skookerasbil
Platinum Member
There is a lot of evidence and conter explanations to the AGW theories but that is the difference.
They do not stand up to the scientific method like the AGW theories have. Same with evolution.
Gravity is a theory. Stood up to all of the tests by the scientific method.
The problem we have in America is that the majority of the public has no clue what the scientific method is and that the theory evolution has also stood up to the scientific method for over 100 years.
I give this easy test to the uneducated masses here in Georgia:
Start your car, put your hand over the muffler. Is the exhaust hot or cold? Multiply that times a billion. Wear a black shirt in the sun. Wear a white shirt in the sun. Which makes you hotter?
Soot, from pollution warms the earth. The water is warming as evidenced by my 45 years fishing the Apalachicola river basin in Florida. I vote Republican 90% of the time. My friends in Apalachicola are not political. The oystermen are not political. They know without a doubt that the water has warmed and man has done it.
So riddle me this batman. How many cars were around when the Earth began warming up from the Little Ice Age? Why did the Earth suddenly warm up in 1850 from it's centuries long cold spell? Hmmmm?
Here is what the Royal Society states concerning that in it's latest statement on global warming.
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society
Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.
29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.