Re: The general warming trend

Dan Evens (
Sun, 07 Jul 1996 16:35:05 -0400

Timo Niroma wrote:
> 3. We should not be arguing how much the greenhouse gases really
> affect the temperature, or why didn't that process function during
> the early parts of this century, or why is the effect smaller than
> expected or use any similar arguments, because it causes a great
> damage to the greenhouse models and via that to the whole effort to
> reduce their amount, if the models don't work. What we should
> investigate are the other possible causative agents.

On the contrary, these are EXACTLY the questions we should be asking.
"Becuase it causes a great damage to the greenhouse models?" So what?
They are just models. If they can't stand the scrutiny of careful
scientific enquiry, then they should be pitched out and something
better replace them. If that means we need to understand other things
that contribute to weather, wonderful. We can do that. We MUST be
critical of every theory. Showing that theories do not work is one
of the major methods of progress in science. No area of science should
be off-limits from criticism.

Mind you, the criticism should be well based. It should rise from careful
consideration of well done experiments. It most definately should NOT be
based on a desire to reduce greenhouse gases, or kill off efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases, or any such thing. These are political or economical or
prejudicial ideological things. They should NOT intrude into science.

And we should stamp on them whenever we find them.

The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
whatever to do with my employer. I don't even know what my
employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
Dan Evens