A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

There is No Evidence

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

This article has moved to ScienceBlogs

It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.

Labels:

41 Comments:

  • At May 02, 2006 7:33 PM, Blogger coby said…

    I would like to add changes in the start of spring in many places and ocean waters warming but don't have links handy. Anyone?

    Any additional lines of evidence anyone thinks of (with a reference) are appreciated.

     
  • At May 03, 2006 6:49 AM, Anonymous oisin said…

    here's a spring link:
    "Evidence of Early Spring"
    http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/documents/spring.pdf

    Out of interest, would you agree that desire for certainty of future climate change is a bit of a trap and that the arguments should focus more on probabilties and risk assessments?

     
  • At May 03, 2006 7:05 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi oisin,

    Yes, you are absolutely correct that the heated debate about certainty in what will happen represents a failure in the public framing of the issue that is to the detriment of those interested in proper risk management.

    Thanks for the link.

     
  • At June 04, 2006 6:05 AM, Anonymous Mikel Mariñelarena said…

    Hi Coby,

    While I wait to see if you find an explanation in the aerosols thread for the mid-century SH cooling (in spite of sulphate aerosols only affecting the NH), I think I’m going to have a go at this very low hanging fruit you have chosen here:

    How many people do you know who don’t accept that the world has warmed in the 20th century?

    I’m not really aware of any skeptic scientist or prominent figure in that camp claiming that the average temp readings on the surface don’t show some warming.

    In fact, in his recent presentation at the Swedish Timbro institution Richard Lindzen brought up a very interesting argument regarding the global warming evidence. Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 increases on temperature, he argued that the increase we have already seen in CO2 atmospheric concentrations (thirty something percent, I believe) represents about 2/3 of the total warming forcing to be expected from a CO2 doubling (from pre-industrial levels). This CO2 increase forcing has gone parallel to a ~0.6C increase in the average surface temperature.

    If his calculations are good, we have a good way of assessing how much additional warming we can expect from the additional CO2 increase up to its doubling without the need to use models, and based just on the empirical evidence: not a lot. Even if all observed warming in the past century was the result of the CO2 increase, we could only expect a fraction of the ~0.6 figure as an additional increment to that forcing (including all associated feedbacks, that must obviously have been operating in the past century).

    To this I would add that in order for the alarmist scenarios to materialize we should be seeing a frank increase in the current GW trend, which we are not seeing. If we accept the current trend to be ~0.17C/decade (which, as stated by you elsewhere is only a figure you arrive at by choosing a specific starting point and not another) we would only see a 0.7C warming by 2005 and 1.6C by 2100.

    So while there is evidence of some GW in the past century and more specifically in the last decades, there is no evidence of any catastrophic GW for the future.

     
  • At June 04, 2006 9:46 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Thanks for the challenge, Mikel.

    I will short answer you here, but if you don't mind I will promote this to a new topic because it is a common argument.

    The two word answer is "thermal inertia". Mostly due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans, there is a significant (multi-decade) lag between the imposition of a radiative imbalance from higer CO2 concentrations and the stabilisation at a new, higher surface temperature. This is observed in model runs and is consistent with the limited warming we have seen thus far, as you described.

    There were some recent findings from NASA that were hailed as a big deal in confirming this. One was the detection of ocean warming at predicted amounts and depths and the other was empirical measurments of a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Though my limited understanding of the imbalance is that there is significant regional disagreement between model predictions and measurements, I think especially in the tropics.

    On a more personal and political note, I find it revealing in a very negative way that Richard Lindzen makes this argument because it is not complicated why it is specious and he really must be aware of that fact.

    Who says the world hasn't warmed? I think Tim Ball uses this argument. I found this quote:
    "So where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple - they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space-based measurements, they quote error-prone, ground-based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends."
    on his "Envirotruth" website. But this argument has begun to disappear since the satellites no longer support it.

    Re: expecting accelerated warming, we do have to wait and see if this happens, absent volcanoes or other factors. If you squint at the data just right, you can see some acceleration!
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

    Note: I changed the "objection" of this article to read "significant warming".

     
  • At June 19, 2006 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    OK, let's use some thinking here. I can see how scientists (SEE, I want more grant money to study this further) say the earth is warming, because the graphs linked to this post show this simply.

    I would like you to respond to a couple questions about it. Most of this data begins in the 19th century and continues to present day. We are looking at an understated extremely small portion of our earth's history. How do you know this is due to man's habits on the earth given such a small sample? And two, looking at the data presented on avg. temperature. Notice that there was a cooling trend in the 19th century and then a warming trend starting in the 20th century. How do you know this isn't cyclical for this average tempurature to rise and fall? Look at the tides, and the seasons. Do they not ebb and flow? Have we not gone from ice age to warm temperatures and back again? Simple graphs and the accompanying AHA! do not mean the American public should follow this hook line and sinker.

