Reality. GHG's warm the earth, otherwise, by albedo, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. Reality, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the increase will result in a warmer atmosphere. Reality, we have added more than 100 ppm CO2 and 1.1 ppm of CH4 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Reality. The atmosphere has warmed. The oceans have warmed. Measured by scientists from many countries arround the world.
Reality, those with a political agenda covering for those with an economic interest continue to lie about the connection between what we are seeing now and the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the reality of the changes are shortly going to bite their collective asses. At which time they will blame the scientists for not warning them.
Dogma isn't reality rocks...
Perhaps you should abandon those moronic denier cult dogmas then, SSooooDDuuuumb. After all, they get immediately debunked by the facts every time you parrot them on this forum.
proof is reality. Prove your claim.
So says the scientifically ignorant retard. But there is no such thing in science as "
proof", there is only the preponderance of evidence in favor of one explanation and the lack of any viable alternative explanations that can adequately explain the evidence and data. That's the situation with anthropogenic global warming. There is enough evidence supporting AGW (and a lack of any plausible alternative theories) to convince virtually the entire world scientific community. Intelligent sane people accept the consensus of the experts as the best explanation possible with the current data and evidence. Crazy retards claim that all the experts are wrong but some random uneducated nutjob is actually right in dismissing the conclusions of the experts even if the nutjob has no other realistic explanations for the phenomena.
The earth has warmed but once more, corelation(sic) does not equal causation
I know you're too retarded to understand this fine point but the scientific motto you're trying to quote actually reads 'correlation does not
necessarily equal causation'; and what you're too brainwashed to comprehend is that correlation often offers a good clue as to causation. Causes always correlate to effects even if there are other things correlated to the effect that aren't causing it. The scientific evidence for the causal link between increased CO2 and increased warming is very clear and very convincing to actual scientists.
and we both know that as far as proof of causation goes, you have none...
Once again, there are no proofs, only a preponderance of evidence. But that is sufficient in science because that is how science works. Too bad you're too ignorant about science to comprehend that.
what you do have is ineffective appeals to authority.
This is not a high school debate team. In the real world, intelligent people tend to trust the conclusions of the vast majority of the experts on any subject. Pointing out that almost all of the climate scientists agree with and support the same general conclusions about the reality and dangers of AGW is not at all "
ineffective"; it is actually a reasonable and valid part of the argument that supports the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Of course, in your private little denier cult bizarro-world, all the scientists are in on a big conspiracy to hoax the world and so can't be trusted. Which is just what the Flat Earth Society claims too. You poor deluded retards.
Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.
Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.
***
