According to the data in your Wikipedia article more CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth relatively cooler by forcing there to be less water vapor in the atmosphere.
You need to read it again.
I do not have to prove that there is something else causing it because my point isn't that I know its that we don't know.
You are careful with your words, but your assertion is quite specific, which is that some factor unknown is nullifying the effects of anthropogenic emissions, whilst simultaneously causing warming itself. This is the only way that you assertion can match the observed results.
Specific assertions require specific evidence. Since your assertion does not match the existing evidence better than the current theory, unless you can produce supporting evidence, your assertion can be summarily dismissed.
You quoted him from earlier this year, I pointed out that in 2008 and before he was a true believer.
Based on what evidence? As previously stated, the quotes you provided are both views expressed, with proper qualification, by denialists on this very forum. Are those people misrepresenting their positions? Or are you misrepresenting Mullers?
The debate was titled “Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?”, and, like in any debate, Haught and Coyne were expected to argue for and and against the motion, respectively. I find it bizarre that you're insinuating Coyne had ulterior motives by apparently doing exactly what he was invited to do.
In fact we have no information on how well either of them performed against expectations, excepting an assessment for Coyne himself. And you seem to have jumped into using some pretty emotive and accusatory language there.
Your argument doesn't make any sense, and it seems to be based solely on the fact that Coyne is an atheist. How dare an atheist argue that science and religion aren't compatible! At a debate where he was specifically invited to argue that science and religion aren't compatible!
To be clear, Coyne is entitled to his beliefs, and entitled to express them. He is, however, a biased observer of those proceedings, as is Haught. An objective account is required to achieve more than mere speculation.
Talk about "clouded" thinking! You've apparently decided that any atheist who actually dares to speak up about his atheism—even in an open, academic forum he was invited to for the explicit purpose of talking about atheism and religion—is a big bad meaniepants who you must criticize in a lengthy comment. As for the people who censor said atheist, you couldn't bring yourself to write a single word of criticism.
You took what I said as criticism of Coyne based on his position - I think you are being overly sensitive.
It's telling that you've not said a single thing about your fellow Christian's decision to suppress the video, even though you apparently believe (rightly) that the video of the debate should be published.
You expect us to take it on faith that it was entirely Haught's decision, and that his reasoning was as described by Coyne. I'm sceptical.
Yes, I said "your fellow Christian": based on your muddy thinking and overt bias against Jerry Coyne, there can be zero doubt where your faith rests.
Well, there's a question for the ages - what am I? But perhaps more pertinently, why would my (unspecified) beliefs render me ineligible to comment on this subject, when yours do not?
And do you think the world is divided into Atheists and Christians? It isn't.
More broadly, do you think the world divided into Atheists and "the religious"? It isn't
Non-atheists do not categorise the world in that way. Have you ever thought to honestly ask why?
Well, yes we can, because we only have Coynes interpretation of Haught reasons for not wanting to release the video. Coyne is not a disinterested party.
I'm inclined to reserve judgement on this for the time being. At the moment, we only have one side of the story, with the content of the debate not given from the perspective of a disinterested observer. It would be good to see the tape, but not from the perspective of advancing the dialogue between these differing beliefs, since this doesn't seem to have been Coynes aim. From his blog, it's implied that he went in expecting to debunk Haught, on the presumption that debunking Haught would somehow demonstrate the truth of Coynes own position. From his blog, we see, though the clouded lens of Coynes own theology, glimpses of what might have happened in the eyes of an unbiased observer (a non-atheist, non-Catholic). For example, he claims to have drawn Haught on some point and claimed that Haught was tryign to offer a proof for the existence of God - which Haught denied. I would think it highly unlikely the Haught meant to offer those remarks as proof in the manner Coyne describes. It appears that Haught arrived not for the sake of making a defence of his books and certainly not covering Coynes views specifically (Coynes appears deeply insulted by this), but maybe to outline in general terms the consistency between the scientific position (with it's grounding in natural philosophy), and that of his own, theistic belief. What did Haught consider the debate to be about?
