OKC,
Well, I think maybe we're making a bit of progress, but I'm not sure.
Eric Swanson seems to hit the nail on the head. It sounds to many
(all?) of us like you are asking for a single, reproducible,
controlled experiment that validates (or not) the hypothesis of
anthropogenic global warming. That would be the two parallel Earths
(more if you want to reproduce it) which is obviously intractable.
> immediate interest. You mention many things they write about, but how
> much is a well, almost indisputable fact? I think that you tell me
> that most of the data is "iffy" While I am not trying to disprove AGW,
> I am always skeptical of suspect data in any case.
Your skepticism is appropriate. I could try to answer your question
about the level of certainty of each piece of data supporting
anthropogenic climate change. But it would take somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1000+ pages, and I don't have that kind of time.
That's why we are repeatedly referring you to the literature. Some of
the evidence is iron-clad. Some of it still has big error bars.
Perhaps you can look over the literature and get back to us on which
pieces of evidence do not meet your standards for adherence to the
scientific method. Then we can have a more specific discussion
Happy reading,
Eric
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
