RE: Fwd: Fw: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Mon Dec 07 2009 - 10:53:46 EST

I recently got a note from Nicola (Scafetta) who indicated that soon he will get new papers published and that he would let me know. I will pass that info when I get it.
Moorad

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:34 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

Yes, you are right that I specifically referred to the discussion on this list. I am familiar with the works you cited and I do appreciate the fact that they work with the data rather than smear campaigns of the people involved. That is where the discussion should be. Scafetta's work has been debated publicly in Physics Today for a year or two as well as in other media. I believe he has yet to show that his stochastic resonance is real and that it explains the data but that's a credible discussion to have.

Randy

From: William Hamilton<mailto:willeugenehamilton@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:59 AM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

Randy wrote

----- Original Message ----
From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net<mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>>
To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 7:22:47 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] agw: Skeptics vs Believers

That is a great site. Thank you.

It also seems noteworthy that on this list, those who are not convinced of AGW have not yet engaged with the data. They either haven't provided any reasons for their view, or have offered subjective perspectives such as not liking the attitude of AGW advocates or fearing that there might be connections with New Age philosophies, or simply not trusting the scientists involved. Many simply persist in expressing their doubts but fail to respond to any data that are presented. I think it is important that the discussion focus on the basic scientific methodology. I like having people on both sides of the issue on this list. That is important for an effective dialog. But let's see the data! Or hear some substantive arguments. Attitudes and fears of New Age aren't in that category, important though they may be.

Randy
---------------------------------------

While your qualifiacation "on this list" above is correct, you miss the efforts of Glenn Morton. Glenn has engaged with the data, as his blog (themigrantmind.blogspot.com<http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com>) will attest. Other sites anyone interested in getting an objective view of the AGW debate are surfacestations.org<http://surfacestations.org>, which documents the (frequently poor) condition of surface stations in the US, CO2science.org, which provides a more even-handed critique than is available from realclimate, and Nicola Scafetta's web site. Scafetta is not a skeptic about Global Warming -- he agrees that temperatures have increased ~0.8 deg C in the past century. But he attributes much of the warming to a stochastic resonance interaction between the sun's variability and the earth's climate dynamics. Scafetta has engaged extensively with the data. Scafetta's web site is http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/

--
William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 7 10:54:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 07 2009 - 10:54:19 EST