Who are these guys? Coyne describes Haught as Americas leading theologian on the subject - but I've never heard of him, nor Coyne himself up to this point.
The top three recipients of US foreign aid: Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel. Remove the aid for these countries, and total US foreign aid contributions are easily outstripped by any number of OECD countries.
Note that 'bilateral development relief' means that the donor country attaches specific requirements to the aid, e.g. this aid is for a bridge, or power station, and it must be built by contractors from the donor country. Also not mentioned is the other purpose, which is simply to purchase influence. Which brings us to China. Why is China spending so much money in Africa?
http://www.cgdev.org/files/13953_file_Chinese_aid.pdf They are not being charitable, they are just purchasing votes from those countries in key contests. Consider what happened at the Copenhagen round of climate discussions - a major diplomatic loss for the west, and a major win for China. Why? Because China (or more accurately BRIC (Brazil/Russia/India/China) ) bought Africa.
By the relatively paucity of it's foreign aid budget, the US is effectively eating it's own young.
That's nice, except that he published a book in 2008 [grist.org] that suggested that one of the challenges facing the next President was to confront global warming and in the 1980s he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed what he viewed as the only energy option available to fight man-made global warming, nuclear power.
Both of which are views expressed, with proper qualification, by denialists on this very forum. Its a broad church. Also I note that you guys had no trouble referring to him and his work when it supported your meme of scepticism. Yet now you question not his results, but his character - Judas! Iago!
So, in 2011 he started giving out quotes to sound like he was not a true believer, after close to 3 decades of being a promoter of the theory.
Ahhhh - so he was PRETENDING to be a sceptic ALL ALONG so that he could pretend that his methodology was open - is he also in cahoots with the Illuminati? How deep this rabbit hole goes.
Anyway, this is exactly what I predicted above, Muller portrayed as a traitor and a turncoat. Interesting to see that Bolt and Climate Depot are both following the same line. No sharing of source material there eh?
Again, you are contradicting 150 years of peer reviewed science: In the 1860s, John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall) observed the radiative properties of CO2 and the theory of AGW arose soon after. This was prior to an observed rise in temperature.
To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise.
You may, if you wish, assert that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin. If you choose to make that assertion you will, as previously mentioned, need to have some pretty irrefutable evidence.
You would also need some evidence to show that CO2 emissions are causing the rise in the earths temperatures (and not just state the fact that its radiative).
So you are asserting the latter - that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin.
1. Please detail the phenomena is causing the temperature to rise at exactly the rate predicted by Tyndall and others in their seminal work on the subject.
2. Please detail the second phenomena which neutralises the effect of anthropogenic emissions of the greenhouse gases (whilst not neutralising the effect of the emissions from natural sources), such that our emissions are having no effect.
And - if you wouldn't mind (I've been told I must be more polite in these discussions), please show working.
The true skeptic - and I consider myself such - requires adequate scientific PROOF of a claim before believing that claim. I am a climate change skeptic because I do not believe that proof to have been offered adequately at this point.
Burden of proof fallacy. It doesn't matter what you believe/don't believe, what matters is that you must justify your position with solid data.
I remain unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence presented that we are the major cause, or one of the most significant causes.
What proportion of the observed warming is attributable to anthropogenic causes?
Show working,
We are talking about science, ladies, gentlemen and undetermined, so let's act like we are.
Only one side speaks in scientific terms, and has presented scientific evidence. The other employs rhetoric. Don't bring a wet noodle to a jousting competition.
"Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice."
19 March 2011
"The issues that there is strong agreement on is that we have seen global warming over the past 100 years. An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans? And that's a subject that really can use more investigation."
11 April 2011
Again, you are contradicting 150 years of peer reviewed science: In the 1860s, John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall) observed the radiative properties of CO2 and the theory of AGW arose soon after. This was prior to an observed rise in temperature.
