A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence

[Si modo]

You're an IDIOT. Check out the difference between facts and correlation. I have correlated nothing, but you insist on repeating the same false statement. Typical of deniers, though. They don't care about the science, since their stance is really political.

Where to start....

Ummmm, of course facts and correlation are different. Is that a gottcha? I can't tell. Really.

I knew you were lacking in even the basics, but I was seriously mistaken in how very remedial you are in those basics as I assumed you had at least an inkling of what a correlation is. And, as I never said YOU correlated a thing, your reading comprehension skills are also in question.

I could go on with the flaws in that short post of yours, but I am confident that is enough. You are your own enemy, but your playing at this subject, you do no favors for your views. I would say you also do no favors for science, but I am confident that no one would mistake you for one.

Yep, ol' Si could go on and on, and still never say a god damned thing.

And Rocks chimes in to demonstrate his remedial status as well. Both still believe correlation is causation.

 

[wirebender]

I did not equate correlation to causation. CO2's ability to absorb energy isn't correlation, it's reproducible scientific fact.

Sorry, but your statement that a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and retain energy is not a reproducible scientific fact. Do feel free to show some evidence if you believe it to be so.

The rise in CO2 since the advent of the IR and the overwhelming emissions by humans over volcanoes is fact.

the fact is that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. There's no correlation involved. Just using scientific FACT to create a logical syllogism. Try and find the flaw, if you can. Many have tried. None have succeeded.

Explain ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 than the present within your claimed logic. While you are at it, explain warmer periods with lower atmospheric CO2.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not equate correlation to causation. CO2's ability to absorb energy isn't correlation, it's reproducible scientific fact.

Sorry, but your statement that a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and retain energy is not a reproducible scientific fact. Do feel free to show some evidence if you believe it to be so.

The rise in CO2 since the advent of the IR and the overwhelming emissions by humans over volcanoes is fact.

the fact is that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. There's no correlation involved. Just using scientific FACT to create a logical syllogism. Try and find the flaw, if you can. Many have tried. None have succeeded.

Explain ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 than the present within your claimed logic. While you are at it, explain warmer periods with lower atmospheric CO2.

While he's at it, you might ask him why CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically over the last 10 to 12 years while there has been no corresponding increase in the Earth's mean temperatures--something that was NOT predicted by the computer moders in 1998.

 

[konradv]

I did not equate correlation to causation. CO2's ability to absorb energy isn't correlation, it's reproducible scientific fact.

Sorry, but your statement that a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and retain energy is not a reproducible scientific fact. Do feel free to show some evidence if you believe it to be so.



the fact is that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.

From those two facts you get the simple result that, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. There's no correlation involved. Just using scientific FACT to create a logical syllogism. Try and find the flaw, if you can. Many have tried. None have succeeded.

Explain ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 than the present within your claimed logic. While you are at it, explain warmer periods with lower atmospheric CO2.

While he's at it, you might ask him why CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically over the last 10 to 12 years while there has been no corresponding increase in the Earth's mean temperatures--something that was NOT predicted by the computer moders in 1998.

That's because it's irrelevant. Of course there will be natural ups and downs, but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. That's just a logical application of the KNOWN ability of GHGs to trap energy. You keep focusing on computer models, but it doesn't prove anything except that like most models, they need tweaking to accurately reflect reality. That has nothing to do with the logic of: A increases B, the level of A is increasing, therefore there will be more B.

 

[Si modo]

Sorry, but your statement that a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and retain energy is not a reproducible scientific fact. Do feel free to show some evidence if you believe it to be so.



the fact is that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.



Explain ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 than the present within your claimed logic. While you are at it, explain warmer periods with lower atmospheric CO2.

While he's at it, you might ask him why CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically over the last 10 to 12 years while there has been no corresponding increase in the Earth's mean temperatures--something that was NOT predicted by the computer moders in 1998.

.... but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. ....

Pssst. You are still equating correlation to causation.

 

[konradv]

The problem I think is the refusal to factor in all the other components that warm and cool the Earth or affect the climate.

It's like my college logic class. If you focus on only one thing:

The glasses are on the table.

The glasses are on Foxfyre.

Therefore, Foxfyre is a table.

You're kidding, right. Your "syllogism" is false on the face of it and has no relation to mine at all. Just throwing together a few lines does not a syllogism make. For those who didn't spot the obvious flaw, the first two statements talk about "on", while the conclusion switches to "is"!!!

 

[Si modo]

 

[Old Rocks]

While he's at it, you might ask him why CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically over the last 10 to 12 years while there has been no corresponding increase in the Earth's mean temperatures--something that was NOT predicted by the computer moders in 1998.

.... but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. ....

Pssst. You are still equating correlation to causation.

psst......... Real scientists are still in an overwhelming concensus that the causation of the present warming is caused by manmade GHGs.

Ideologically driven dingbats will of course state otherwise.

