I'm not denying evidence it's just (in the case of AGW) there has been no replicable experimentation that proves humans can have any affect on climate. Indeed, study, gather more evidence, be scientific.....Just don't claim to know anything until you can control climate and demonstrate a complete understanding of it by conducting successful, replicable experiments. Make it rain, make the wind blow....Then do it again. Publish a set of instructions so that others may replicate your experiment. You know....scientifically. How can one be in denial of something that is unproven? Yeah, I did enjoy smoking and still do, just not as frequently. Once one embarks on imbibing a known addictive substance, one should be aware that they are creating a life long craving. Nicotine was a known addictive substance even when cigarettes were in vogue. Cravings are part of the natural human experience. We learn to control them or they control us. - - - Updated - - - I'm not denying evidence it's just (in the case of AGW) there has been no replicable experimentation that proves humans can have any affect on climate. Indeed, study, gather more evidence, be scientific.....Just don't claim to know anything until you can control climate and demonstrate a complete understanding of it by conducting successful, replicable experiments. Make it rain, make the wind blow....Then do it again. Publish a set of instructions so that others may replicate your experiment. You know....scientifically. How can one be in denial of something that is unproven? Yeah, I did enjoy smoking and still do, just not as frequently. Once one embarks on imbibing a known addictive substance, one should be aware that they are creating a life long craving. Nicotine was a known addictive substance even when cigarettes were in vogue. Cravings are part of the natural human experience. We learn to control them or they control us.
Yeah the ubiquitous 'carbon tax' threat. I suppose you could apply it to most any personal freedom YOU disagree with.
You can replicate CO2 capture of infrared radiation from earth over and over again and this has been true since the 19th century.
And of course astronomy, geology, paleontology, these are not science because if they were, you might have to understand it! Like I said, it's like gravity. The study of gravity can't be science, because we can't make it, we can't eliminate it, we can't change it. So it's not science. Good argument there, kiddo. Science operates in the empirical world, and in that world proof is impossible. Always and forever. There is no such thing as scientific proof. So if you wish to make an objection, an informed and honest objection would be more persuasive. But of course, I was talking about whether cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. Are you saying it's not, because most smokers die of something else?
AGW was scientific. A generation ago they started making predictions about the future of the natural world. If these predictions came true it would support their theory. Einstein did the same thing with gravity bending light. There was no experiment an experiment was impossible just natural observation. The problem with AGW is that their predictions failed mightily yet they refuse to question the validity of their hypothesis. At that point it ceased to be science. When your hypothesis fails to match observation yet you continue to move from theory and then even onto fact you are not engaging in science.
Then provide a link or something. Other than a greenhouse or glass-jar experiment. Is there an experiment where GLOBAL climate can be controlled by human beings?
Nonsense, of course they are part of science. We observe and research our environment. However, astronomers do not claim we human beings have any affect at all on the heavens. Paleontologists do not claim that we are about to be over-run by dinosaurs. Gravity is included in the science of Physics however physicists do not claim that human beings can do anything about gravity. We are not being told that, for instance, gravity is getting 'heavier' because of human presence and production upon the face of the Earth. Some so-called 'climate scientists' along with anti development environmental lobbyists however, have jockyed themselves into political positions where they wield power over State and Federal representatives. They are threatening US with the spectre of world annihilation if we don't 'change our ways' and stop being productive in a way that they think we shouldn't. No sir! All production needs to be government controlled for our 'safety' of course, and let's not forget 'the children.' It's a nice little ruse, but that is all it is and, its persistence is directly proportional to the fools and suckers who fall for it. OK if there is no proof then why in the he!! would anyone believe in AGW? Are they just fools?! I am still alive, you are still alive. We both smoked.
I never said the government was evil. They just did what representative governments do when a bunch of self-righteous, ignorant, lock-step fools decide to make them do. Look up Prohibition.
So it IS a conspiracy. Thought so. All this mumbo jumbo about CO2 is just a smokescreen. But you're not going to fall for the evidence, because you're no fool. You know it's a conspiracy,and CO2 doesn't exist, or doesn't do what it's observed to do, or the observations don't count because you disagree with those making them, or something. But whatever, it's all a ruse. Got it. There is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is only evidence. See what I mean? WHO CARES if the incidence of lung cancer goes up an order of magnitude but ONLY among smokers. Most of them don't get lung cancer, so we can ignore mere orders of magnitude. Those aren't PROOF. At least I'm begginning to learn how you think - decide what you wish to be "the truth", tune out anything and everything else, and what's left is "the truth". If nothing else is left, just SAY it's there, because if enough people believe in it, it BECOMES the Truth, pretty much by magic.
Granted, attempting to legislate morality is always doomed to failure. It's not just prohibition. Look at the war on drugs. Look at the history of blue laws generally. Look at the prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Government can be pretty stupid when the moralists get control. And still, we have the ignorant self-righteous fighting to get their religion taught as truth in science class, and fighting to deprive others of their civil rights to own guns and have abortions. And all of these trying to get the government to pass laws coercing everyone else to knuckle under to their moral demands. But AGW isn't a matter of morals, it's really a matter of atmospheric composition and the side-effects of that changing composition.