To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise.
You may, if you wish, assert that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin. If you choose to make that assertion you will, as previously mentioned, need to have some pretty irrefutable evidence.
That does not mean that first world countries will be unaffected - this is a strawman on your part, and simultaneously an unspoken assumption on the part of the denialist groupthink.
Denialists rely upon a narrative. After all, they are faced with an insurmountable amount of repeated observations stretching back 100 years - the entirety of human reasoning and science is against them. The only way for Denialism to seem reasonable is to formulate a narrative, a myth based on an evil conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the actual truth. Its all a conspiracy! That explains why the science is all in agreement!
Muller has destroyed that narrative. By formulating a test outside of the conspiracy in the narrative, he has demonstrated that the narrative is myth. The CRU was right. GISS was right. The narrative that they colluded to fake the data is debunked.
Not sure where this "conspiracy" meme is coming from. Possibly the Laframboise book.
From hearing about the conspiracy, ad nauseum, from denialists here on Slashdot. Actually.
Anyway, one doesn't need a conspiracy. Only a whole lot of money to be made.
I mean, it's not a if oil companies and the coal mining industry are motivated by money, or have massive PR budgets, or ever employ those budgets to present a public image which contrasts with reality. At all.
Here is what I know to be true.
1: Global Warming is real
2: The greenhouse effect is real
3: CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect
4: While the effect of water is greater, the effect of CO2 will be cumulative, hence we can (mostly) ignore the effect of water.
What pray tell are you suggesting I'm denying?
Are you asking me to guess your view of anthropogenic global warming? Why should I do that?
Denialists rely upon a narrative. After all, they are faced with an insurmountable amount of repeated observations stretching back 100 years - the entirety of human reasoning and science is against them. The only way for Denialism to seem reasonable is to formulate a narrative, a myth based on an evil conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the actual truth. Its all a conspiracy! That explains why the science is all in agreement!
Muller has destroyed that narrative. By formulating a test outside of the conspiracy in the narrative, he has demonstrated that the narrative is myth. The CRU was right. GISS was right. The narrative that they colluded to fake the data is debunked.
We've had hints of that already. After that comes "But is it really a problem if poor people die? Don't the environmentalists say there a too many people? They should be happy to see these people dying!"
Richard has betrayed the cause. In Australia, the previous government threatened to defund the CSIRO if they published or mentioned the results of their climate modelling - and similarly, climate scientists were subjected to death threats and had members of their families threatened by thugs, after they spoke publicly on the subject.
Richard should therefore keep his head down. These aren't people that follow the path of reason, and there is a lot of money at stake.
I'm not making any decision about what the question should be I came to that conclusion based upon reason.
On the surface of it, your (as yet un detailed) reasoning ignores 100 years of scientific discovery. Your observations would need to be irrefutable to support such a conclusion.
Whether I'm right about us not knowing the cause is completely irrelevant to that conclusion.
I hope you don't me saying so, but that statement makes no sense. It sounds more like you don't know whether or not we are causing climate change - a lack of knowledge on your part does not, in any way, imply a general lack of knowledge on that subject.
What do they mean "natural variability"? 20,000 years ago, New York state was under 2 kilometers of ice. Now that's variability. S
And what is the temperature variation between the new york of 20 000 years ago and now? Wouldn't that temperature change be explained by the inter glacial cycle?
Seems to me any swing in temp is inside 'natural' variabiliy.
Seems to me that you didn't supply any actual data to justify that position - instead relying on anecdote.
Why do so many people think "Do you believe Global Warming is real?" is an important and controversial question. We know the Earth is getting warmer.
I'd question whether there really is many people who think this question is controversial - there is a well funded PR campaign which has the aim of creating the impression that there is controversy, but in fact, the number of people is likely to be lower than the amount of noise generated would otherwise suggest.
The most important question should be "Why is the Earth getting warmer?". The answer is we don't really know and we might not ever know.