Now, what National Academy of Science supports you?

 

[Old Rocks]

I like the one about hemlines and the stockmarket better.

 

[Si modo]

.... but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. ....

Pssst. You are still equating correlation to causation.

psst......... Real scientists are still in an overwhelming concensus that the causation of the present warming is caused by manmade GHGs.

Ideologically driven dingbats will of course state otherwise.

Now, what National Academy of Science supports you?

Really? A consensus? Science is done by vote?

Who knew?

Maybe you have some science showing us of this new trend in the sciences - taking straw polls on what is true and correlations equating to causation.

Here I was actually believing that the logic of scientific discovery is applied to science.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. You fully believe that the consensus on evolution is science done by vote?

And who cares what you think, in any case? You have demonstrated no bona fides that are greater than mine to make a judgement on AGW. All you have done is yapped about logic, without any contribution by pointing out evidence. Kind of like a Kookybill without the silly cartoons.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem I think is the refusal to factor in all the other components that warm and cool the Earth or affect the climate.

It's like my college logic class. If you focus on only one thing:

The glasses are on the table.

The glasses are on Foxfyre.

Therefore, Foxfyre is a table.

You're kidding, right. Your "syllogism" is false on the face of it and has no relation to mine at all. Just throwing together a few lines does not a syllogism make. For those who didn't spot the obvious flaw, the first two statements talk about "on", while the conclusion switches to "is"!!!

It IS an illustration of how logic AND/or correlation can be deceiving and bring one to very faulty conclusions when viewed with tunnel vision.

Considering all the factors in the universe that can increase or decrease temperature and/or affect climate. . . .and. . . .

Considering that we still know only a tiny fraction of science that there is to know. . . . and. . . .

Considering that greenhouse gasses are only one component in cyclical climate shifts on Planet Earth alone. . . .and. . . .

Considering that human activity is such a small percentage in all the factors that produce CO2 and other greenhouse houses, many other factors also need to be looked at closely and included in the equations. . . .

Considering all that. . . .

To focus ONLY on anthropological greenhouse gas production as the primary cause of any global warming that is occuring is simply not logical, is risky correlation, and is unscientific or at the very least questionable science.

I prefer the criteria used be logical, practical, scientific, use real correlations that matter, and above all be honest and untainted by political and/or economic motives before giving over my liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to those whose motives may not be the purest or unflawed in this issue.

 

[Si modo]

I see. You fully believe that the consensus on evolution is science done by vote?

....

Nope. But don't let reading comprehension get in the way of anything you post.

.... And who cares what you think, in any case? You have demonstrated no bona fides that are greater than mine to make a judgement on AGW. All you have done is yapped about logic, without any contribution by pointing out evidence. Kind of like a Kookybill without the silly cartoons.

Yes, I have 'yapped' about logic quite a bit to you. It's one of those basics one must master before even trying to study science, let alone grasp it.

 

[westwall]

.... but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. ....

Pssst. You are still equating correlation to causation.

psst......... Real scientists are still in an overwhelming concensus that the causation of the present warming is caused by manmade GHGs.

Ideologically driven dingbats will of course state otherwise.

Now, what National Academy of Science supports you?

Pssst they're in it for the money...but don't tell anyone OK. It's a pretty good scam they've been working on for decades now....over a $100,000,000,000 has been taken from the unsuspecting dolts of the world and if they are successfull they can take another $5,000,000,000,000 from the idiots! Hahahahahaha! What fools...gotta love em!

 

[Si modo]

.... but if GHGs keep increasing the trend over time will be up. ....

Pssst. You are still equating correlation to causation.

psst......... Real scientists are still in an overwhelming concensus that the causation of the present warming is caused by manmade GHGs.

....

Perhaps you can show us the science demonstrating that causation. That means a peer-eviewed paper demonstrating the causation of any recent warming is due to increased atmospheric CO2 from man.

Make sure you know what qualifies as causation. It's a pretty straightforward analysis of the data, just so you know what to look for.

... Ideologically driven dingbats will of course state otherwise.

....

Perhaps one should consider me driven by ideals. I expect those who discuss science to be honest and actually understand what they are talking about.

... Now, what National Academy of Science supports you?

The NIH and the NSF, just for example. But, one must question why you think that is relevant.

If you think this somehow has any relevance, what scientific organizations have sponsored or funded you?

 

[Si modo]

More keeping of the faith, as usual.

 

[Old Rocks]

Si Modo,

Perhaps one should consider me driven by ideals. I expect those who discuss science to be honest and actually understand what they are talking about

.........................................................................................................................

Good ideals. When you manage to acheive that, tell us about it.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo,

Perhaps one should consider me driven by ideals. I expect those who discuss science to be honest and actually understand what they are talking about

.........................................................................................................................

Good ideals. When you manage to acheive that, tell us about it.

Thankfully, we yet again get you to distill your argument to its core. Thank you.