Respectfully, sir, I am looking for data, not the opinion of the IPCC group or anyone else.I believe my understanding is a bit advanced for the Wiki level of science. As I posted above, I want verifiable, reproducible hard facts to plug into the Scientific Method to try to prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. My purpose is genuine, I assure you. I have stated one fact: that some warming has occurred globally in the past century or so. Now where do we go from here? No opinions, no politics but Facts: a.k.a. Science.
On Jan 4, 4:32 pm, "William Connolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the off chance that you are really interested in information, then > the IPCC report of WGI is probably the best place to start, if you > want everything nicely backed up by refs to > papers:http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. > > If you want something more accessible, then wiki is > good:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming > > But if you just want to dismiss all sources you disagree with as > "political", then... there is no hope for you. > > -William > > On 04/01/2008, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > On Jan 2, 10:04am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yeah, the other amusing thing about this particular troll is the idea > > > that evidence from "activist sites" (including RC!) doesn't count. > > > > "The deck is full of red deuces, so long as you ignore the black > > > cards, the picture cards and the numbers bigger than two and a half, > > > all of which obviously have an agenda." Indeed. > > > > Still, a troll is a troll. No matter how sadly amusing this particular > > > challenge was, I think we really ought to provide one place where the > > > conversation has moved on from the "global warming, misguided myth or > > > vicious conspiracy" question. > > > > mt > > > > > On Dec 31 2007, 12:30am, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I defy anyone to prove to me that "global warming" is irrefutably a > > > > > predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method does not > > > > > get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. Please do > > > > > not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real Climate. I > > > > > said irrefutable evidence, not politics.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > William M. Connolley |www.wmconnolley.org.uk| 07985 935400- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