You don't get to choose what the question should be. If I had my way, the question should be: what punishment should be meted out to executives, PR companies, media and individuals that perpetuate the fraud of global warming denial for their own ends, knowing full well that it is real and what the cause is?
Unfortunately, I don't get to choose the question either.
Has the concentrations of CO2 in the martian atmosphere changed since we started observing it?
When I was a child, I read in a national geographic article that the reason that Venus was so hot was due to the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That theory was, at the time, uncontroversial. Why is the uncontroversial theory for the Venusian climate suddenly controversial when applied to the Earth and it's climate?
"The earth is flat and resides on the back of a giant turtle" was the best available explanation at some point.
That explanation has not been in effect for probably 2 thousand years - pre dating the observations and reasoning applied to the issue by the ancient greeks.
If a theory is indicated to be true by repeated observation, then a better theory that is demonstrably better at matching the observations is the only reasonable path to rejecting the theory. Rejecting the theory on the basis that it conflicts with untested assumptions in your worldview is not a rational or convincing reason.
The turtle bit was probably a failure to separate observation from fantasy, but not the "flat" bit. Just, please, don't use "I don't know of anything else" as a reason to assume causality. "I don't know" is not an argument. "This is the only possibly explanation I can think of" is not a proof of causality. It's a proof that it's a good place to look for causality.
And indeed, you've debunked at least half of the arguments offered in this forum by denialists. Referring to the 2 basic questions I ask all denialists:
1. If CO2 is observed in experiments to absorb light in a certain spectra at a given rate - what phenomena prevents this absorption in human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere?
2. What phenomena is causing the earth to warm at exactly the rate predicted by climate models, if not the aforementioned human emissions?
Noting your comments above: I don't know doesn't qualify as proof, but - as yet - this is the only reasoning offered for rejecting the pre-existing science.
For this reason I tend to be sceptical about so called sceptics wrt climate science.
Every confirmation that the Earth is warming without providing any other plausible explanation for the warming is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
It was predicted years ago that my anti-ninja rock will keep ninjas from killing me. Every confirmation that ninjas haven't killed me without providing any other plausible explanation for the lack of me dying is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
A more plausible explanation is that there are no ninjas. If not for the increased concentrations of CO2, what is the more plausible explanation for the earth warming at exactly the rate predicted by science based on the theory of AGW?
Slashdot Mirror
According to the data in your Wikipedia article more CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth relatively cooler by forcing there to be less water vapor in the atmosphere.
You need to read it again.
I do not have to prove that there is something else causing it because my point isn't that I know its that we don't know.
You are careful with your words, but your assertion is quite specific, which is that some factor unknown is nullifying the effects of anthropogenic emissions, whilst simultaneously causing warming itself. This is the only way that you assertion can match the observed results.
Specific assertions require specific evidence. Since your assertion does not match the existing evidence better than the current theory, unless you can produce supporting evidence, your assertion can be summarily dismissed.
You quoted him from earlier this year, I pointed out that in 2008 and before he was a true believer.
Based on what evidence? As previously stated, the quotes you provided are both views expressed, with proper qualification, by denialists on this very forum. Are those people misrepresenting their positions? Or are you misrepresenting Mullers?
The debate was titled “Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?”, and, like in any debate, Haught and Coyne were expected to argue for and and against the motion, respectively. I find it bizarre that you're insinuating Coyne had ulterior motives by apparently doing exactly what he was invited to do.
In fact we have no information on how well either of them performed against expectations, excepting an assessment for Coyne himself. And you seem to have jumped into using some pretty emotive and accusatory language there.
Your argument doesn't make any sense, and it seems to be based solely on the fact that Coyne is an atheist. How dare an atheist argue that science and religion aren't compatible! At a debate where he was specifically invited to argue that science and religion aren't compatible!
To be clear, Coyne is entitled to his beliefs, and entitled to express them. He is, however, a biased observer of those proceedings, as is Haught. An objective account is required to achieve more than mere speculation.
