[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Science is all about the unknown. We ask questions, find some answers, and more questions are raised. There is always more unknowns.

Therefore, we have to ban all Manmade carbon dioxide now, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!!

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

My feelings? Not even close. My question still stands.

What is "not true" about sunspots?

You tell me, Neil. You keep on stating that a) they aren't important, or b) they're accounted for in your precious computer models when they're not.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Here's the direct relationship of carbon dioxide level with temperature:


(click on image for link)

Here's a graph that shows how my improved fuel economy has dragged down the average temperature of Akron, OH, and both are normalized to between 0 to 1.



You can clearly see my fuel economy go up, as the average temperature falls. I made my fuel economy increase, but the weather became colder as a result. It must be true, because it's in a graph form.

In other words, merely posting a graph that shows two different measurements, that happen to trend each other, does not mean that one caused the other. You keep neglecting to point out that a third cause might cause both to trend the same way.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But that doesn't invalidate the answers. The new questions will either confirm, adjust, or completely overturn the earlier answers. But, as we have gone along, reality has been worse than predicted by the models, and new data narrows the uncertainty.

Back in the 1980s, climate models were very crude simulations of the greenhouse effect. The main test of a climate model is to start sometime in the past and "predict" the present, with all the temperature swings and ice ages and so forth in between. When scientists tried this out on their early models, they got silly results, such as severe ice ages occurring in the 20th century. To avoid this kind of "drift," scientists applied a sort of fudge factor to ensure a sensible outcome. This doesn't do much good when it comes to predicting the future, which may be why 1988 predictions of rapid warming by 2000 never panned out. The average temperature hasn't climbed at all.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And you completely ducked the fact that anthropogenic global climate change is the scientific conclusion.

By your zealots, perhaps. Not by me. Not by others here. And certainly not by a sizeable minority of well respected scientists and professors other professionals who know much more about the details of climate than we do. Remember, Neil, science does not function as a democracy.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But the uncertainties do not negate the main conclusion!]

Which is that there's significant and credible doubt as to the accuracy or validity of AGW. Putting your conclusions in boldface do not make them somehow true.