     
  • At June 19, 2006 11:38 AM, Blogger coby said…

    We are looking at an understated extremely small portion of our earth's history. How do you know this is due to man's habits on the earth given such a small sample?

    I invite you to check my posts on how the temperature record is too short and how there is no proof CO2 is the cause.

    Notice that there was a cooling trend in the 19th century and then a warming trend starting in the 20th century. How do you know this isn't cyclical for this average tempurature to rise and fall? Look at the tides, and the seasons. Do they not ebb and flow?

    For this one, check here

    Have we not gone from ice age to warm temperatures and back again?

    Check here.

    Simple graphs and the accompanying AHA! do not mean the American public should follow this hook line and sinker

    Try reading the "it's a hoax" article and consider that you should have an extremely high requirement for evidence they are all wrong before dismissing such a strong consensus of experts.

    Hope that addresses your concerns.

     
  • At June 19, 2006 1:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No, in fact it did not. I read what was there, and didn't really find much different than what's on the rest of the site. I'm no scientist, but I understand from reading and listening to experts on both sides of the fence that the "proof" is what you want it to be:

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/000681on_donald_kennedy_in.html

    http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

    If you read these articles, you get at least a counterpoint to what you are saying about the application of global warming (in this case, hurricanes). I'm not doubting there are stats and scientists saying there are trends and models that suggest this (or that don't buy into the hurricane rebuttle). But there are other scientists and pundits that clearly state many of the scientists and research organizations have a preconceived agenda, which is to further themselves and their research, without enough data to make a "without a doubt" argument. You're own links say that they are "theories" and not a fact, and that only they cannot be proven or disproven without another planet earth to "test". Why should I not be skeptical of what is listed here, when part of this website tries to teach people (or strongarm) this agenda? I read your post and the replies about the ice age, and it seems your information is still not up to snuff. Your information states that with man these warming rates are faster...how do you know what it would have been like without man at that time? You don't and can't...it's all theory, unlike mathematics, right? So again, why should we buy this argument? Because people with a political and monetary interest say so? If they are so interested, then they should all live in biodegradable houses, with all solar/wind/water power, and drive solar cars or ride bicycles. Until then, all I see are hypocrites, such as Al Gore. Politics only makes it worse...

     
  • At June 19, 2006 2:01 PM, Blogger coby said…

    If you think that climate scientists are getting rich and the "sceptic" scientists that take money from the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon Mobile do not have a political and monetary reason for holding their positions you are being taken for a fool. If you think all opinions are equal, then you clearly don't believe in science. If you prefer to trust people like Fred Singer, who worked for the tobacco companies denying smoking causes cancer, and Patrick Michaels and Sallie Baliunas who denied the existence and danger of the ozone hole until the political foot-dragging was finally over, over every single reputable scientific institution that has expertise in the subject then you are what these people take you for.

    If you let "pundits" feed you your scientific conclusions then you are being very lazy and must have your head full of misconceptions. If you wait for absolute "without a doubt" certainty before you take action to avoid danger you are a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

    I note you have not a single scientific argument to make. Reality has no agenda, and it exists regardless of your political biases.

    PS. Sorry for the tone, I usually try to be more patient but I have had a small disaster at work.

     
  • At June 19, 2006 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You are right in saying there is a lot of data out there, and I didn't say that greenhouse is good (but the farmers out here are REAL happy!!). I don't love the oil companies, but I do love the dividends I receive. You can't blame them for making a profit when we all share that responsibility for fueling their profits, even Al Gore (and GW Too!) races around in a private jet dumping gases all over the country. My point is that if we humans play a part it's a small one, but don't pontificate if you don't do as you say.

    I do believe in Science, but not its religion. My point (which is not that scientific) is that these gases are not the only and/or main reason. Some scientists agree, but you don't have to if you don't want to.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

    Since you like theories and adhere to science what are your thoughts on that? Not saying those articles are gospel, but as theories go, it's plausible. At least as much as what is listed here.

    My point is that you have thousands in the scientific community and they all have theories and no one really knows the correlation. That's the beauty of debate and collaboration. But if you look at the agenda, the rich can save the planet by giving it's money to other people who will ensure the Earth will be saved (a bit trite, but that's the long and the short of Kyoto).

    See this article and rebutt from what you know (if you have time from your disaster). I'm not trying to fight with you, I just like to know all sides of an issue and have read all of what's offered here and from your replies.

    http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

    Again, thanks for playing.