Talk about "clouded" thinking! You've apparently decided that any atheist who actually dares to speak up about his atheism—even in an open, academic forum he was invited to for the explicit purpose of talking about atheism and religion—is a big bad meaniepants who you must criticize in a lengthy comment. As for the people who censor said atheist, you couldn't bring yourself to write a single word of criticism.
You took what I said as criticism of Coyne based on his position - I think you are being overly sensitive.
It's telling that you've not said a single thing about your fellow Christian's decision to suppress the video, even though you apparently believe (rightly) that the video of the debate should be published.
You expect us to take it on faith that it was entirely Haught's decision, and that his reasoning was as described by Coyne. I'm sceptical.
Yes, I said "your fellow Christian": based on your muddy thinking and overt bias against Jerry Coyne, there can be zero doubt where your faith rests.
Well, there's a question for the ages - what am I? But perhaps more pertinently, why would my (unspecified) beliefs render me ineligible to comment on this subject, when yours do not?
And do you think the world is divided into Atheists and Christians? It isn't.
More broadly, do you think the world divided into Atheists and "the religious"? It isn't
Non-atheists do not categorise the world in that way. Have you ever thought to honestly ask why?
Well, yes we can, because we only have Coynes interpretation of Haught reasons for not wanting to release the video. Coyne is not a disinterested party.
Who are these guys? Coyne describes Haught as Americas leading theologian on the subject - but I've never heard of him, nor Coyne himself up to this point.
Maybe we should give those guys a call
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries (US = 19th).
Breakdown of US foreign aid by country (Warning this makes for confronting reading):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
The top three recipients of US foreign aid: Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel. Remove the aid for these countries, and total US foreign aid contributions are easily outstripped by any number of OECD countries.
Notably, most reliable data does not include the breakdown of 'devleopment' relief versus humanitarian relief: see here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/41724314.pdf
Note that 'bilateral development relief' means that the donor country attaches specific requirements to the aid, e.g. this aid is for a bridge, or power station, and it must be built by contractors from the donor country. Also not mentioned is the other purpose, which is simply to purchase influence. Which brings us to China. Why is China spending so much money in Africa?
http://www.cgdev.org/files/13953_file_Chinese_aid.pdf They are not being charitable, they are just purchasing votes from those countries in key contests. Consider what happened at the Copenhagen round of climate discussions - a major diplomatic loss for the west, and a major win for China. Why? Because China (or more accurately BRIC (Brazil/Russia/India/China) ) bought Africa.
By the relatively paucity of it's foreign aid budget, the US is effectively eating it's own young.
That's nice, except that he published a book in 2008 [grist.org] that suggested that one of the challenges facing the next President was to confront global warming and in the 1980s he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed what he viewed as the only energy option available to fight man-made global warming, nuclear power.
Both of which are views expressed, with proper qualification, by denialists on this very forum. Its a broad church. Also I note that you guys had no trouble referring to him and his work when it supported your meme of scepticism. Yet now you question not his results, but his character - Judas! Iago!
So, in 2011 he started giving out quotes to sound like he was not a true believer, after close to 3 decades of being a promoter of the theory.
Ahhhh - so he was PRETENDING to be a sceptic ALL ALONG so that he could pretend that his methodology was open - is he also in cahoots with the Illuminati? How deep this rabbit hole goes. Anyway, this is exactly what I predicted above, Muller portrayed as a traitor and a turncoat. Interesting to see that Bolt and Climate Depot are both following the same line. No sharing of source material there eh?
Again, you are contradicting 150 years of peer reviewed science: In the 1860s, John Tyndall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall) observed the radiative properties of CO2 and the theory of AGW arose soon after. This was prior to an observed rise in temperature. To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise. You may, if you wish, assert that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin. If you choose to make that assertion you will, as previously mentioned, need to have some pretty irrefutable evidence.
