|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8349783)
but how can we do it without having a second earth to experiment on? :blink:
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349790)
That's not evidence, that's hearsay. Are their names published anywhere? It might be useful to email them see if they can provide some evidence.
study was conducted under the supervision of Peter T Doran at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago. [email protected] link to an article on the study - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The names are published, and the sources are listed. Please let me know what they say |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8349783)
but how can we do it without having a second earth to experiment on? :blink:
1. We have observed that the earth is warming. 2. Now we need to establish what could possibly cause the earth to warm. 3. Then we need to establish which of the possible causes is actually responsible for the warming. We are currently at step 2. Possible Causes Natural forces. Status: we know natural forces are capable of changing the climate. Human activity: Status: no evidence provided yet that humans are capable of altering the climate. Other: No other cause so far suggested. So we aren't even at the point of proving humans ARE changing the climate. We haven't even proved humans CAN change the climate. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8349792)
THIS is the problem that the AGW lobby should be working on – rather than leap the gun, assume their theory is right and start demanding we all change our ways.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349798)
Well, let's start from first principles.
1. We have observed that the earth is warming. 2. Now we need to establish what could possibly cause the earth to warm. 3. Then we need to establish which of the possible causes is actually responsible for the warming. We are currently at step 2. Possible Causes Natural forces. Status: we know natural forces are capable of changing the climate. Human activity: Status: no evidence provided yet that humans are capable of altering the climate. Other: No other cause so far suggested. So we aren't even at the point of proving humans ARE changing the climate. We haven't even proved humans CAN change the climate. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349749)
So you're admitting you have no evidence?
|
Re: Global warming
Dear Moderator
This thread is becoming past it's sell by date. Since no one here can provide any evidence of global warming being man made the thread should be closed. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8349797)
sure
study was conducted under the supervision of Peter T Doran at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago. [email protected] link to an article on the study - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The names are published, and the sources are listed. Please let me know what they say Question 2 is flawed however, because we don't need to know what they think, we need to know what they can prove. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8349809)
Dear Moderator
This thread is becoming past it's sell by date. Since no one here can provide any evidence of global warming being man made the thread should be closed. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349817)
UNfortunately the paper does not name the individuals who responded to the survey. I shall email the authors and ask for that list.
Question 2 is flawed however, because we don't need to know what they think, we need to know what they can prove. 97% means that the science must be pretty strong. But then, everything is dismissable when you are sceptic |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8349832)
how can it be flawed? The study was asking for the scientific consensus
97% means that the science must be pretty strong. But then, everything is dismissable when you are sceptic |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8349832)
how can it be flawed? The study was asking for the scientific consensus
97% means that the science must be pretty strong. But then, everything is dismissable when you are sceptic |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349845)
Would you rather not know what they can prove than what they think?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by polyama
(Post 8349849)
I think similar study could provide pretty strong proof of the existance of God
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8349845)
Would you rather not know what they can prove than what they think?
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:43 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.