     
  • At June 19, 2006 7:14 PM, Blogger coby said…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

    Hard to know what to argue against, unamed scientists, no referenced papers. Also 8 years old btw. I do have a take on the it's the sun argument. The other link you provide refers to similar issues. I don't think it is controversial that the sun has played a role in 20th century climate, but not enough to explain the warming we have seen. Sunspots did rise alot in the first half of the 20th century but have not risen at all over the last three solar cycles.


    My point is that you have thousands in the scientific community and they all have theories and no one really knows the correlation.

    Sorry, that's just flat wrong. There is indeed plenty of debate and controversy in this field but it is not at all in the "is it happening" or "is it anthropogenic" issues. It is in how will tropical wind patterns change, are hurricanes showing a GW signal already, why is there more LW radiation escaping into space in the tropics than models predict, how abruptly can large ice sheets collapse, how will the carbon cycle respond to warming, what is the exact value of sensitivity to 2x CO2, will El Nino become a permanent ocean pattern, etc...

    All the rest that you hear the talking heads yap about is just distracting noise, especially the accusations of socialist political agendas subverting an entire complex and technical field of science.

    http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

    You seem intelligent enough to see what is wrong with crap like that yourself.
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-cant-even-predict-weather-next-week.html
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga.html

    and many others in my guide. This is not rocket science, that kind of article is just transparent FUD, full of illogic and half truths.

    Again, thanks for playing.

    Sure, but it is no game, it is the most serious environmental issue humanity has ever faced.

     
  • At June 28, 2006 7:55 AM, Blogger Helena said…

    Thank you for doing this work. I enjoy your blog very much and learn a lot from it. I appreciate your attitude of not lashing out at people even if they disagree with you - that is a very powerful way of getting your message across.

     
  • At June 28, 2006 8:48 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Helena, you have exposed my secret weapon ;-)

    Thanks for the positive feedback!

     
  • At July 20, 2006 1:23 PM, Anonymous KAZ said…

    Your response turns the argument into a straw man, because it focuses on forms of global temperature measurement which are not relevant to the greenhouse effect.

    If there were global warming that was coming from the (otherwise desirable) greenhouse effect, it would manifest first in oceanic and upper atmospheric temperatures. Surface temps have little or no way of being directly effected by greenhouse gasses. They should only be dragged upward, if at all, as an after-effect.

    And yet oceanic and stratospheric temperatures are NOT clearly rising, in fact by some standards they're falling, and by others are simply stable. One can only claim there's any global warming at all by defining down the global mean to a few specific things which are irrelevent to the greenhouse effect.

     
  • At July 20, 2006 3:19 PM, Blogger coby said…

    The argument is about the existence of warming, which looks mostly the same regardless of the cause.


    "If there were global warming that was coming from the (otherwise desirable) greenhouse effect, it would manifest first in oceanic and upper atmospheric temperatures."

    Sorry, I don't think you understand how the greenhouse effect works.

    Stratosphere is expected to cool, ocean is warming.

     
  • At November 30, 2006 5:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have a scientific background and have worked in the field of aerosols. I am now working in a different field of science and I am worried that it seems that a different type of "evidence" has emerged among climate scientist. Not in any natural science field I am aware of would you call the different indications "evidence". Not even the CO2 forcing mechanisms are understood or verified. It is simply not possible to sort out the anthropogenic influence from the natural. Climate scientist should listen more to paleontologists and others, with longer time perspective. There is not a shred of evidence of anything remarkable happening in the climate system beyond the natural cycles. (No, not even the rates). From science point of view, you will eventually make all scientist look bad in the public eye if this AGW propaganda will continue.

    And finally, the oceans are NOT getting warmer, they are cooling. But I suppose you know that by now.

     
  • At December 07, 2006 4:41 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Re Oceans cooling, this is just a short term finding (ie weather) and preliminary, curious you have selectively lower standards for scientific evidence in this case. As for the rest of your barely coherent rant, I'll leave it with the observation that you said "It is simply not possible to sort out the anthropogenic influence from the natural" and then one sentence later confidently stated what is happening is natural.

     
  • At December 21, 2006 7:29 PM, Blogger bart said…

    I AM a "climate sceptic", here's why:

    Link one is dead. --not very convincing.

    Link two: "Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century" --no one knows for sure what exactly is causing the increased concentrations.

    Link three: "Satellites have been sensing the temperature of the troposphere since 1979; the usable balloon (radiosonde) record begins in 1958." --what makes us so sure that this is not a normal pattern that spans thousands of years?

    Link four: Period of Record 1958-2005 --once again.

