Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1645)	6/11/2007 8:30:55 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

There is no comparison to the level of evidence behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The proponents are not merely arguing that the greenhouse effect exists and will be affected by the rise in atmospheric CO2 (almost nobody disputes them there). They argue that they have modelled the entire climate with sufficient accuracy to predict the surface temperature of the earth 100 years from now, taking into account all the interactions with water vapor, precipitation, cloud formation, vegetation growth, etc etc. Calling on them to offer more proof than a model which has been parameterized to fit available data is simply not on a par with doubting evolution. Nonsense. Nobody claims that they have modelled it well enough to accurately predict the surface temp 100 years from now. What they have modelled shows significant variance for that surface temp including NEGATIVE if you have only bothered to read. If you go far enough out on the confidence levels to the high side it is quite warm. Your paragraph above is classic. It does not actually deny global warming at all. In fact, as you admit, "nobody disputes it". But then you turn around and claim that since there is uncertainty, what?? We can't know for sure? We shouldn't do anything? The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is in many ways better than for biological evolution, because we can measure it today, rather than just infer it. As you note, nobody (except lunatics) claim CO2 is not a significant GHG (although many, including you IIRC then try to confuse the issue with H2O) and nobody claims that this is not a human caused spigot currently on to the tune of 5GT/yr. Sure there is debate as to how much of that the system might absorb, but as long as CO2 keeps going up, so will temps. If you want to be taken seriously (Dyson too for that matter) simply work on the scientific evidence for climate being invariant to increasing CO2. That is the only hope you have. Oddly, nobody tries to attack that, because they all agree to the answer. So instead people wave their hands and say "taking into account all the interactions with water vapor, precipitation, cloud formation, vegetation growth, etc etc" This is not a theory, or even a significant critique of one. Its called the "God of the Gaps" argument when creationists use it. We should think up a suitable name for it when used by anti-science types in other fields.