|
c02lies (October 12, 2008 at 7:16 am)
The AGW hypothesis has been around for about 118 yrs - and to this day NOT 1 shred of evidence supports it.
If there was clear scientific and empirical evidence showing a cause and effect between C02 and temp - we wouldn't be have this conversation as the science and evidence would be in agreement. But this is NOT the case.
Although most records show ideal conditions for proving this link, the evidence is just not there, thus AGW remains an hypothesis.
Prove me wrong if you can.
c02lies (October 12, 2008 at 7:15 am)
The IPCC is a politically driven entity and as such cannot be relied on for scientific information due to political bias. The IPCC have admitted this and have said and I quote "our objectives are political NOT scientific"
All but their political statements should be ignored.
You say there is evidence everywhere?
NO THERE IS NOT.
You cannot just take an hypothesis and turn it into scientific fact without evidence and without going through the scientific methods for validation.
...cont
c02lies (October 12, 2008 at 1:40 am)
The AGW hypothesis has been around for about 118 yrs - and to this day NOT 1 shred of evidence supports it.
If there was clear scientific and empirical evidence showing a cause and effect between C02 and temp - we wouldn't be have this conversation as the science and evidence would be in agreement. But this is NOT the case.
Although most records show ideal conditions for proving this link, the evidence is just not there, thus AGW remains an hypothesis.
Prove me wrong if you can.
c02lies (October 12, 2008 at 1:31 am)
The IPCC is a politically driven entity and as such cannot be relied on for scientific information due to political bias. The IPCC have admitted this and have said and I quote "our objectives are political NOT scientific"
All but their political statements should be ignored.
You say there is evidence everywhere?
NO THERE IS NOT.
You cannot just take an hypothesis and turn it into scientific fact without evidence.
...cont
icecreamdose (October 11, 2008 at 10:46 pm)
"Hansen I've known for many years. He's a very good climate scientist, but he's decided to do the politics. I feel that he's doing some cherry-picking of his own. At that point, he's not really being a scientist. At that point, you're being a lawyer. He's being an effective advocate for his side, but in the process of doing that he's no longer a neutral party and he's no longer giving both sides of the issues."
-Prof. Richard A. Muller
UC Berkeley
global warming believer
Grist interview
10/6/08
prunar (October 11, 2008 at 6:37 pm)
c02lies-If the IPCC doesn't have a grip on the science of climate, who is better at it? Science would not be science if there wasn't disputes about the causes or mechanisms, but never say that evidence for it doesn't exist. There is evidence all over the place, but linking the interpretation to the evidence requires more study, and TIME. The obvious question is, do we run the experiment (we ARE the experiment) and pay whatever costs, or do we play it conservatively, unlike the mortgage lenders?
grastog1313 (October 11, 2008 at 6:31 pm)
The YouTube claims that CO2-driven warming is controversial are frustrating, because the science literature universally recognizes the warming, based on an enormity of evidence journal readers can review. More important, perhaps, the outside world, following the lead of science, is no longer debating whether we're warming the planet but rather how to curtail CO2 to avert severe harm. To me this suggests that any debate here is probably an invitation to be ignored unless focused on remediation.
prunar (October 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm)
Bones-I didn't accuse you personally, but it was an observation in general. If it doesn't fit, you should let it slide. The comment was relating to a culture of skepticism in oil-rich regions, not to you personally.
Since you are from Scandinavia, and having visited there myself, and admired how my ancestral land of Sweden has taken the lead in zero carbon energy, I would be interested to hear what you think about it. I agree that children should not be instilled with fear of the future.
prunar (October 11, 2008 at 5:58 pm)
Bones-I will address the "not guilty of % of CO2 being let out" first. That is absurd. Though releases of CO2 by natural means (mainly decay of plant material and oceanic releases) ARE larger, they are offset by the same processes! Oceanic releases are balanced by the ocean absorbing CO2, as it IS still a net absorber globally. Plant decay naturally is offset by plant growth. Deforestation is a human exception to this. Finally, fossil fuel emissions are about 130 TIMES total volcanic emissions!
c02lies (October 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm)
grastog,
As usual you are overstating the hell out of everything.
There is absolutely NO evidence of C02 driven warming in any dataset - PERIOD.
You are talking about an hypothesis as if it is proven fact - IT IS NOT, and you know it.
C02 has NEVER been shown to drive temp EVER.
C02 driven warming IS A MYTH - it has NO basis in science or empirical data what so ever.
You constantly misrepresent the truth, overstate, exaggerate and LIE.
Yet when questioned you NEVER answer.
Your a disgrace. |
