Eric: I think that you may have thought that my restating of the AGW question was a response to your post, which it wasn't. It was meant as an edit to my previous post, but the timing didn't work out quite right. Sorry for that.
I have read everything you have linked. Again, you assume that I don't agree with CO2 induced climate change, and that is not the case. I wasn't asking you to re-invent the wheel, or to have me re-read the material. One link didn't work, but that's not too important. I accept what you have stated, that is, that the science of climate change is not exact enough to be upheld by the Scientific Method. Fair enough, lots of things aren't, and it doesn't mean that it is incorrect. I fully appreciate the fact that "proof" in most science is not irrefutable, and it was a poor initial choice of words on my part. I find a 90% chance of increased atmospheric CO2 levels increasing warming to be very substantial, and suspect it is actually higher than that. Yes, what actions we might be able to take to remediate climate change is a very important question, and other than the obvious factors,I have no quick answer. On Jan 9, 4:25 pm, Eric Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are asking the question again. Did you bother to look at the > other > references offered to you? for example, I'm led to understand that > this is a great reference : > > Weart, S., 2003: The Discovery of Global Warming. Harvard University > Press, Cambridge, MA, 240 pp. > > (also available online at:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/) > > One problem with your "Scientific Method" request. There's no other > Earth to experiment on. All we've got is this one and the computer > models. > You can't just run in to the lab and cook up some experiment to test > your > neat hypothesis, like there is in other fields of science. That said, > there have > been measurements, such as the one I listed published back in 1974, > which show that there is a Greenhouse Effect and that it's caused by > CO2 > and H2O. So, the theory is that increasing CO2 (which has been > measured) > will result in a warmer Earth. So far, there's not been evidence > that the > warming (which has been measured) is NOT caused by the increase in > CO2, although there's no absolute proof that the increasing CO2 IS > the > cause. > > I think you need to do your homework. > > ES > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > okc chemist wrote: > > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
