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.

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

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.

yeap, your argument sounds good . . . except an awful lot of Climate scientists are saying something else. I know who I am going with . . .

so you build a few models, you run a few . . . oh wait, hasn't that been done already?

Are you?

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.

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.

I think Ned Kelly made an error - no one on here can provide evidence that counters the findings that global warming is man made

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

Would you rather not know what they can prove than what they think?

I think similar study could provide pretty strong proof of the existance of God

never said that. Why do you always re-frame things in this manner?

you probably find it wouldn't.

It's those crazy, hell bent, socialists trying to get us to pay more tax. I tells you.