We're talking about human influence on global climate with added ghgs. This should fill the bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Interesting history of the unfolding understanding of CO2 and the greenhouse effect. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Interesting additional graphing on the spectrum of IR affected by each ghg. http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html There are links within links about ghg capture and consequent AGW and if you want a range of google possibilities try this. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Sorry, I didn't find the replicable scientific experiment where they were able to control the world climate in any of your links. I already understand how the sun heats the earth and how gases react with solar radiation. What I am interested in is ANY replicable experiment, done by human beings (scientists) that had a measurable effect on world climate. Where did they do it? What did they use? etc....
Missed this thread... This is just for a short term forcast: "APPLICATIONS OF FUZZY LOGIC IN OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY Jim Murtha, 1995: Applications of fuzzy logic in operational meteorology, Scientific Services and Professional Development Newsletter, Canadian Forces Weather Service, 42-54. 1. Introduction Even as rigorous numerical modelling of meteorological processes continues to improve in both spatial and temporal resolution, there will likely continue to be processes that elude explicit analytic solutions. Physical processes not yet well understood or those beyond the resolution of the models still need alternative methods for their analysis and subsequent prognosis. Mesoscale processes such as fog, stratus and convection have always been difficult to forecast. Most experienced forecasters will quickly suggest that experience is the best tool for forecasting such events. With the rapidly evolving technologies in the field of meteorology, it is desirable to merge the experience of many forecasters with algorithms that may aid in difficult forecasting situations. Cognitive computing has been an emergent set of problem solving algorithms that attempt to imitate natural problem solving techniques. One such method is called Fuzzy Logic" http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Science/AIMET/archive/murtha.pdf The doc is dated but it's a good intro... http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/02/fuzzy-logic-vs-probability/ And that's just for local/regional weather forecasting. This is just the basic stuff and I think most people have no awareness of the sheer amount of complex analysis and processing required just to provide an estimate of what might happen on a small part of the globe. Only Professor X knows the facts about "Global Warming" and the standard deviation. Point is it's better to be a skeptic than a believer concerning global warming if you are not a fuzzy logic neural net... [video=youtube;GEJbxXxen7E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEJbxXxen7E[/video] .
.... that 99.9% of all climatologists engaged in actual research projects agree upon. (BTW - AGW is not an "opinion" but instead is a scientific theory that has been subjected to extensive peer review.)
In short you're asking for something that's impossible simply because you know it can't be done. Here is a fact though. The computer models, using conservative estimates of the effects of deforestation and increased CO2 levels, have resulted in under-estimates of the actual measurable effects which was to be expected because of the conservative numbers being entered into the model. The melting of polar ice as well as the rise in sea levels are direct results of global warming and it is happening faster than the conservative projections based upon the computer models. "Observations of nature" have validated the computer model and, in fact, establish that the effects of CO2 and deforestation are greater than what the computer model reflects. In short AGW is worse than projected based upon the computer model. People need to stop living in the bubble of denial when it comes to the science behind AGW.
As long as you keep talking about replicable experiments, and proof of theory as if that is meaningful, it makes it tough to believe you really do see deeper and with more wisdom than the world scientific community on these things. Did you see any replicable experiments done with the sun, or with dinosaurs? How about ocean currents? No way to know anything about those either, we just cant seem to control them.
Notice how many other people choose to use the quote function the same way I did? I dont think you have anything to say anyway, so fine if you dont / cant / wont respond, for whatever excuse.
Its not that you quoted by line its that you used a double quote that the beginning which blows up my app and makes it impossible for me to quote you. Like I said learn to use the quote feature and I might respond.
And your way of knowing about this "refusal", as you call it? Who does this? Example? Could you name a scientific fact for us? And, while we are at it, do you agree or disagree that all available relevant data shows there was no 6 day poof or world wide flood?
Your last line is correct however, we are not being told by astronomers, paleontologists or oceanographers that human beings have any control over those forces whatsoever. Yet, somehow, we are being told that we can control the climate. All I am asking for is proof in the form of replicable experimentation. Since I have already addressed this issue twice now, and no one has any answer (other than more obfuscation or ignorant statements) I'll just tell you (and anyone else) to refer to my former posts.
Yes computer models are unreliable. Pro-warmists are claiming more of an ocean rise than actual measurable effects also. Yet when speaking of AGW, GW or CC, proponents foist computer models as 'proof.' Ha Ha What did I just say? LOL Yeah we get it YOUR computer models are somehow 'better'..... Mean sea level trend is about .09 in per year. That means by 2100AD, if the rise continues, we may see an approximate 7 to 8 inch rise which is not significant. http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/
Nobody but the deniers is talking about control, science is talking about the hole we are in and stopping digging. Trying not to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the planet for human habitation and control are not the same thing. But your schtick is to deflect and demand the impossible, where nobody else is asking for that.
Climatologists exist on private and public grants. What would happen if AGW was found to be false? OOPS.....no more $$$$. No more job.
