Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
1) I am a scientist. It's my natural default mode.
2) People who are scientists are constantly harassed by people who cannot think scientifically and who believe loud shouting about their opinions constitutes rational argument.
1) If sharp rises cause a rise in temperature, and it could be proved, it would have been PROVED and there would be no argument.
2) The data is that CO2 rises, other than in Al Gore's mind, do NOT precede temperature changes.
3) The current data is that the sun cycle is what has driven temperature changes, not CO2 rises.
4) CO2 levels have been higher and lower in the past and temperatures have been higher and lower. CO2 levels drop AFTER temperatures drop and rise AFTER temperatures rise. IF CO2 levels produce the positive-feedback inexorable rise in temperature that is the basis of the computer models, why are we not at 400 degrees Fahrenheit NOW if CO2 levels were much higher in the past?
5) A great deal of what the THEORY of manmade global warming has been based upon has been disproved recently, as the articles showing the CO2 levels to be approaching insignificance as a greenhouse gas.
6) Much of the manmade global warming theory is based upon positing CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas, that CO2 is a driver of temp change, and both propositions have come under great question recently.
If you can PROVE your points, prove them.
If it COULD be PROVED, we wouldn't be having an argument.
Simple: If your points COULD BE PROVEN, there would be no argument. You claim you could prove them. Nobody, including yourself has PROVED them. There is still so much unknown and so much in question and so much contradictory data and theories that NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN. If you COULD PROVE IT, you would win the Nobel Prize.
Just keep your eyes and mind open. The data that has been accumulating recently is casting more and more doubt on the manmade global warming THEORY.
We'll report, and the reader can decide.
If you are taking short-term weather changes as proof of long-term climate change--which you shouldn't--then I can prove your theory false quite easily because, though CO2 levels have NOT dropped sharply in the past 10 years, the earth's temperatures have stopped rising in 1998 and have been lower each year for the past 6 years.
Quod erat non demonstratum.
You constantly prove you are not a scientist by asking for proof. You only prove my point when you make such basic errors.
Science isn't about proof, it's about theories that fit the available evidence. You've made claims about science far out of the mainstream, and have tried to portray them as scientific.
In fact, all of the academies of science of every industrialized nation have agreed that global warming is occurring, and that CO2 is making it worse, and that humans are causing most of the CO2 increase.
Those are the agreed upon facts according to (for example, but not limited to) the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.
You, however, claim that you're smarter than all of them, and have proof that they're wrong in their fundamental premises. You offer absolutely zero evidence of it other than your own word. What little evidence you have shown has been shown to be not from experimental scientists, but from layman-level ignorant criticism.
You are making extraordinary claims, and the burden of proof is on you to back them up, not for me to prove them wrong.
You claim to be a scientist, but can't even advance a falsifiable theory, or make a prediction.
Do you even know what the word falsifiable means? It means, for your theory to even be considered a scientific theory, there must be some condition that would prove it to be false. If it can't be proven false, it isn't scientific.
You, sir, are merely talking out of your ass and trying to make it sound scientific. You not only don't understand climate theory, you don't understand basic scientific theory.
The theory maintains that climate is complex, and has many factors. Solar energy is definitely a factor, even an idiot knows better than to fry himself in the hot sun.
Simple physics predicts a rise in temperature following heat being applied to CO2, an efficient vessel of heat (it's black, ever see carbon paper?). This has been observed on a small scale (e.g. - a greenhouse), and is predicted by physics on a large scale, as well, and fits with what we see from distant stars, as well (carbon vs heat).
The Earth's mean temperature cannot be predicted from carbon alone, however, because it is a complex system that has balanced itself over time.
The problem with the word "balance" is that it seems to imply something nice. In fact, balance can mean huge tidal waves crossing continents, something we have undeniable fossil proof of. The Earth's idea of balance is a lot different from ours. Your entire position essentially amounts to, screw it, let's burn more oil, it doesn't matter, I read a couple of articles that say so.
You don't attempt to connect on any sort of planet that a climate scientist is from.
In fact, what I'm saying about catastrophes was once not very accepted science, especially since it was so strongly advocated by a man named Velikovsky, who was also an iconoclast. He happened to be wrong about a lot of things, but he was entirely right about global catastrophes. They happen.
Equilibrium builds up, and then it explodes. Now they call it punctuated equilibrium, and they still say Velikovsky was wrong, and will get beet red if you even bring up his name. There, I just gave you all the ammo you need against an astrophysicist. Don't say I never did you a solid, and don't say I don't question science, either.
We had a nice little thing going on this planet, and it would be good to get some new ice for the polar bears to stand on. Saying that there's no way to make that happen is nihilist and wront.
Even if global warming is entirely solar activity, as you say, we could put sun shades in space that orbited, giving us a permanent partial eclipse. Your defeatist attitude is simply that, and also reveals the emptiness of your arguments. We won't accomplish anything by listening to you. We wouldn't have gone to the moon if we had listened to the whackos who said it was impossible, because man couldn't survive in space, or a million other whackos who said it was impossible for a million other reasons.
Why? Because we relied on the physics, and the pointy-headed intellectuals were correct.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