    Link five: "There are, however, questions remaining concerning global warming. For instance, what caused the warming and what are the implications for the future? The answers to these questions are not simple." --this statement and the text that follows on their "final word" page would be enough to avoid a conviction in a U.S. courtroom.

    I'm not interested enough to look at the remaining links. If you were having a 'conversation' with me using these talking points I'd walk away. Sorry.

     
  • At December 22, 2006 11:50 AM, Blogger coby said…

    .I AM a "climate sceptic", here's why:
    Link one is dead.


    No it isn't, try again.

    no one knows for sure what exactly is causing the increased concentrations.

    This is very well known, and the blindingly obvious answer is correct: humans are pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually and this has caused the buildup of billions of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere annually.
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.html

    what makes us so sure that this is not a normal pattern that spans thousands of years?
    This is little better than an appeal to "it's just magic". "Normal cycles" (whatever that means) have causes.
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html

    Period of Record 1958-2005
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough.html

    Link five "There are, however, questions remaining concerning global warming. For instance, what caused the warming and what are the implications for the future? The answers to these questions are not simple."

    Sorry, I did not find the quote you provided at that page.

    --this statement and the text that follows on their "final word" page would be enough to avoid a conviction in a U.S. courtroom.

    I don't believe that this is an appropriate comparison. Do you really look for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before taking action to avoid severe consequences? -- "Slow down, I think the bridge ahead is gone!" -- "No. Prove it first!"

    I suggest that societal norms are just about the opposite of that when it comes to polluting the environment or even your own body, we demand proof that there is no harm. The EPA does not approve drugs unless someone proves they are dangerous, drug companies must prove they are safe. So it is and should be with actions that alter the environment, we should be certain it is safe, especially so when we are talking about the global life support system.

    Here is another article to address your assessment that even the scientist aren't sure.

    I'm not interested enough to look at the remaining links. If you were having a 'conversation' with me using these talking points I'd walk away.

    Just out of curiosity (and not as an excuse to ignore the rest of my response to you!) just what would you accept as convincing evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change?

     
  • At January 03, 2007 10:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is evidence of global warming according to the stats the planet has risen 1 degree over the past 10 000 years and the change just recently occured. Co2 Does in fact contribute to global warming.

    What I fail to see on how to talk to a sceptic is anything about methane. Methane makes up most of the GHG effect and plays a far more dominant role than Co2.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1258655,00.html

    What I also see is the failure to say anything about the mini ice age and how a rapidly the planet experienced the climate change with no devistating effect.

    Another thing you guys dont' mention is 95 million years ago the planet was 8 degrees warmer making it a tropical planet and how it naturaly cooled itself off. This warm period made what some say was a "tropical paradice"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031222071851.htm

     
  • At January 03, 2007 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    P.S. Another thing you guys don't clear up is...


    According to How Did It Really Happen? a readers digest on page 31 says... " Sedimentary deposits in West Virginia, for example, show the cycle of the land being under water, then above water as the sea level rises and falls with each successive ice age - hundreds of times over the past 4 million years." pg 31.

    Ice ages hundreds of times over in 4 million years? divide 4 million by 200 you get an ice age every 10 000 years, when you divide it by 400 its every 5000 years to develope and go away. Despite these numbers being random it clearly says hundreds so that gives you an idea of how often these ice ages can occur and gives you an idea of how rapid they actualy are.

     
  • At January 05, 2007 9:39 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Check these articles:
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/climate-is-always-changing.html
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html

    Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, that is true, but its concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppb (parts per billion) not ppm (million). You can see the relative forcing impacts of many climate factors here. Note that CH4 is about 1/3 of the impact of CO2.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 12:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ok well put Coby but read this article you will find it very interesting i assure you please let me know what you think.

    http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

     
  • At January 06, 2007 12:47 PM, Blogger coby said…

    just about all of the arguments on that page are adressed here in the How To guide. I don't have one about geothermal heating yet bu geothermal heat accounts for about .08W/m^2 versus some 234W/m^2 from the sun. Geothermal heating would have to have increased about 20-50 times in order for it to explain the warming. That is a silly theory.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You posting me those links means absolutley nothing but how the media's propaganda has infected your mind. Why don't you guys talk about everything that causes climate change and then let us decide.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I don't have one about geothermal heating yet bu geothermal heat accounts for about .08W/m^2 versus some 234W/m^2 from the sun. Geothermal heating would have to have increased about 20-50 times in order for it to explain the warming. That is a silly theory. "

    One more comment about this.. This sounds alot more plausable than the 3% Co2 the humans contribute to the annual Co2 Total causeing this "rapid" climate change.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 4:13 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Anonymous at 3:15,

    Your comment was deleted because it was just a huge cut and paste from the link you already posted. Readers can get that material by clicking here.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 4:20 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Anonymous 3:18,

    "Why don't you guys talk about everything that causes climate change and then let us decide."

