Weather Banter - View Single Post - Greenhouse Gas Level Not 'Natural Cycle' and Highly Correlated With Warm Climates.

Steve Schulin

In article ,
(Robert Grumbine) wrote:

In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:
Steve Schulin wrote:

"the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions", I question the scientific
basis for these comments. If the warming in the distant past resulted in
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations after 800-1,000 years, perhaps
the same thing is happening now due to what happened, temperature-wise,
800-1,000 years ago.

Classic, Steve, just classic.

First, cast unreasonable doubt over what is well supported by
evidence, then propose an explanation that depends on not one but
three bogus assertions.

Nice. Real nice.

And you are here to learn?

I don't recall him saying that he was here to learn science.
He could be hear to learn: how to debate (better), how to cast
doubt, how to spread fear and uncertainty, how to misrepresent
effectively, ... and many in that vein. He may have said that
he wanted to learn 'about science'. But, again, a multitude
of things can be hidden behind that comment without ever having
the slightest interest in learning scientific material. It
could be 'about' private preferences of people who do science,
what sorts of allegations most rapidly tick off science-minded
people, or the like.

If you read carefully, you'll see that he states far less than
a normal reading would lead you to think. Above, for instance,
he says that he questions the scientific basis of a scientific
conclusion. He does not present the basis, much less a scientific
basis for his question.

What follows is not connected to the preceding except
by continuity (there's a term for this but it escapes me at the
moment -- it's common in debate circles). Also notice that
'perhaps'. He advances no reason to believe that it _is_ the
case, just waving 'perhaps'. Advertisers use the term 'weasel'
for such phrases. They don't actually say anything -- as _anything_
can be 'perhaps'. 'perhaps' the martians made it happen -- has
no more, nor less, scientific merit than his actual statement.

One of the things I found interesting about this post from Grumbine is
his apparent notion that it's "normal" for folks to gloss over the
actual words used. I have several times noted that some posters here
seem to imagine exclamation marks being used where question marks are
much closer to what's actually written. Comparing Grumbine's take
("[Schulin's 'weasel' words] don't actually say anything") to Hays' take
("[Schulin casts] unreasonable doubt"), I find Grumbine's to be much
more reasonable in this case. I recall many replies here over the years,
to articles written by folks alarmed by CO2, which exclusively
highlighted the weasel words contained therein. To me, that type of
attentiveness reflects a "normal" reading, and I don't apologize for
writing with them in mind rather than the glossers.

Joy to the world, at Christmas and throughout the year,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com