Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

No, it may become the biggest hole since we started keeping data on it in 1977.

This means our data sample is 28 years out of what? Five billion years of the earth's existence? That's a 0.0000000056% sample.

Hardly scientific to make conclusions based on such a miniscule data sample.

   

True, but they can see weather affects (and much more) through core samples. They use evidence to lead to the theory that we are causing it. Then it is picked apart and tested to see if it stays up. If it does then its reliable.

   

Well, I've finally gotten Jaime and Bart to the point where you'll at least ackowledge the the average recorded temperature of the earth is going up (at least since the 1850s, when the UK started the first modern methodical measurement of temperature). That only took several months.

The next step is to get you to admit that human contributions to greenhouse gases causing the warming is not an unreasonable conclusion based on the evidence we currently have. It may not be the correct conclusion in the final analysis, granted -- but it is not an unreasonable one.

I don't deny the existence of the apocalyptic environmentalists who sieze upon the cause du jour and prophecy that the end is nigh, nor do I defend them.

However, there are others besides these people who have stated that based on the evidence, it is their conclusion that humankind is altering the climate. Some organizations that take this position include:

The American Insitute of Physics
National Research Council (US)
American Society of Meteorologists
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN)
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
National Academies of Sciences (US)
Environment Canada
Royal Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization

These are the ones I'm aware of. There are several more, but for the sake of argument, this is more than enough. My question is, given that all these organizations support a finding of anthropogenic climate change, how do you conclude that all these learned societies, and public and private organizations are unreasonable?

   

Since neither of us started from that position, you haven't 'moved' us at all.

Do you read the posts you're responding to?

   

I.e., we're losing our theorhetical source, but we're still going to blame it anyway, (for political reasons, of course).

   

This post makes no sense.

Your two postings, quoted together here, simply lack any logical structure.

Are you trying to say something, or are you just a compulsive arguer?

   

You've said in the past that you thought global warming was a crock. When pressed you conceded that you meant anthropogenic global warming. When I showed a graph showing recorded temperature measurements since the 1850s, you said it was biased. How a graph like that can be biased is beyond me -- it's merely a graphic display of data points.

And now, presented with overwhemlimg evidence that anthrpogenic climate change is not an unreasonable finding based on the available evidence, you resort again to ad hominem attacks. Not surprising, considering the weakness of your argument. Still, ad hominem attacks are a good sign that constrcutive debate on the subject is finished.

   

Let's try something here:

Fact: Average global temperature has increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

Fact: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased significantly due to human activity.

Fact: Greenhouse gases are known to increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere, causing a rise in temperature.

Fiction: Observed increases of global temperature can, at this point, be confidently attributed to human activity.

Good science leaves little room for debate, and good understanding of relevent concepts leaves little room for these tedious arguments.

   

Fact Two (greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased significantly due to human activity) perhaps claims too much. It is a fact that we are pumping several million tonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. But there is a valid argument that the increase in CO2 levels is primarily attributable to an increase in temperature (that is, increasing temperatures are causing more CO2 rather than vice versa).

   

Basically what I've been saying for more than a week...

   

Right Zipperfish... I should have clarified that not all increases in greenhouse gas can be assumed to be directly attributed to human activity, but there is a significant input.

It's an extremely complicated situation, and cause and effect isn't so simple. Since temperature change has been shown to correlate with greenhouse gas increase, it's assumed one directly causes another. Until a sophistcated model can be established which can take into account all factors, we can't prove what is causing these changes.

   

No, I asked you calmly and carefully asked you what you meant by the term 'global warming'. ---An effort to get at the issues in a productive manner.

I've also reiterated my point several times:





I did not 'concede', I explained.

3 three points for "anthropogenic".



Any presentation of facts can be distorted by leaving out some facts.

All graphs, all presentations of data, reflect preconceived ideas of what is appropriate to show.



No one's presented evidence 'from the other side'. Certainly nothing overwhelming. Most posts have just adamantly proclaimed the coincidence of temperature increase and CO2 emissions without ever establishing any sort of cause & effect relationship.

Your graph-that-never-lies also exactly matches the post-1870 performance of the New York Stock Exchange. You should claim that stock certificates are warming the planet.

It'd be as logical as anything else you, DerbyX, and IceOwl have posted.

Remember, the position advanced by certain posters was that anthropogenic global warming was a certainty. My position has always been "doubt." Proving me wrong requires proving "no doubt." If that's the task you want to set for yourself, I'll happily offer to check this thread again in ten years to see if you're done yet.

Questioning your reading habits was not an ad hominem attack, I thought that by reminding you to read, I'd be offering helpful advice to an old friend.



At least I've offered one, that's more than anyone else here is doing.



Can't stand the heat, get off the planet.

   

Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next