Observations on Global Warming.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Case closed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.

I really hope you don't think that science can't be influenced by outside factors today like it was in 1887 (and not just Ether; Evolutionism, anyone? Funny I should mention that in regards to science, whether modern or Victorian) anyway while I'm not an expert on this by any means Ether wasn't really disproved until another hypothetical model came along - also known as Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Of course I'm not saying that all those 928 reports are wrong; just that they could be wrong and there is some historical basis to believe that. Which is quite different.

I fail to see how I am a hack.

Two points.

First, we are talking about the general idea of global warming, which is definitely not wrong. This is separate from a discussion of climate models, which can always be refined to be better and better.

Secondly, about science in 2007 versus science in 1887 or 1904. There are most likely more peer reviewed scientific papers published every year now than there were total in all of human history then. 

Your argument shows a grave misunderstanding of the scientific process. You can be dead wrong in science, this isn't humanities "you are always right" bullsh**t. It's one thing to question the whether the correct scientific model is completely accurate, it's another thing to put your head in the sand.

The clear scientific consensus is global warming is happening. What's not so clear is what is the best scientific model for climate change. Ice is melting faster in the Artic than predicted.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was taking Global warming = That mankind is to blame for said hypothesis in my first post; GW is just simple shorthand and I think everyone can realize what I mean. I don't think anyone doubts that the earth is getting hotter; the question of why is another matter.

Lots of non scientists completely don't believe in Global Warming

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there was legitimate evidence otherwise, they would get it published. The fact is, that there have probably been many many times more peer reviewed papers on climate change than there were peer reviewed papers in Physics in 1904.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say Science was similiar to the humanities? Yes I know in the end there can only be one final answer on this issue (whether or not Humans are responsible for Global warming or not) and whatever that answer is, I don't happen to know it, but neither does everyone else on this forum and sometimes I wish that people would stop acting otherwise.

(As an aside; knowing a geologist who has worked with many soil samples, etc he told me that in previous eras there is significant evidence that the climate can change very rapidly, often for none too obvious reasons. Of course this may or may not have any relevance to the above debate. And if I was you, I would dismiss what I've just said as just some random ancedote. But still, just an aside.)

There are plenty of things we don't know, but it is clear that humans have a significant impact on current climate change. You can argue over how much that impact is, and how accurate the models are, but that we have a significant impact is scientific fact.