quote:
Originally posted by Bucky:
To see a trend coinciding with a large period of development time on earth is really not evidence of anything.
If a “trend” is not evidence of anything, just what the he11 would you call it? Merriam-Webster defines trend as: “The general movement over time of a statistically detectable change”. As in climate “CHANGE”! In this case more change than would be expected in a system not acted on by outside influence, i.e. Man and his technologies.
That is what science is, that is the scientific method, and it is what science does! Gather data, in this case temperatures and use established or newly derived physical principals to account for observed data (a change or trend in a system), then use the physical established principals to predict and there by test what future outcomes of changes in the variables of the system being described or studied are.
“John Sawyer published the study Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect in 1972.[37] He summarized the knowledge of the science at the time, the anthropogenic attribution of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas, distribution and exponential rise, findings which still hold today. Additionally he accurately predicted the rate of global warming for the period between 1972 and 2000.”
“The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries.” – John Sawyer, 1972
That prediction was damn near exactly correct. What part of that doesn’t support climate change as a reality? There are decades of further studies, data gathered and refinements of the principals required to be able to state categorically that climate change is real and man is its primary cause.
The world has known about the principals of global warming/climate change for over a hundred years, how frigging much more evidence do you require? At what point do you think your position of disbelief becomes simple willful ignorance and or simple self-delusion. Are you so completely unenlightened as Kant put it that you are in a state of self-imposed tutelage? As defined by Kant, Tutelage is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such tutelage is self-imposed if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another."
Later Larry
Sapere aude!
"Put some jam on the bottom shelf where the little man can reach it."
"The Truth", it's just another liberal conspiracy!
