Quote:
|
Science is not a popularity contest (For instance, Galileo's hypothesis that the planets orbit the sun was not popular with the Catholic establishment at the time, but he was right). The problem with the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis is that one cannot use it to make consistent predictions about present or past climate events. Until the scientist can formulate the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis in a way that makes accurate predictions, it is impossible to make scientific statements about the effects of green house gases on the climate.
|
You are inaccurately paraphrasing me. The true anthropogenic GHG hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions of past climate events as it includes all contributing factors to climate change which when combined with GHG theory predict trends such as those we are seeing.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, Svensmark's cosmological model for climate change does predict, with surprising accuracy, historical climate events. From a scientific standpoint their model is the most convincing one.
|
No, this is the error, from an historical standpoint this argument is the most convincing. It reflects past changes, think for a moment why that might be...it's because those events are what they have calibrated the model on, if it didn't then reflect them the whole endeavour would be even more of a farce.
Consensus amongst people means nothing, true my wording was less than perfect in this situation I hold my hands up to that. Consensus of data means an awful lot though and this is the consensus we have, it has translated into a consensus of people. The galileo point is different, those that disagreed with galileo were basing their arguments on religious teaching not science. Galileo was not a part of our modern scientific community, the world has moved on. When the consensus is withing the scientific community against data from the scientific community consensus is everything. Coorroborating data is the best test of reliability that we have and GHG theory presents us with a lot of it, the alternatives do not.
Quote:
|
I know, the US and Europe is the whole world. The rest of the planet doesn't count. So your summers are getting hotter in the northern hemisphere, and your winters not quite as cold? Missing your skiing at times when there's supposed to be good slopes? Well guess what, Our summers in the southern hemisphere are not getting any hotter - still waiting patiently for beach weather
|
The southern hemisphere is warming, it's not all about summers and you have a much greater expanse of ocean to buffer change not to mention a massive continent of ice... I find your comments regarding skiing wholly inappropriate, very few people in the northern hemisphere can afford such luxuries, I am not one of them, I would not agree with travelling to fragile regions specifically to indulge in this passtime and I find it remarkable that you seem to believe there to be no underprivileged persons in the 'developed' world. The globe is warming, that is a fact, therefore there is a global warming, that is a fact. The rest can be debated to varying degrees but there isn't any reasonable grounds to argue with these statements.
According to the majority of data, the data that corroborates GHG theory and provides us with the scientific consensus that you blithely shrug off.