In terms of the percentage of respondents who didn't support the AGW hypothesis, I see you're still struggling to figure out what 100 minus 66 equals.You're right. Quoting a survey as 'proof' when only a minuscule percentage agree with your stated view is downright Orwellian.
It might be true, but it has not been proven. This is all about money.Now, we know who's being dishonest.
There was nothing that said the respondents who voted unknown or don't know "support" the hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of warming. You just made that up.
Even worse, since you're counting those respondents as part of the "consensus," you have confirmed the "consensus" is a total crock.
Indeed. Given that the predictions have been so spectacularly wrong, it would seem the AGW hypothesis is in a lot of trouble.It might be true, but it has not been proven.
That is a false equivalence. Smoking can be proved using stats and controls to be harmful, with a large enough sample size you can get confidence level that is approximately 100% though never quite 100%.Tobacco industry says the same thing about smoking and cancer. Nothing is ever proven in science, there is a flaw in every hypothesis. We know that our theory of gravity is wrong and that there is a better explanation that we haven't discovered yet.
Human caused global warming is the best predictive theory we have, fitting the data far better then any alternative theory.
All the theories have holes. If you demand that there e absolutely no unexplained data point before you accept a theory then you can't even accept the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain quantum mechanics.
Electric cars are a piece of the solution, but my issue is that it takes up too much of the limelight and it gives the impression that if only we could get electric cars that it would be the solution to our problems. The actual technology that will make a difference is in some basement of some reseach lab in some university that is overseen by a bunch of 40 year old virgins. It ain't sexy it ain't glamourous, it is just science.Electric cars are a key part of the puzzle, though, because they mean that you can have a car powered by ANYTHING. Previously, you could only have a car powered by hydrocarbons.
And even when you use hydrocarbons to generate the electricity, if you do it in a power generation plant there are many more opportunities to reduce the emissions--a power plant can use technology and filters that you can't easily put into a car.
And of course you can use relatively clean things like nuclear power to generate the electricity instead of hydrocarbons. While the left gets into a tizzy over nuclear power, the reality is that it doesn't cause global warming or climate change--it has some local risks around the nuclear plant, but no significant risks to the planet as a whole.
So yes while electric cars just move where the power is generated from the car to a power plant, by doing that they open up the playing field for ANY power generation technology that we can devise.
That is a false equivalence. Smoking can be proved using stats and controls to be harmful, with a large enough sample size you can get confidence level that is approximately 100% though never quite 100%.
Where you used to use newton's theory of gravity and it gave good results, you can still use newton's theory of gravity, relativity did not invalidate newton's theory of gravity.
I hear the same rationale from any debate I watch between religion and science, the religious always guy say something akin to "well science is not 100% correct, neither is religion, so it is a push, we are both the same".
If you list your car for sale for 10k, and you get 2 offers, one for $9999 and one for $1, neither is your asking price but one offer is very different than the other offer and it is not reasonable to say since both offers are less than 10k that they are both effectively the same.
There's a bit of a false comparison in your question, as AGW is (in scientific terms) a hypothesis, not a theory. Unlike the AGW hypothesis, the "standard theories" you're comparing it with are actually supported by strong evidence.Are we really that uncertain about AGW than other standard theories?
Well I can tell you that in 2 weeks water will boil at 100C, if you fall off a cliff you will be subject to forces as accurately described by newton, your iphone will be able to tweet, and the viagra will still work.I think Fuji is saying the same thing.
Are we really that uncertain about AGW than other standard theories?
My advice to GPIDEAL would be to avoid using Australia's Tim Flannery as a source:Please tell me something about the climate in 2 weeks with the same confidence.
I don't know who he is but not sure I should rely on you as a source MF-2.My advice to GPIDEAL would be to avoid using Australia's Tim Flannery as a source:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...ho-gets-it-wrong/story-fni0ffxg-1226838538089
AGW isn't about predicting what happens in two weeks though?Well I can tell you that in 2 weeks water will boil at 100C, if you fall off a cliff you will be subject to forces as accurately described by newton, your iphone will be able to tweet, and the viagra will still work.
Please tell me something about the climate in 2 weeks with the same confidence.
There's a bit of a false comparison in your question, as AGW is (in scientific terms) a hypothesis, not a theory. Unlike the AGW hypothesis, the "standard theories" you're comparing it with are actually supported by strong evidence.
As for the level of uncertainty in the AGW hypothesis, it is enormous. In fact, that was one of the clear revelations in the Climategate emails -- to promote "the cause" (Michael Mann's words), the climate researchers have been downplaying and hiding the huge uncertainties.
The reality is this:
-- While a slight bit of warming has occurred in the last 135 years (about 1 degree C), there is no evidence that it is unprecedented or unusual.
-- There is no evidence that man-made emissions were the dominant cause of the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century.
-- The predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature in the 21st century have been spectacularly wrong.
The last point is particularly important with respect to your question.
You test a hypothesis by making predictions and then measuring the observed data against the predictions. The fact that the predictions have been so spectacularly wrong is good reason to think the hypothesis should be rejected.
At the very least, we should acknowledge that the science in this area is far from "settled."
Suit yourself.I don't know who he is but not sure I should rely on you as a source MF-2.
In two weeks the best supported theory will still be that human production of greenhouse gases has resulted in global warming. That theory will still fit the data better than all others. It will still have gaps. The gaps it has will still be less glaring than those in the bunk moviefan is pushing here.Well I can tell you that in 2 weeks water will boil at 100C, if you fall off a cliff you will be subject to forces as accurately described by newton, your iphone will be able to tweet, and the viagra will still work.
Please tell me something about the climate in 2 weeks with the same confidence.
The so-called "consensus" doesn't exist. It's a propaganda talking point.Ok but how can a consensus or majority of scientists for AGW exist if the results as you say "are spectacularly wrong" (you keep on using that adjective like a broken record)?
The "consistently and spectacularly wrong" line initially appeared in an article last year in the Wall Street Journal and was subsequently picked up in a Charles Krauthammer column that ran in the National Post and elsewhere....if the results as you say "are spectacularly wrong" (you keep on using that adjective like a broken record)?
So what is the "theory" that the climatologist clubs have for the almost exact same rate of so called "global warming" from 1910 thru 1945 as per NASA's graph,...or is that just another unexplained natural phenomena,...???In two weeks the best supported theory will still be that human production of greenhouse gases has resulted in global warming. That theory will still fit the data better than all others. It will still have gaps. The gaps it has will still be less glaring than those in the bunk moviefan is pushing here.
Human caused global warming started with the industrial revolution. Actually, with the agricultural revolution.So what is the "theory" that the climatologist clubs have for the almost exact same rate of so called "global warming" from 1910 thru 1945 as per NASA's graph,...or is that just another unexplained natural phenomena,...???
FAST
You are asking for a weather prediction, not a prediction of the climate.Well I can tell you that in 2 weeks water will boil at 100C, if you fall off a cliff you will be subject to forces as accurately described by newton, your iphone will be able to tweet, and the viagra will still work.
Please tell me something about the climate in 2 weeks with the same confidence.
Too bad you admitted its wrong.The "consistently and spectacularly wrong" line initially appeared in an article last year in the Wall Street Journal and was subsequently picked up in a Charles Krauthammer column that ran in the National Post and elsewhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
I love that line, particularly since it gets under the skin of the devout AGW believers. And because it's true.
Even our bet shows you to be wrong, with the present temp within 0.01ºC of IPCC projections according to you.The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.