You would also need some evidence to show that CO2 emissions are causing the rise in the earths temperatures (and not just state the fact that its radiative).
So you are asserting the latter - that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin.
1. Please detail the phenomena is causing the temperature to rise at exactly the rate predicted by Tyndall and others in their seminal work on the subject.
2. Please detail the second phenomena which neutralises the effect of anthropogenic emissions of the greenhouse gases (whilst not neutralising the effect of the emissions from natural sources), such that our emissions are having no effect.
And - if you wouldn't mind (I've been told I must be more polite in these discussions), please show working.
The true skeptic - and I consider myself such - requires adequate scientific PROOF of a claim before believing that claim. I am a climate change skeptic because I do not believe that proof to have been offered adequately at this point.
Burden of proof fallacy. It doesn't matter what you believe/don't believe, what matters is that you must justify your position with solid data.
I remain unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence presented that we are the major cause, or one of the most significant causes.
What proportion of the observed warming is attributable to anthropogenic causes?
Show working,
We are talking about science, ladies, gentlemen and undetermined, so let's act like we are.
Only one side speaks in scientific terms, and has presented scientific evidence. The other employs rhetoric. Don't bring a wet noodle to a jousting competition.
"Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice."
19 March 2011
"The issues that there is strong agreement on is that we have seen global warming over the past 100 years. An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans? And that's a subject that really can use more investigation."
11 April 2011
Quacks like a duck, I'd suggest it's a duck.
To repeat: The prediction pre-dated any observed rise: and hence there was never a time in which a temperature rise was observed without us knowing what had caused that rise.
You may, if you wish, assert that some other phenomena is causing the temperature to rise, whilst a second phenomena is nullifying the predicted effects of the greenhouse gases which are anthropogenic in origin. If you choose to make that assertion you will, as previously mentioned, need to have some pretty irrefutable evidence.
In any case, the fact that the poor are especially vulnerable to the ravages of climate change has been well documented:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820082101.htm
http://www.economist.com/node/14447171
Also see the IPCC report.
That does not mean that first world countries will be unaffected - this is a strawman on your part, and simultaneously an unspoken assumption on the part of the denialist groupthink.
Denialists rely upon a narrative. After all, they are faced with an insurmountable amount of repeated observations stretching back 100 years - the entirety of human reasoning and science is against them. The only way for Denialism to seem reasonable is to formulate a narrative, a myth based on an evil conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the actual truth. Its all a conspiracy! That explains why the science is all in agreement!
Muller has destroyed that narrative. By formulating a test outside of the conspiracy in the narrative, he has demonstrated that the narrative is myth. The CRU was right. GISS was right. The narrative that they colluded to fake the data is debunked.
Not sure where this "conspiracy" meme is coming from. Possibly the Laframboise book.
From hearing about the conspiracy, ad nauseum, from denialists here on Slashdot. Actually.
Anyway, one doesn't need a conspiracy. Only a whole lot of money to be made.
I mean, it's not a if oil companies and the coal mining industry are motivated by money, or have massive PR budgets, or ever employ those budgets to present a public image which contrasts with reality. At all.
Also, I'm a "denialist" (nice Godwin by the way).
Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism - don't bring a wet noodle to a knife fight.
Here is what I know to be true. 1: Global Warming is real 2: The greenhouse effect is real 3: CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect 4: While the effect of water is greater, the effect of CO2 will be cumulative, hence we can (mostly) ignore the effect of water. What pray tell are you suggesting I'm denying?
Are you asking me to guess your view of anthropogenic global warming? Why should I do that?
Different strokes for different folks.
Muller has destroyed that narrative. By formulating a test outside of the conspiracy in the narrative, he has demonstrated that the narrative is myth. The CRU was right. GISS was right. The narrative that they colluded to fake the data is debunked.
Oh yes. Now that he is debunking rather than supporting the denialist mythology, his motivations can be called into question.
