Where is your control when you do your AGW tests? What test Earth do you have hidden with no humans to do the control against?
The individual tests, like CO2 traps heat, do have a control, but then you have to prove the control holds in the larger ecosystem. That part has been proven false, as the type of heating observed does not match predictions.
Please do set up a control/test group test for the entire ecosystem that matches your mouse experiment.
I am curious how you get another earth, with everything but humans to make a valid test.
200% of the increase? Err... math is not your strong point is it? How do you get more than 100% of the increase? Wait, I don't want to know what passes for reasoning in your head.
Probably useless to go on, but I will try anyway.
Boltulotoxin: You have to show CO2 is just as deadly before you make a false comparison. CO2 levels have been higher in previous ages, and the entire planet did not die off, which just about every complex organism would if it were exposed to the toxin you set up as a false comparison.
Global temp from last ice age:
Geez, go use google.
here let me do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
look for the chart showing temps going up since last ice age peak of 20K years ago.
TSI:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisir...
easy correlation there. Match to warming trends, much stronger than CO2.
The only problem with your list is that they are not proven to be causal, and not co-incidental, and caused by humans
CO2 is a greenhouse gas... yes, but not to the degree the models are claiming, or it would be hotter
C02 is increasing
C02 is partially man made. Stipulate nearly all man made.
C02 is large/rapid,but we are talking a change from
Average global temp is on the rise, but has been doing so since the end of the last ice age.
There are other mechanism at play, like that great big fusion ball in the sky, that fluctuates in output. Or water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas.
BTW, you do realize we could not live on the planet without greenhouse gasses? an average temp of -18C would not be conductive to humans, or most of the life on the planet.
Your sources are incorrect. The paper claims solar irradiation is down in the last 30 years, it is not down over the years since the Industrial Revolution.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/...
To my knowledge, AGW skeptics do not run the LASP Colorado lab. In fact, it follows a pretty decent trend up from the 1700s, just like the Global Warming claims.
Only I don't need humans to show it, I can use that gigantic ball of fusion in the sky that adds magnitudes more energy to the system than we do to provide it.
Changes in Total Solar Irradiation cause climate change is much easier to prove than AGW, and thus is a better fit for the data.
Unless you have another Earth somewhere, you have to use NHST, rather than using a control, as you have no control Earth that is the same minus humans. Well, you do, but you ignore it. Mars polar caps, which have better records than earth ice caps, show they are shrinking.
Either way, AGW believers are not doing hard science with global warming, where you, say, apply heat to this sample, but not this one, to determine the changes caused by heat.
(or whatever the theory is, that one was a simple example)
Which is fine. If your models work, your science is "unequivocal". But...
The science is not "unequivocal" because the predictions of the models don't come to pass. The northern ice cap is not missing as predicted (excuse me... suggested would be missing) The earth has failed to warm as much as AGW believers are predicting. It has warmed as much as might be predicted by the normal warming trend of coming out of an ice age, which we are doing on geological scales.
If reality does not do what the "unequivocal" science says, then the science is incomplete, and not unequivocal.
Faith is unequivocal. I will change my position when the science matches what happens in the real world.
I don't know of anyone that is a global warming denier. Aristotle and his "things never change" was debunked long ago.
We are AGW global warming skeptics. Trying to say we deny the climate changes is a straw man.
What you are missing is that in 50-100 years AGW might be classified with Eugenics and Phrenology, once we know more about the actual climate and how it changes.
The anti-AGW crowd does not have to prove anything, because their position matches the null hypothesis: The earth warms and cools over time as part of natural processes.
The AGW crowd has to falsify the Null Hypothesis. I don't think this study does this, because the presumption is that CO2 level == Rise in temperature, and that is not matched by the ice data.
The 90 ppm rise we have seen since the start of the 20th century SHOULD produce a 6 to 8C rise as it does in the ice cores, but instead has produced a
So I am not sure I buy the claim it is a proxy, because it does not match the collected data.
There is some other mechanism, not related to CO2, that must have cause that additional 5 to 7C rise in the ice core record.
could move to Minecraft?
Congratulations, YOU are the community bicycle.
err... what?
ED is cause by a blood flow problem, not a stimulus problem.
You don't see anyone complaining about Viagra, etc, ending the limp dick culture, do you?
Bedwetters.
That would be an "accent" not a use of a word that is recognized as a "word" but not considered common or proper english.
All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul.
