Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
If you watch the Earth the Operator's Manual videos, you can learn about the science around climate change.
Like evolution, there are many overlapping fields of science that corroborate - and they are all interdependent. You can't pick and choose - the geology and biology and chemistry and astrophysics and oceanography and chemistry and basic physics - all contribute a part of the overall evidence.
The thing about doubting what the overwhelming scientific conclusion and all the data are, do you also doubt other areas of science? Plate tectonics or DNA or the atomic and subatomic particles or astrophysics or DNA are all beyond what most of us can "know" - and yet we accept them. Why is it that climate change is any different?
|
I did watch it, the closest thing they had to actual science were the ice cores. Ice cores do show some correlation, but its a dubious one at best, there is some uncertanty as to whether the CO2 rose first or temperatures rose first and which caused what. It is just continuing to tell me I am wrong and that so many people agree that I am wrong. I have been in those cases before where everyone told me I was wrong, but it turned out I was right. Likewise I have been wrong when everyone agreed with me. If you want to sway me you need to show me why I am wrong.
I have show that yes the solar output has increased, and showed my calculations of where the IPCC got their numbers for the solar influence, and pointed out that the solar influence was being compaired to CO2 with feedbacks.
I don't doubt all other science, the other areas of science you have pointed out have alolowed themselves to be open, if you have questions on those subjects they will show you why, If you disagree with a conclusion they will discuss it, and will not try to discredit your reputation. That is not so with global warming, even if you have a very credible argument your reputation gets attacked, resources removed etc... It is not open to critisism, it is not open to differing theories. If you don't support the theory that we are responsible for the vast majority they will not even share any findings (got that from the first climategate emails)
So please show me where I am wrong, the best place would be if you can show that the IPCC values for the contribution from CO2 do not include feedbacks, even better if you can provide the source for their calculations.