mnealtx 0 #101 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk, you admit there's no proof, then. Would have been easier just to say "it's theorized that there is a connection", but hey, whatever works. Read the links. Give me a link that PROVES anything and I will.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #102 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteRead the links. Wouldn't it be more polite to summarize, in your own words, the underlying points? Simply repeating "read the links" makes it sound like you are either unwilling or unable to state your position for yourself, but rather just take someone else's view on faith. I have summarised them, several times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 July 13, 2009 Quote>Funny, I must have missed all those new conferences saying "CO2 >proven as the cause of global warming". Not really that new. The IPCC has been saying that with greater and greater certainty since 1990. In 1990, they stated that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. Their latest statements are: - Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. >I am asking for proof that CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures, the >same as I have for the LAST 4 YEARS. >Where's the proof? See above. (BTW, to be technically correct, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary drivers of temperature increase, of which CO2 is the major component.) "Very likely due" - so, they THEORIZE that CO2 is the main driver. Thank you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #104 July 13, 2009 It's just still horribly, horribly likely Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #105 July 13, 2009 >"Very likely due" - so, they THEORIZE that CO2 is the main driver. Thank you. Right - just as it is very likely that when you jump out of an airplane you will descend rapidly. That's why smart people use parachutes. Heck, no one has "proven" that smoking causes cancer. But if someone therefore concludes that smoking 2 packs a day is a good way to live a long and healthy life, we consider them not very smart. That's one of the problems with using scientific levels of certainty with non-scientific audiences. "Evolution is only a theory!" is a common example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 July 13, 2009 Quote>"Very likely due" - so, they THEORIZE that CO2 is the main driver. Thank you. Right - just as it is very likely that when you jump out of an airplane you will descend rapidly. That's why smart people use parachutes. Heck, no one has "proven" that smoking causes cancer. But if someone therefore concludes that smoking 2 packs a day is a good way to live a long and healthy life, we consider them not very smart. That's one of the problems with using scientific levels of certainty with non-scientific audiences. "Evolution is only a theory!" is a common example. Sorry analogies, Bill. Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? The cigarette one is a *little* more applicable - despite the carcinogens, the scientists and doctors can't PROVE you'll get cancer if you smoke... just that it's possible.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #107 July 13, 2009 >Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? Actually, he hasn't "proven" anything. We still assume that it is the masses of two objects that are directly attracted toward each other, but we still cannot answer that it is the mass that does it. There are still other explanations for why "gravity" works. We do "know," however, that "gravity" does work. >just that it's possible. HIGHLY possible. Isn't that the same thing as highly likely? His analogies are actually pretty solid. I'm sorry, Bill. I didn't mean to say "He." I mean, it is only highly likely that someone with the name "Bill" is a guy. There is a slight possibility that "Bill" could be in reference to a female, and Bill could be a female. If that were true, I would want to refer to "Bill" in the proper form as "human-unit." Bill, the "human-unit's" analogies are actually pretty solid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #108 July 13, 2009 QuoteBill, the "human-unit's" analogies are actually pretty solid. Shows how much you know. Bill is a duck. http://www.mackeprang.com/duck/ http://www.3d4.de/duck/Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #109 July 13, 2009 I stand corrected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 July 13, 2009 Quote>Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? Actually, he hasn't "proven" anything. We still assume that it is the masses of two objects that are directly attracted toward each other, but we still cannot answer that it is the mass that does it. There are still other explanations for why "gravity" works. We do "know," however, that "gravity" does work. Dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. Let me know when adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will ALWAYS cause a temperature increase of xC, ok?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #111 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuote>Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? Actually, he hasn't "proven" anything. We still assume that it is the masses of two objects that are directly attracted toward each other, but we still cannot answer that it is the mass that does it. There are still other explanations for why "gravity" works. We do "know," however, that "gravity" does work. Dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. Let me know when adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will ALWAYS cause a temperature increase of xC, ok? Read me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #112 July 13, 2009 If we (the world) were really serious about this, there wouldn't be agreements being drafted that exempted India and China. Bottom line. The argument of "climate change" or "global warming" has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with economies, and control.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #113 July 13, 2009 QuoteIf we (the world) were really serious about this, there wouldn't be agreements being drafted that exempted India and China. Bottom line. The argument of "climate change" or "global warming" has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with economies, and control. Agreed. The only way that you'd get the Chinese to go along with it (and let's face the fact that within the next 15 years they'll be both the world's largest economy and it's largest polluter) is to invade and occupy them. Anybody here think that's a proposition you want to take on?