Global Warming Caused By CO2 Only If that's The Data You Choose To Believe?

Question

There are so many different theories to why the planet is warming, all you have to do is choose one. How can you be wrong?

If you feel more comfortable following others, you believe CO2 created by man is the problem. There's certainly enough material that will support what you believe.

Maybe you wish to believe that Cosmic Rays are the cause. You can find proof to back up you position so you know you're right as well.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2003/aug_22_03.htm

Think it's sunspots? There's a couple of Russian Scientist who are putting $10,000 dollars of their own money down for you to prove them wrong. Piece of cake, man is at fault, right? Any takers? I doubt it. Safety in numbers, not actions.

http://worldofwonder.net/archives/2005/Aug/19/taking_the_earths_temperature.wow
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

There's as many theories as scientist. Which one is right? To bad no one will provide proof.

Right Robert. Science should be a vote of the consensus. No one should be burdened to prove science, that's just a waste of time and money.

Objectiveness just gets in the way of progress, right?

Answer 1

the GW scientists use every excuse to claim GW is happening.

hot day
cold day
excessive rain
lack of rain
el nino
no el nino
no snow
excessive snow

all caused by global warming.

no matter what happens, your covered.

if you think were going into an ice age 30 years ago, that was really caused by global warming.

Answer 2

i understand there are varied scientists who're obtainable who say this is genuine. I additionally understand that there are much extra politicians and journalists who gets extra acceptance, skill, and money in the event that they say this is a shown actuality. i understand Galileo became into stated as a denier and insane whilst he suggested the earth isn't the middle of the universe. i understand extremely everyone knew the international became into flat one thousand years in the past. I additionally understand that the nationwide Geographic magazine revealed a piece of writing stated as "Ice on the international", the object suggested a brilliant form of the glaciers have been increasing. the object suggested we've been plunging into yet another ice age. i understand human beings have appeared at climate graphs and function suggested international warming has been happening for extra or less sixty years. That isn't smart. or possibly i'm purely a stupid denier and don't understand approximately such issues.

Answer 3

Mr. Jello, I'm gratified to be removed from your blocked list.

I'd like to just point out that there are a lot of "forcings" or individual drivers, of the temperature of the Earth, and the actual temperature of the Earth is a combination of them all. So there's no single cause.

As to the size of the CO2 forcing term---that's well established by laboratory measurement of the electromagnetic spectrum of CO2, followed by calculation of its effect on radiative transfer in the Earth's atmosphere. There's really very little doubt or room for error about that.

I entirely agree that prediction of the future of Earth's atmosphere are uncertain, but mostly because we do not understand natural sources and sinks of greenhouse gasses.

Answer 4

True. Several different theories have been presented to explain the observed warming. However, not all theories are created equal. And a careful and objective analysis of the evidence supporting each one will certainly strip away all the weak and untenable ones. That's what the scientific method is for, after all.

Answer 5

Just once, Mr. Jello, I'd like to see you cite real peer-reviewed science instead of news reports and political advocacy sites. Here's how to cite real science: First, you point out that the cosmic-ray hypothesis has been refuted; then you link to the peer-reviewed article that refutes it:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Here's another example: First you point out that the solar activity hypothesis has been refuted; then you link to the peer-reviewed article that refutes it:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

If you began to rely on real science like that, you'd have a lot more respect from everyone.

Meanwhile, I'd just like to point out that no hypothesis other than the greenhouse hypothesis can explain the following data:
1. Increased stratospheric cooling:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html
2. Decreased diurnal temperature variation:
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

So when we have one hypothesis that CAN explain the data and hasn't been refuted, up against two other hypotheses that CANNOT explain the data and have been refuted, which is the best hypothesis? Which hypothesis deserves our support, and has earned it?

Answer 6

I would answer, but I think Cosmo and Keith pretty well owned you on this one. There is nothing left to add, and even if there was, it would be poor sportsmanship.

Answer 7

One of the favorite dodges of the deniers is "Prove it!"

Answer 8

global warming is bs.