David Wojick wrote to me:
|>I see no such general claim in his statement, such as you allege.
Well, David, Veritas did write:
>>positive/negative feedback, resulting in warmer/cooler temps.
No, there is no reason to think negative feedback is “resulting” in cooler temperatures. That is an error.
DW also wrote:
>You on the other hand made some very strong general claims about the entire universe of negative feedbacks. You might want to be more careful, as there are logicians about.
No, I in fact acknowledged that in some very complex systems very funny things can happen. I merely noted that what scientists and engineers do generally see in many, many systems is that negative feedback diminishes the initial disturbance but does not reverse its sign. Yes, you can probably come up with exceptions; no, they are not very common.
As to logic, I very much doubt there is anyone here who knows more about it than I, happens to be a hobby of mine (Boolena-valued models of ZFC anyone?).
Look: there is a tendency among skeptics to assume that rejection of climate skepticism is due simply to politics, etc. Yes, that is part of it. But, when many skeptics, as we see in this thread, make statements that go against very, very well-established principles of physics, well, it is understandable that many people use that to discredit all climate skeptics, just as Gore’s silly statement about the core of the earth has been used by to skeptics to discredit consensus climate science.
Sauce for the goose / sauce for the gander.
Dave
