# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:


Most would say it's about logic and evidence but okay.

Quote:


Graphs showing observed recorded data sourced from papers/research aren't fact enough for you? Do you think we just make up graphs to lie to you? Most of them are sourced from the IPCC and peer reviewed papers themselves, others are graphs depicting the data in these papers. What more do you want?

generally, fossil fuel combustion can be represented as

C* + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O + ENERGY (+*)

Now lets look at some basic scientific FACTS that almost every person accepts.

1. CO2 is a by product of fossil fuel combustion

2. Isotopic analysis has verified that the bulk of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past century or so is due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion (as well as de-forestation etc)

3. CO2 is a greenhouse or thermal retentive component in the earths atmosphere.

For AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to be a false assertion or observation, one or more of the above FACTS needs to be refuted or rendered incorrect.

You can argue as to how much the earth will warm, OR what effects this warming will have on geological and biological systems on the earth which includes the climate in general, BUT to deny the AGW fact is more than a delusional stance to take - its utterly indefensible.

So if anyone in here can show how one or more of the FACTS listed above are false or non factual statements, I am all ears.

If you cant then, return to your crack pot denialist religious temples and pray to your spin priests.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:


You still don't understand the point I am making.

AGW implicitly states that HUMAN activities such as de-forestation and fossil fuel burning increases the average global temperature of the earth.

read my post again if you wish, I purposefully delineate between the simple fact that human activities are warming the planet (undeniable scientific FACT), and its effects long term and also HOW much that warming will be going forward.

The reality is that Anthropogenic Global Warming has been verified as a basic scientific fact since about the end of the 1990s when the last known natural radiation forcing cycle (solar irradiance cycle ~ 12 year period) was finally ruled out as a possible major thermal driver. In fact this natural candidate can be dismissed even prior to the year 1980 purely based on the large observed thermal retention "rates". It just became non controversial post 1980

If you recall, many AGW denialists would often use this graph to deceive people in thinking that the sun's varying irradiance was deriving the warming trends measured. They always showed data prior to 1980. Funny that, isn't it. Very good trick for the public, but doesn't seem to filter through the peer reviewed scientific publication process

Ah yes the good old days, when the denialist tricksters would cut this graph at about the year 1980.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:


Well I would agree with you on these points If I attended your church group meetings regularly

I prefer to read scientific articles on the matter from numerous sources as well as consult the opinions of non religious experts

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:


you are confusing a simple validated scientific fact with rhetoric

A = anthropogenic
G = Global
W = Warming

very simple isn't it.

Perhaps you need to outline YOUR theory that seems to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for human activities to increase the average global temperature

Or are you calling your theory a fact?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Chimp, the IPCC said 95 to 100% certain. To most of us, that would be beyond reasonable doubt.

Clearly, nothing is beyond unreasonable doubt.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:



Incorrect.

You, however, don't know the difference between a theory and a fact.

It's no wonder you're so confused when it comes to science.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:


You politicise the words theory and fact for your own personal reasons

a person who does that cannot practice or understand the scientific method. they are political priests