, but it is true and factual. Dismissing it as opinion sells you and the rest of us short. Taking precautionary measures actually makes good sense on many other grounds, it gets us into a more sustainable situation on many grounds. This planet is finite, and it behooves us to share the resources equitably, else the dispossessed will probably acquire a share violently. That promises even more distress.
Wikipedia can be as biased in political position as any other media type. Otherwise, Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information -- but you can never just rely on Wikipedia and/or it's "supporting" links that help the bias of opinion (in most cases, it is opinion, rather than fact -- or rather the interpretation of those facts, which ultimately comes back to opinion).
Your "interpretations" appear to have systemic biases beyond what is readily apparent on Wikipedia. I do look there for some things, but correlated with prior knowledge and other sources. There may be a few errors in the physics and engineering where I have the background, but nothing systemic. My father was an old style Communications Engineer, and well into the various electromagnetic radiation and measuring such. If your disbelief had a factual basis, then the mobile phones and a lot of other modern technology just would not work, you would not have the services to sell.
Enough said.
I have been wrong at times, and probably will be again in the future. What matters is learning, and being prepared to update the knowledge. An example is Newtonian Mechanics, still quite valid for "human" speeds, but we need to use Einstein's efforts as a correction when the speeds concerned are significant fractions of lightspeed. That is why they manage to keep the particles circulating at CERN. Regards, Mark Trickett