Alex M. Wrote:

>
> A priori (my dictionary and my old Latin text says
> it's two words, but whatever) sounds a bit like a
> circular argument in this case. "I know this is
> true because it is known to be true".

Funny you mention that, but "a priori" in that two word context is an anomoly when scrunched into the laws of English, wherein subjects are prefered to be in a contiguous form when and if the word(s) in question ever become "officially" transformed per a Samuel Johnson seal of approval, but I digress..........

In it's modern English-equivalent laboratory context, the apriori (or a priori if you prefer - don't forget the italics when using it in it's Latin form!) is simply the explanation we would expect before we apply a new hypothesis. On the AGW front, that means taking past climate histories and correlating suspected causal factors such as past solar activity (high presumed causal correlation a priori) and past atmospheric CO2 levels (non-existent presumed causal correlation a priori since past increases in atmospheric CO2 have always lagged increases in surface temps, and since time is a constant it is impossible for a future event to cause a past event, right?!)


> Also, my
> actual present day observations, a posteriori, may
> be a little different than yours. Doesn't make me
> right or you wrong. Or vice versa.

If you only observed climate and CO2 a posteriori through 1999, you might suspect a causal factor of increased CO2 over increased surface temps. However, if you carry your observation past 1999 to 2008, there is an observed disassociation since CO2 has continued to increase while temps have dropped.

>
>
> For the record, I think that some climate change
> theories with regard to human CO2 output are worth
> investigating furthur (you, apparently, don't).

That's due to man's CO2 output being statistically insignificant compared to total atmospheric elemental makeup. I prefer my suspected causal factors to be in the meaty part of the bell curve. Given that we are spending billions to try and link CO2 to climate change, and given that we are on the cusp of imposing serious economic shackles on ourselves as a result of this hysteria, I would prefer we spend that money on more fruitful pursuits wherein statistical causal correlation is much more apparent.

> I do think that there is some merit completely
> outside of global warming theory to slowly
> reducing our dependence on hydrocarbon-based
> energy sources. These are not unlimited resources
> -- whether you agree with M. K. Hubbert or not,
> every annual report from every major oil and gas
> producer makes it clear that the stuff is getting
> more and more costly to find and extract. The
> argument that drastic, forced reduction of
> dependence on hydrocarbons will only serve to
> further impoverish developing societies stands, to
> a point. I've never seen an addendum to that
> argument which deals with what happens to the
> resulting (increased) future population of the
> world that will have to deal with the actual "end
> of hydrocarbons". I don't particularly want to be
> around for that. I doubt you do, either.

I'd have to live for another few centuries for that to happen. The problem with a movement to "reduce our depedence on hydrocarbons" is that it is predicated on a belief that reducing hydrocarbon dependence will alleviate our need for foreign oil and gas, but it ignores the fact that we have more known but undeveloped domestic sources of hydrocarbons than all of OPEC's known reserves combined. The unintended consequences of that movement is that we are pricing domestic hydrocarbons out of the market in favor of foreign hydrocarbons, and becoming even more dependent on foreign energy sources! We are literally cutting our own economic throats with this green movement to reduce our use of hydrocarbons. What we should be doing is enabling a shift in our hydrocarbon sources from foreign to domestic via CTL, oil shales, et al, e.g. supplementing our own oil and gas resources. To accomplish this for long term positive effect, we first need to shift our use of coal from electricity generation to liquid fuel and syngas production so that we don't cause an overpricing of that coal, and to do that we need to enable the economical production of nuclear power. Not wind, not solar, not so-called "renewables" - just nuke.

And frankly, the "end" of hydrocarbons (in reality a reduction in hydrocarbon use over eons - it is geologically impossible that all sources of hydrocarbons will be "used up") will come slowly, methodically, adaptably, as long as we don't do something stupid like mess up the free market with government efforts to "solve" the problem.