Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- From: Robert Grumbine <bobg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:04:03 -0600
In article <gm775h$qqv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cat_in_awe wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article
<f7287acf-a02d-4684-aa23-46a3df0307f3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John - Melb wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:07 am, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've read what you've written. You've failed to make your case.
Sorry
Trevor Tosspot doesn't have to make any case, it's known throughout
Usenet that he "only deals in facts".
I'm sorry Cat, but if you're unable to accept Trevor Tosspot's
arguements and demand that he provides proof to his assertions, that
simply means that you're delusional and clearly suffering from a
serious mental health condition.
ROFLMAO!
Cat didn't answer when I asked, but maybe you will:
What evidence would persuade you that
a) climate is changing
All the evidence says this is true. No argument there.
b) part of the reason for that change in the last 50 years is human
activity
I've seen nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that demonstrated this is true.
Of course not. That's why my question exists.
Black lines in emission spectra do not prove that CO2 heats the earth's
atmosphere in any inordinate way.
Ok, information about radiative transfer in the atmosphere is
irrelevant to your conclusion. But that wasn't the question.
Question is, what observations _would_ you find persuasive (if
they existed, or were made a year from now, etc.).
AGW models also depends on positive
feedback effects related to water vapor that most certainly are negative.
(See heat of evaporation and cloud cover).
Again, telling me that no observations of how clouds actually behave
will persuade you doesn't tell me what you _would_ find persuasive.
The significance of the question is, if your conclusions are
based in science, then there _could_ be observations which would
lead you to change your mind. For example, a biologist was asked
what evidence would persuade him that the theory of evolution was
wrong. His answer was, 'fossil rabbits in the precambrian'. A
little more narrow than strictly needed, but does show a route to
the disproof.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
- References:
- Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- From: Cat_in_awe
- Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- Prev by Date: Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- Next by Date: Australia in worst heat wave in its history,article link
- Previous by thread: Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- Next by thread: Re: ABC Caught Out Censoring Climate Change Skepticism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