    Please read the material in the IPCC TAR WG1 report, linked in the sidebar ("Climate Change: The Scientific Basis"). That is exactly what you are asking for and is one of the most thouroughly reviewed scientific documents in history. It has been endorsed by over 20 national academies (including the US's NAS) and every major scientific organization in every relevant field. See here for details.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    http://www.oism.org/news/s49p725.htm

    17 000 scientists sighning the petition i'm sure your more than aware of this... Obviously they dont' agree with your arguement.

     
  • At January 06, 2007 8:21 PM, Blogger coby said…

  • At January 07, 2007 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    well thats good to know ! Well recently i've discovered that Climate Science is not well understood at all and there is no working climate model that matches even close to what the planet is actualy like. So really all we can do is wait for science to develope. Coby you are not one of the worlds most respected climatologist this guy is...

    http://williamcalvin.com/teaching/Broecker97.html

    "My lifetime study of Earth's climate system has humbled me. I'm convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling very difficult, if not impossible. If we're going to predict the future, we have to achieve a much greater understanding of these small-scale processes that together generate large-scale effects."

    So in a nut shell you and i can't come to a logical conclusion based on fact on this issue.

     
  • At January 07, 2007 10:48 PM, Blogger coby said…

  • At January 16, 2007 9:39 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    THERE is still of course the inadequate period of time involved in Data collection. It is not then possible to adequately document any process of either Natural or Unnatural alterations of Climate & so it is entirely supposition that is mentioned in any regard to either {global warming} detail or supposed {anthropogenic climate change}.

    AS such there is indeed "no evidence", perhaps over the next 200 to 300 years such Data that can be validly accumulated might indicate actual detail of some of those real processes involved, but due to the structure of the present {greenhouse theory} this could not be including of any so associated {greenhouse effect}.

    Yours,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    (*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
    (**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/

     
  • At February 02, 2007 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
    Sourcewatch on OISM

    This petition was fraudulent.


    ___________________

    Thats ok Coby, I feel the same way about yourside. Entirely fraudulent.

    Want to talk about abortion now? Let us talk about where life really begins.

     
  • At April 27, 2007 8:58 AM, Blogger ROC said…

    There is every probability that global mean temps are higher today then they were in 1850, however every temp 'reconstruction' prior of 1976(the year NASA sent up the 1st satellite to monitor the earths temperature) is proxy (model) data. It should also be noted that prior to about 1930 there is/was very little data compiled about temp's in the southern latitudes simple because there were so few temperature monitoring stations. It's also interesting to note that most of your web sites you offer as proof utilize the work "proxy" in thier statements.

     
  • At August 27, 2007 5:50 AM, Blogger Marion Delgado said…

    The "skeptics" make a fundamental error when they argue ad authoritem. Most of the authorities are on our side. It is a red herring to say, you are not a famous climate scientist, unlike the guy I am quoting - in or out of context -QED, you're wrong, he's right.

    The obvious refutation is to point out that we are citing 90%+ of the famous respected climate scientists. I would add that not everyone who studies science ends up a working scientist.

     
  • At December 12, 2007 2:27 PM, Blogger Will Nitschke said…

    I too am trying to evaluate the evidence for or against global warming as an intelligent lay-person.

    This article is of no help, and in fact is misleading, because the debate is not over global warming (not from any intelligent person anyway) but whether global warming is human caused or not. It's a critical question because if it is not human caused we probably cannot do anything about it, and if it is human caused we probably can do something about it. I think the logical fallacy in your argument is that you are 'attacking a straw man' as they say. But I will keep doing my research and I'll read the rest of your content in the hope of getting some answers to these sorts of questions.

     
  • At February 20, 2008 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Global Gore-ing is happening. Not because of CO2, and not because fallacious models say so. As four guys once sang, Here comes the Sun. Da da da da. It's alright. Mmm mmm mmm mmm, repeat as necessary.

     
  • At May 28, 2008 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A key piece of evidence not highlighted here is the empirical fact that putting more CO2 in a sealed volume in the lab will impede more radiation traveling through that volume. This fact, tested and verified countless times (as part of high school and university science education), is the empirical basis upon which AGW theory rests.

    Add that to the list of evidence above and there is cause for concern (and further study of the atmosphere).

    barry

     
  • At July 11, 2008 8:45 PM, Blogger yezi said…

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home