I need to re-state my question, since I screwed it up:
Utilizing the Scientific Method, show that human CO2 emissions are the
predominant factor responsible for climate change.
TA
On Jan 9, 1:29 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that I initially came on a bit strong, and am quite capable of
> admitting my errors. I apologize for the bad start. I regret my cranky
> old man demeanor.
>
> I have asked a very straightforward question, which no one has really
> addressed. I conceded that I believe that increased CO2 in the
> atmosphere will cause warming, and that in my OPINION, humans have
> some role in it. Our chidren are taught in High School, make that
> Elementary School, about the Scientific Method and how we scientists
> must follow it to present research as the genuine article. I have
> asked that the case be made for AGW by using the scientific method.
> That's it. What I got was some really good information on IR, CO2 and
> modeling, indeed some very kind replies, but nothing directly relevant
> to my only question. I got theory instead of facts, data and controls.
> Window dressing is nice in a formal paper or in a text book, but I
> have distilled it all down to this simple question: "Utilyzing the
> Scientific Method, prove that AGW causes climate change." I expect
> facts and controls to back up the experimental portion.
>
> Now I am an analytical guy, usually running GC, GC/MS all day.(yes, I
> test air too) I am not a researcher or an educator. I have to run
> several sets of controls by EPA protocol before running a real world
> sample. Theory will get me no where in my work. I deal with linear
> curves, peaks on chromatographs and mass spectral data. My work is
> absolutly reproducible at any competent facility anywhere. This may
> help explain why I expect facts, not theory. I can't tell one of my
> customers that it "might be carbon tetrachloride, but then again, it
> may or may not be".
>
> If I am asking too much of the present knowledge of atmospheric
> science, just say so and we will move on. I do have some modeling
> questions I would like to know the answers to. I am not trying to be a
> Dick or a Lindzen........
>
> On Jan 9, 10:27 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > PS, OKC, recall where you started:
>
> > "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."
>
> > That seems more a provocation than the beginning of an honest inquiry.
>
> > You can't effectively determine whether something is fraudulent by
> > coming in guns blazing and screaming fraud, then seeing whether they
> > welcome your skeptical inquiry. By this standard everything is
> > fraudulent!
>
> > mt- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
