On Feb 19, 12:45*am, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109
Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that.
Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the
'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets)
one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey
stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from
1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to
~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even
different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere.
More data is needed for greater confidence, yes.
Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we
know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010.
But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is
true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers
absolutist claims are unsupported.
Unlike the absolutist claims by opponents who claim it's all bunk.
If AGW people are a "religion", people who follow McIntyre are a
"cult".
Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is
it?
The facts are these: there is global warming and humans play a part in
it. "More data" can refine "settled science".
Let's "look" at a "settled science": the "intenal combustion engine".
Recent "leaps of technology" and "improved data" have "improved their
performance" even though that "science" was "settled" over "almost a
decade ago".
You are a "****ing moron", aren't "you"?
However, refute this:
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of
the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to
reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
[27]
[i.e. Note the word "basic". Feel free to pick at nits to your
"heart's content". Feel free to play the "arrant fool".]
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore
revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-
Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute
included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as
"coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of
the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names
from the list.
[i.e. Uh-oh! The opponents will resort to dirty trick and some arrant
fools will fall in line!]
In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented
to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The
declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's
climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on
global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding
commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping
gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to
the planet and to future generations."[33] The petition was conceived
by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than
1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including
the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[34][35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Those poor Nobel laureates. What buffoons! Why, they must be "arrant
fools" just like you are!
But refute it and argue with the huge, vast majority of scientists and
scientific organizations worldwide who have viewed the evidence and
disagree with your conclusions. You're boring.