Again, you imply that the scientific method provides a "reasonable"
proof
of truth. Not quite as strong a requirement as you first requested.
Well there's lots of data regarding the spectroscopic characteristics
of
the atmosphere and the gases of which it is composed. Do you, as a
scientist, agree that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2
will change the optical transmission of infrared energy thru the
atmosphere?
What would you expect to be the result of those changes? Can you
describe
them without the use of a mathematical model?
okc chemist wrote:
> No, this "troll" would be satisfied if someone can make the case for
> A.G.W. using The Scientific Method. I would say the burden of proof
> exists with those who claim it exists, not those who do not.
> You have a problem with science being established the way science is
> supposed to be established? No stacked deck here. Just show me that
> your facts support the theory. It doesn't matter what you or I
> personally believe. No politics, no Real Climate and no anti-AGW
> sites. Not opinions, not consensus, these are not science. Pure facts
> that can reasonably prove a true scientific basis for A.G.W. Do I ask
> too much? Show a poor aging environmental chemist the great truths
> that you can reveal.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