We've had hints of that already. After that comes "But is it really a problem if poor people die? Don't the environmentalists say there a too many people? They should be happy to see these people dying!"
Richard should therefore keep his head down. These aren't people that follow the path of reason, and there is a lot of money at stake.
I'm not making any decision about what the question should be I came to that conclusion based upon reason.
On the surface of it, your (as yet un detailed) reasoning ignores 100 years of scientific discovery. Your observations would need to be irrefutable to support such a conclusion.
Whether I'm right about us not knowing the cause is completely irrelevant to that conclusion.
I hope you don't me saying so, but that statement makes no sense. It sounds more like you don't know whether or not we are causing climate change - a lack of knowledge on your part does not, in any way, imply a general lack of knowledge on that subject.
What do they mean "natural variability"? 20,000 years ago, New York state was under 2 kilometers of ice. Now that's variability. S
And what is the temperature variation between the new york of 20 000 years ago and now? Wouldn't that temperature change be explained by the inter glacial cycle?
Seems to me any swing in temp is inside 'natural' variabiliy.
Seems to me that you didn't supply any actual data to justify that position - instead relying on anecdote.
Why do so many people think "Do you believe Global Warming is real?" is an important and controversial question. We know the Earth is getting warmer.
I'd question whether there really is many people who think this question is controversial - there is a well funded PR campaign which has the aim of creating the impression that there is controversy, but in fact, the number of people is likely to be lower than the amount of noise generated would otherwise suggest.
The most important question should be "Why is the Earth getting warmer?". The answer is we don't really know and we might not ever know.
You don't get to choose what the question should be. If I had my way, the question should be: what punishment should be meted out to executives, PR companies, media and individuals that perpetuate the fraud of global warming denial for their own ends, knowing full well that it is real and what the cause is?
Unfortunately, I don't get to choose the question either.
Has the concentrations of CO2 in the martian atmosphere changed since we started observing it?
When I was a child, I read in a national geographic article that the reason that Venus was so hot was due to the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That theory was, at the time, uncontroversial. Why is the uncontroversial theory for the Venusian climate suddenly controversial when applied to the Earth and it's climate?
"The earth is flat and resides on the back of a giant turtle" was the best available explanation at some point.
That explanation has not been in effect for probably 2 thousand years - pre dating the observations and reasoning applied to the issue by the ancient greeks.
If a theory is indicated to be true by repeated observation, then a better theory that is demonstrably better at matching the observations is the only reasonable path to rejecting the theory. Rejecting the theory on the basis that it conflicts with untested assumptions in your worldview is not a rational or convincing reason.
The turtle bit was probably a failure to separate observation from fantasy, but not the "flat" bit. Just, please, don't use "I don't know of anything else" as a reason to assume causality. "I don't know" is not an argument. "This is the only possibly explanation I can think of" is not a proof of causality. It's a proof that it's a good place to look for causality.
And indeed, you've debunked at least half of the arguments offered in this forum by denialists. Referring to the 2 basic questions I ask all denialists:
1. If CO2 is observed in experiments to absorb light in a certain spectra at a given rate - what phenomena prevents this absorption in human emitted CO2 in the atmosphere?
2. What phenomena is causing the earth to warm at exactly the rate predicted by climate models, if not the aforementioned human emissions?
Noting your comments above: I don't know doesn't qualify as proof, but - as yet - this is the only reasoning offered for rejecting the pre-existing science.
For this reason I tend to be sceptical about so called sceptics wrt climate science.
Every confirmation that the Earth is warming without providing any other plausible explanation for the warming is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
It was predicted years ago that my anti-ninja rock will keep ninjas from killing me. Every confirmation that ninjas haven't killed me without providing any other plausible explanation for the lack of me dying is more evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
A more plausible explanation is that there are no ninjas. If not for the increased concentrations of CO2, what is the more plausible explanation for the earth warming at exactly the rate predicted by science based on the theory of AGW?