Eaarth

[t vago]

Quit confusing the issue, Neil. These other examples (the law of gravity, the theory of evolution, DNA, and such) are examples of rigorously proven theories and physical laws and plainly observable facts. AGW is not a rigorously proven theory, many observable facts throw doubt on AGW, and AGW is certainly not a law. If AGW were truly scientifically valid, it ought to be able to stand on its own merits, and not rely on a consensus of 2000 scientists and windbags who happened to win a pretty gold bauble. Appeals to authority do not work in the scientific process, and you should know that.

Why can't you answer my questions, Neil?

[NeilBlanchard]

Did you watch the NOVA video I posted? Climatologists are every bit a rigorous as all other scientists, and their work is based on observable data. I am not confusing the issue.

You just want to ignore the inconvenience of their results.

They all go through the same rigorous peer review, and there is no scientific doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Did you watch the NOVA video I posted? Climatologists are every bit a rigorous as all other scientists, and their work is based on observable data. I am not confusing the issue.

Oh, but you are. Leave it to you to belittle one television channel because it reports things that you don't agree with, yet use another television channel because it happens to report things you agree with. Did you watch these same shows, Neil. Their AGW language was covered with "projected to" and "could" and "might" and "it's possible that." Hardly a convincing argument for AGW. They don't know any more than you do what will happen.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You just want to ignore the inconvenience of their results.

And you don't want to acknowledge any bit of dissent. Even the IPCC report stated that variations in the Sun's output and variations in Earth's orbit could account for as much as 75% of the observed warming that was seen to the point that report was published. You can't even do that much.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

They all go through the same rigorous peer review, and there is no scientific doubt about anthropomorphic climate change.

The blue line represents average global temperature. The black line represents carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Look very closely at the results of the past 50 million years, Neil. They show steadily lowering carbon dioxide levels, with no observed causal change in temperature.

[t vago]

Oh, I forgot something.

Read up on the INCREASING mass of Antarctic ice, and how the much-ballyhooed ice shelf breakups really don't mean anything.

[NeilBlanchard]

It has been hotter than it is now, in the distant past. And the carbon dioxide level has been higher than it is now. How does this matter?

What matters is that we understand the past, and that we understand our affect on the Earth now, and how that will affect our future. Change will affect us, and rapid change will be much worse.

Listen, do you think that all the humans who are alive now now should try to burn up as much coal, oil, and natural gas as we can, as quickly as we can?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It has been hotter than it is now, in the distant past. And the carbon dioxide level has been higher than it is now. How does this matter?

There is no causation between the two lines, Neil. Anybody except you can see that. Temperature stayed the same for most of this time, even as carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated up and down. Are you really this obtuse?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What matters is that we understand the past, and that we understand our affect on the Earth now, and how that will affect our future. Change will affect us, and rapid change will be much worse.

And passing laws based on incomplete or wrong theories is even worse than that.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Listen, do you think that all the humans who are alive now now should try to burn up as much coal, oil, and natural gas as we can, as quickly as we can?

Nope. That would be stupid.

Why do you keep asking stupid questions, Neil? And why do you keep avoiding answering my own questions concerning AGW?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...do you think that all the humans who are alive now now should try to burn up as much coal, oil, and natural gas as we can, as quickly as we can?

That was our national mandate a few years ago, and many still subscribe to it.

[NeilBlanchard]

If you think that NOVA:

Nova (TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is on an equal scientific footing as Fox News, then I don't know what to say.

You and I are not climatologists. This is obviously an important issue, and the scientists who are working on it are just like all the other scientists in the world. and if anything, their work is under far more scrutiny than other scientists. And when people like E. O. Wilson and Sir David Attenborough and David Suzuki and Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson and many, many, many, others say that anthropomorphic climate change is real, I tend to believe them.

They outed the people in Korea who claimed to have made clones in about 10 months.

[NeilBlanchard]

If you agree that we should conserve our carbon fuels -- because we know they will run out fairly soon anyway -- then we are on the same page. Anthropogenic climate change comes from burning a lot of nonrenewable carbon fuels; pure and simple.

So, we need to do the conservative thing and err on the side of caution -- and that will accomplish both necessary goals of saving important resources, and reduce our output of greenhouse gasses at the same time.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If you think that NOVA:

Nova (TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is on an equal scientific footing as Fox News, then I don't know what to say.

LOL! You think that posting a Wikipedia entry on Nova is going to make things all better! How cute!

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You and I are not climatologists.

True, but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

This is obviously an important issue,

Correction - it was made an important issue only recently. Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth has been getting by just fine for billions of years with climate change.

And the only reason it's important now is because they're trying to pass all sorts of draconian laws restricting people's rights on the basis of a flawed and very disproveable theory.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

and the scientists who are working on it are just like all the other scientists in the world. and if anything, their work is under far more scrutiny than other scientists.

And when they get caught lying, like the scientists at the University of East Anglia (one of only two sources that went into the IPCC report that everybody is crying their heads off over), people are supposed to just brush it off. Never mind, folks, nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And when people like E. O. Wilson and Sir David Attenborough and David Suzuki and Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson and many, many, many, others say that anthropomorphic climate change is real, I tend to believe them.

See, you like to throw names of famous people around, in some attempt to lend weight to your pro-AGW argument. I could never understand how famous people are supposed to make an argument stronger.

Maybe if you use the names of Hollywood actors, then you might gain some ground. Eh?

Besides that, you do a Google search and you'll find just as many climatologists who are opposed to AGW. Quit appealing to authority, and argue AGW on its own merits.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

They outed the people in Korea who claimed to have made clones in about 10 months.

And this has relevance to AGW... How? How is cloning supposed to have relevance to crippling entire economies? How does cloning have to do with politicians burning lots of gas and using lots of resources while telling us that cloning is a danger?