Is nothing more than logic needed to disprove anthropogenic global warming? -Alt

Source: Author: Date: Click:

Is nothing more than logic needed to disprove anthropogenic global warming? I find it quite odd that the %26quot;alarmists%26quot; would have the deniers propound their own scientific theories or provide scientific evidence at all when the burden of proof remains on them.
This is also considering that many deniers like myself just see this as an invalid theory and are waiting for them to show us what validity (if any) the theory holds. Basically we%26#039;re not looking for other causes at the moment.

So if it%26#039;s man-made carbon emissions which cause global warming as the premise then Empirical evidence is all that%26#039;s required to prove the invalidity of that premise and thankfully you can%26#039;t fudge what everyone can observe.
So now because of these variables some have changed the parameters and say that we just speed it up or else they accept other factors influence it. What exactly is the current theory and are we all arguing at cross-purposes?

Additional Details

6 days ago

whoa slow down paul your quote %26quot;CO2 causes warming%26quot;
is there an abolute direct link that can be proven?

6 days ago

I%26#039;ll put it this way paul.
My position would be
1) I accept that the earth%26#039;s temperature could be rising
2) I accept that carbon emission are rising
3) I do NOT accept (at the moment) that there is a direct link between the man-made emissions and temperature which is the premise I believe scientists propound

6 days ago

to clarify phil what I%26#039;m saying is the validity of the theory rests upon the empirical evidence to prove a direct link. If no such link can proven then the theory is invalid.
It does not matter how good your methodology is or if you can invalidate other theories since invalidating theories does not validate your own.
I propound no theory for the time being since I%26#039;m unsure of the causes

6 days ago

what about water vapour then joe and the point being MAN-MADE emissions.
The point is there are too many possibilities.
If it%26#039;s greenhouse gases in general then surely water vapour contributes.
If it%26#039;s CO2 then a hell of alot more comes from the oceans and volcanoes.
If%26#039;it%26#039;s man-made CO2 (the theory) then how exactly is such a negligible amount causing this or does man-made CO2 have special properties :S

6 days ago

@ Dana 37% of 0.4% of the atmosphere. Hardly a vast quantity. Furthermore if its greenhouse gases causing this, the question of water vapour remains

6 days ago

@ thor faith justifies the existence of anything but proves the existenc of nothing

6 days ago

@ bob it%26#039;s still all circumstantial.
The point is greenhouse gases trap heat right. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas so why would an increase in a negligible amount of the gas cause a change in climate?
That%26#039;s where the hole is and what you need to show exists by using empirical evidence. Inconveniently however it has been shown that the hottest decade this century was the 30s... perhaps its a delayed response? I just haven%26#039;t seen proof of the correlation, just more theorising..

6 days ago

5.) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (a property of CO2)
6.) Therefore, carbon dioxide warms the climate.

That%26#039;s the connection I%26#039;m struggling with since it relies on an assumption that any increase will correlate with temperature increase. Empirical evidence?
Ice cores were proven to be inaccurate for measuring co2 in 2007 (see NIPCC report) and stomatal data is the best we have to go on.

2) %26quot;Humans are responsible for the entire 37% increase.%26quot;

Err... no. Actually humans account for around 3% of current co2 (highest figure ive seen), most co2 is produced by the sea, as it warms it produces more co2 as it can hold less gas.

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I agree with this point theortically (though it is scare in the troposphere and a mild greenhouse gas) though the evidence of global warming due to increase co2 isnt there (warming of the troposphere) so in reality it isnt doing what it is believed to.

4) Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause the planet to warm.

Yes they do to varying degrees thank god, it keeps us alive. Co2 reflects almost as much energy as it absorbs hence its a very minor greenhouse gas (see %26quot;global stability, an inconvenient proof%26quot;, an excellent paper which cover the energy process of the atmosphere as its currently understood). http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_f...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images... Seriously, I%26#039;m not sure that one thing in that answer is accurate. And %26quot;well sourced%26quot;? Is that a joke? Most of his comments are completely unsourced, and 2 of his 3 sources are from right-wing think tanks.

What an f-ing joke.

Additional Details

Other Answers (11)