Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
1) You are the one claiming to be able to PROVE something. I simply asked you to PROVE it.
2) My point all along has been that the manmade global warming hypothesis is NOT proven and that counting noses does not prove it and that counting noses is NOT one of the principles of scientific investigation.
3) As for a testable hypothesis, I would propose that manmade CO2 rises could NOT cause the temperature of the entire solar system to rise--which is what has been demonstrated during the recent past when we were able to make measurements of such.
4) The manmade global warming THEORY is unraveling.
5) I am a scientist, having a degree in chemistry, an MD, having performed research, and habitually applying scientific thought as my natural default mode. That's why I don't buy your CONSENSUS BS.
Just a simple nonscientific question: If global warming is simply a hypothesis, and one which is increasingly UNSUBSTANTIATED by the evidence, and if the weather is a chaotic system which cannot be modeled by linear models, and if, as a chaotic system, the weather and climate factors cannot be be delineated sufficiently to allow long-range prognostication, WHY THE FRENZIED RUSH TO ENACT POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY BASED ON MIASMIC UNKNOWABLES?
If it walks like a capitalism-damaging Marxist, if it quacks like a capitalist-damaging Marxist, if it flies into jet engine intakes like an USAir-damaging Marxist Canadian goose, perhaps the ultimate goal of this frantic RUSH TO JUDGMENT re global warming is to damage capitalism (western civilization in particular).
Just a thought.
I never said I can prove anything, because science isn't about proof, it's a hierarchy of evidence.
The evidence seems to show that CO2 does raise temperature, and as predicted by the theory. As I mentioned before, this is the opinion of the American Geological Society, and all other major scientific organizations.
Your "theory" amounts to merely contradicting the science of others.
If your solar activity theory is better, then you should be able to provide evidence that it's better, for example, you should be able to predict the warming trend better than the CO2 model. So let's see your charts.
Again, you are the one making extraordinary claims, and if you are truly a scientist, you know that you are the one who needs to provide extraordinary proof.
Simply asserting a position contrary to all of mainstream science, and providing zero evidence to back it up, does not prove your point. Claiming that your position is in the mainstream, likewise, does not make it true. You have provided no links that show anything you say is true, instead, George Bush-like, you assert the counter-factual repeatedly.
It's rather hilarious that you continuously eschew scientific consensus in one breath, and in the next, you claim your imaginary scientists (who you've yet to name) have a better consensus.
Or do you just take it on faith?
I see! We are in the semantic quibbling business!
1. Theory: Sharply increased CO2 levels can lead (and have led) to global warming.
2. Falsified if: A large CO2 rise with no mitigating factors, and no subsequent rise in temperature
3. Prediction: a large rise in CO2 will be followed by warming
The Data
I can back up #1 easily with many different kinds of evidence...
True, you didn't say the word "proof," and I apologize for considering backing up a theory easily with many different kinds of evidence a proof. But I'll try to be more careful.
"Your "theory" amounts to merely contradicting the science of others.
If your solar activity theory is better, then you should be able to provide evidence that it's better, for example, you should be able to predict the warming trend better than the CO2 model. So let's see your charts."
Duh! That's what the scientific method implies.
The correct answer is: INdeed, let's continue to observe and compare! May the better theory win! So far, as of the few decades, the solar cycle theory compares quite favorably with the CO2 theory. Indeed, the ice core samples I have cited pretty much disprove the CO2 theory. The current-day situation re the temperatures in the entire solar system correlate quite well with the sun cycles and yet the CO2 production by SUVs on Marx and Jupiter appears to be quite flat over the measurable interval.
Your claims contradict a majority of scientists doing the field work. You therefore have a very high standard of proof. So far you have provided no evidence at all, much less anything approaching a proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Everything I have said can be backed up by the multiple scientific sources from that wiki article. Yes, solar activity is a factor, but your assertion that it is not only the dominant factor, but that CO2 plays no part whatsoever, is completely contradictory of the empirical science.
You sneer at consensus, but can offer no better way to reach the truth. Consensus is what built the Apollo rockets, and the space shuttle, and even made Burt Ratan's vehicle possible, unique as it is.
Ratan couldn't have done it without scientific consensus, from the basic design of the wing, to the transistors powering the computer.
So far you have not only not shown any consensus for your position, you can't even find a decent lone nut. You also have shown a distinct ignorance of the actual climate theory, by inventing falsifications of the theory. I repeat, pony up the evidence, or admit you are talking out of your ass.
Readers bask--Camille shines some light from her ass
Dear Camille: We love you (The Right-wing fan club)
Camille: Excellent Taste! I couldn't be more in complete agreement with you (I'm Right-wing too, but don't tell anyone. Alright? xxoo)
Dear Camille: Liberals stink. Democrats are bozos. Obama isn't as intelligent as when he's reading off a teleprompter. Obama is to blame for Blagojevich. Obama is Satan.
Camille: Excellent analysis! You must have gone to the same university as me (The Yale school for Dummies). Blagojevich? Yes, Obama must be involved somehow. He's a Democrat for goodness sake; there must be some dirt we can find on him. As yet, there's none to be found, but I'll sure be digging around for some.
Dear Camille: I'm an evil conservative
Camille: Me too. I am delighted to find a fellow admirer. We should get together and stick pins into a Gloria Steinem doll.
Dear Camille: Sarah Palin is certainly capable of coherent thought if you ignore everything she says and drool along with her.
Camille: Thank you for agreeing with me completely! I have never had the slightest problem understanding her. She has a natural, rapid delivery with syncopated stops and slides just like cheetah in Tarzan. That wouldn't qualify her for Hamlet but she sure could be vice-President of the United States (Cheetah come to think of it sounds too much of a prig to be vice-President).
Dear Camille: The Weather Underground were bad people. They had a female leader. As a result the other males in the group were wimps. This female leader embraced feminism, which was emerging at the time. We should warn people. Lock up your daughters before they become terrorists too; or worse still, leaders.
Camille: Thank you for enlightening me about the evils of not being a door mat. Yes; that Bernadine Dohrn had to be stopped, lest she set up matriarchies.
Dear Camille: I'm a Right-wing, Christian, Republican extremist.
Camille: Good for you! I'm not in the Ku Klux Klan myself but I respect them. I'm not one of those Democrats who rolls over and plays dead like a cutesy puppy!for heaven's sake. I'm all for tolerating intolerance. What, me, a Liberal?
Dear Camille: Global warming is full of shit. I know because it was cold the other day in the North Pole.
Camille: Thank you for confirming what I have always known. You know I don't think gravity exists either because an apple has never fallen on my head.
Dear Camille: Are Homosexuals found behind the cabbage patch or are they incubated in an incubator? (No, no I'm not one. No, really).
Camille: Hang on, let me see what Freud says (You know, the guy who said women who wanted careers were suffering from penis envy).
Dear Camille: You think like I do--the same total crap! I too think students should study a trade rather then go to university (especially, one where I teach). Of course, neither of us did but that doesn't mean the masses should get above themselves too. I need qualified trades people to fix my toilet, for gawd's sake! The last thing we need is for the working class to know Wittgenstein. I might need a plumber.
Camille: Wonderful letter! You are a true man of the people! Just keep on telling them they have 'street smarts' and referring to intellectuals as 'egg heads' and flattering them that scrawling graffiti, and texting, are just as extraordinary in their own way as a play by Shakespeare (whatever those hifalutin' elitists say) and you'll have your plumber in no time.
Dear Camille: Bourdieu's "Distinction: A social critique of the Judgement of Taste" is crap.
Camille: Have you read my book "Sexual Personae?
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