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #114 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuote>"Very likely due" - so, they THEORIZE that CO2 is the main driver. Thank you. Right - just as it is very likely that when you jump out of an airplane you will descend rapidly. That's why smart people use parachutes. Heck, no one has "proven" that smoking causes cancer. But if someone therefore concludes that smoking 2 packs a day is a good way to live a long and healthy life, we consider them not very smart. That's one of the problems with using scientific levels of certainty with non-scientific audiences. "Evolution is only a theory!" is a common example. Sorry analogies, Bill. Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? . WRONG, as usual. If a booming voice from heaven called out "AGW is true" you'd still claim it wasn't proven, since you simply deny every bit of evidence presented.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #115 July 13, 2009 >Dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. No shit, there is "something" that is causing the apple to hit the ground. How are we to be certain that it is in fact because of mass itself? There still remains room for it to be caused by something else we cannot explain. However, we still have a pretty strong argument, because that possibility, although present, isn't so large. >Let me know when adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will ALWAYS cause a temperature increase of xC, ok? Sure, it would be great to be able to provide that information. The examples that the other smarties have provided in this thread have shown that such a conclusion isn't something that we are in a position to do, at least in the near future. Does that mean that the examples you have provided are inductively stronger than say, billvon's? No. Has anyone achieved a sound argument here? Not quite. "What we can see, touch, hear, taste, and smell is less than one millionth of reality." - Incubus Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #116 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuote>Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago? Actually, he hasn't "proven" anything. We still assume that it is the masses of two objects that are directly attracted toward each other, but we still cannot answer that it is the mass that does it. There are still other explanations for why "gravity" works. We do "know," however, that "gravity" does work. Dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. OK, first off you clearly do NOT even know what the law of gravity is, let alone how to prove it. Second, try dropping a balloon filled with helium. You are way way out of your depth and it shows,If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #117 July 13, 2009 >The argument of "climate change" or "global warming" has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with economies, and control. Time will tell. Or has it already? Would you admit to yourself you were incorrect, should the opportunity arise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #118 July 14, 2009 Quote>The argument of "climate change" or "global warming" has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with economies, and control. Time will tell. Or has it already? Would you admit to yourself you were incorrect, should the opportunity arise? I've admitted when I've been wrong more than once in my life...the hockey stick won't provoke such a response...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #119 July 14, 2009 QuoteDropping an apple and watching it hit the ground is provable, and has been for several hundred years. That doesn't prove Newton's law of gravity, though. At best, it shows that Newton's law of gravity makes predictions that are consistent with the results of experiments that Newton did. The law of gravity has never been proven. It has only withstood many, many experimental attempts to disprove it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #120 July 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteRead the links. Wouldn't it be more polite to summarize, in your own words, the underlying points? Simply repeating "read the links" makes it sound like you are either unwilling or unable to state your position for yourself, but rather just take someone else's view on faith. The points have been discussed over and over on this forum. He simply denies them over and over, and two or three weeks later comes back with the same request for "proof". It's a game he plays. Expect him to raise the climate on Mars again soon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 July 14, 2009 QuoteOK, first off you clearly do NOT even know what the law of gravity is, let alone how to prove it. Really? Given sufficient height, I can prove that mass of the Earth exerts a force sufficient to accelerate the apple at a rate of 32fps squared. Said force is commonly referred to as "gravity". Feel welcome to quibble on what acceleration rate the apple exerts on the Earth, if you wish. QuoteSecond, try dropping a balloon filled with helium. Thereby proving that volume x of the element He has a bouyancy sufficient to overcome the acceration the Earth exerts upon the balloon - do you have a POINT to all this, or are you just trolling as usual?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #122 July 14, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Read the links. Wouldn't it be more polite to summarize, in your own words, the underlying points? Simply repeating "read the links" makes it sound like you are either unwilling or unable to state your position for yourself, but rather just take someone else's view on faith. The points have been discussed over and over on this forum. He simply denies them over and over, and two or three weeks later comes back with the same request for "proof". It's a game he plays. Expect him to raise the climate on Mars again soon. I'm not denying anything, and it's not a game, Professor - give me some concrete PROOF, instead of saying "It's the CO2" over and over and over ad nauseam. All that answer gains you is the Mar rover comment, as it deserves. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #123 July 14, 2009 QuoteGiven sufficient height, I can prove that mass of the Earth exerts a force sufficient to accelerate the apple at a rate of 32fps squared. No, you can't. You can demonstrate that the apple accelerates at ~32 f/s, but you cannot prove that the mass of the earth is, in fact, the cause of the observed acceleration. Of course, if you want to claim that your experiment does, in fact, prove gravity, then AGW can be (and has been) proven with similar observed correlations in the same manner.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #124 July 14, 2009 I'm touched. You called someone "Professor" just like I did before I was banned. Speechless.... >I'm not denying anything Wha... Bu..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #125 July 14, 2009 QuoteI'm touched. You called someone "Professor" just like I did before I was banned. Speechless.... Kallend is a professor, in the sense that he has a career as an instructor at the college level.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
