kondzior
6 Dec 2012
News / Poland blocks any action on climate change [569]
Funny how these discussions usually devolve into arguments from authority. On the other hand, this is what makes things like these emails' "climategate" and this Himalayan fiasco significant: it absolutely demolishes arguments from the authority of the IPCC. Sure, it does not prove that the IPCC and the "experts" are wrong, not at all, but it does show that we can't blindly trust them (and possibly that we can't trust them at all).
Scientifically speaking, the situation is pretty simple really:
Yes, there is hypotesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so, we would expect some small (up to 2C) temperature increase if it goes up.
(On the other hand, this small increase might cause either negative feedback - canceling the warming or maybe even making it colder, or positive feedback, making it even warmer. We have no idea which, really, although there are some indications that the feedback is negative.)
And yes, there has been a small increase in temperature in 1970-1998 - though the temperature has dropped since then.
So sure, it's possible that this increase in temperature is due to CO2, since the temperature increase (though not the recent temperature drop) correlates somewhat well with the rise in CO2.
That's a fine hypothesis. On the other hand, the warming might be due to natural factors (and CO2 does not correlate well with temperature in the past). So far so good. We have also a pretty plausible hypothesis here.
And at this point, it's up to the "warmists" to provide evidence that CO2, not other factors, is the cause of this recent warming. However, this is where their substantive arguments end, and they start arguing from authority, and providing various arguments that show that the Earth is warming, but not arguments that CO2 is the cause
They simply never take the next step of testing their hypothesis with evidence (and no, computer models and estimates are not evidence).
So no evidence for this hypothesis has been given.
In fact, there is evidence against it! Check out "missing hotspot" and "Vostok ice-cores", among other things.
That's the current state of the "science", with regard to arguments of substance. Politics, propaganda and credentials are irrelevant. It's evidence that counts.
Funny how these discussions usually devolve into arguments from authority. On the other hand, this is what makes things like these emails' "climategate" and this Himalayan fiasco significant: it absolutely demolishes arguments from the authority of the IPCC. Sure, it does not prove that the IPCC and the "experts" are wrong, not at all, but it does show that we can't blindly trust them (and possibly that we can't trust them at all).
Scientifically speaking, the situation is pretty simple really:
Yes, there is hypotesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so, we would expect some small (up to 2C) temperature increase if it goes up.
(On the other hand, this small increase might cause either negative feedback - canceling the warming or maybe even making it colder, or positive feedback, making it even warmer. We have no idea which, really, although there are some indications that the feedback is negative.)
And yes, there has been a small increase in temperature in 1970-1998 - though the temperature has dropped since then.
So sure, it's possible that this increase in temperature is due to CO2, since the temperature increase (though not the recent temperature drop) correlates somewhat well with the rise in CO2.
That's a fine hypothesis. On the other hand, the warming might be due to natural factors (and CO2 does not correlate well with temperature in the past). So far so good. We have also a pretty plausible hypothesis here.
And at this point, it's up to the "warmists" to provide evidence that CO2, not other factors, is the cause of this recent warming. However, this is where their substantive arguments end, and they start arguing from authority, and providing various arguments that show that the Earth is warming, but not arguments that CO2 is the cause
They simply never take the next step of testing their hypothesis with evidence (and no, computer models and estimates are not evidence).
So no evidence for this hypothesis has been given.
In fact, there is evidence against it! Check out "missing hotspot" and "Vostok ice-cores", among other things.
That's the current state of the "science", with regard to arguments of substance. Politics, propaganda and credentials are irrelevant. It's evidence that counts.