2 ms·

> Does that prove the causal link? No. Yes, for all reasonable definitions of 'prove', the vast amount of evidence collected that is a proven fact. Although co

by DCKing 12y ago

> Does that prove the causal link? No. Yes, for all reasonable definitions of 'prove', the vast amount of evidence collected that is a proven fact. Although correlation of one metric does not necessarily imply causation of some other, evidence upon evidence upon evidence does imply causation. And that is what we have. The fact that you can casually obtain this information from Wikipedia already means that the scientific community is open to, and aware of, other greenhouse gases. Your information also confirms that CO2 in itself is probably the biggest problem. It is also the one that people likely can control most in their day-to-day lives. So if that's what's driving public policy, that's probably not a bad thing either.

msandford 12y ago
No, correlation does not imply causation. There are a dozen things which can correlate with rising temperatures and CO2 is only one of them. Some of them aren't even in/on the Earth! Here's atmospheric methane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer... Here's atmospheric refrigerants: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2D2.html http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%2... Here's sunspot activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Su... Here's a paper that shows that poor station siting could explain all the upwards trend in temperatures: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pd... Here's the website journaling the research: http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/ Here's the Wikipedia page that would tend to indicate that such a journal isn't a sham made up by the Koch brothers to discredit climate science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research Remember, "prove" means that ANY reliable information to the contrary overwhelms all the other evidence and/or theories because at it's core science is about falsifiability. If your theory cannot be falsified by new evidence, it's not science, it's religion.
- DCKing 12y ago
  I can't tell whether you are deliberately being dishonest or genuinely don't understand how to have a proper debate. > Correlation does not imply causation. You can't simply wave this around to invalidate information that does not suit your liking. You can use also use this statement to disqualify the fact that sex causes the spread of AIDS. It's a hollow statement if the evidence is overwhelming. You can point to all other contributing factors to climate change. Yes, climate change is complex, there are many contributing factors, and not all of them are CO2. It's very important to realize, but these things are not ignored. In any case, those do not invalidate the claim that CO2 is one of the most important driving factors of current climate change, and that it is man-made. Next you pretend that it is somehow a religion. Thirty to fifty years of gathering information, getting to know our environment and recognizing patterns in them is not a religion. That is an insult to all hard work humanity has put into this partial understanding of our world. There are thousands of ways to falsify man-made climate change (eg. CO2 increase is largest on the ocean floor, temperatures decrease over ten years, molecular nitrogen is found to be a significant greenhouse gas) none of which have any real support. In the end you are advocating critical debate, which is fine. But don't do that by ignoring the larger discussion and only picking out the parts you like.

by DCKing 12y ago

msandford 12y ago

No, correlation does not imply causation. There are a dozen things which can correlate with rising temperatures and CO2 is only one of them. Some of them aren't even in/on the Earth! Here's atmospheric methane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer... Here's atmospheric refrigerants: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%202/Chapter2D2.html http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%2... Here's sunspot activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Su... Here's a paper that shows that poor station siting could explain all the upwards trend in temperatures: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pd... Here's the website journaling the research: http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/ Here's the Wikipedia page that would tend to indicate that such a journal isn't a sham made up by the Koch brothers to discredit climate science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research Remember, "prove" means that ANY reliable information to the contrary overwhelms all the other evidence and/or theories because at it's core science is about falsifiability. If your theory cannot be falsified by new evidence, it's not science, it's religion.

DCKing 12y ago
I can't tell whether you are deliberately being dishonest or genuinely don't understand how to have a proper debate. > Correlation does not imply causation. You can't simply wave this around to invalidate information that does not suit your liking. You can use also use this statement to disqualify the fact that sex causes the spread of AIDS. It's a hollow statement if the evidence is overwhelming. You can point to all other contributing factors to climate change. Yes, climate change is complex, there are many contributing factors, and not all of them are CO2. It's very important to realize, but these things are not ignored. In any case, those do not invalidate the claim that CO2 is one of the most important driving factors of current climate change, and that it is man-made. Next you pretend that it is somehow a religion. Thirty to fifty years of gathering information, getting to know our environment and recognizing patterns in them is not a religion. That is an insult to all hard work humanity has put into this partial understanding of our world. There are thousands of ways to falsify man-made climate change (eg. CO2 increase is largest on the ocean floor, temperatures decrease over ten years, molecular nitrogen is found to be a significant greenhouse gas) none of which have any real support. In the end you are advocating critical debate, which is fine. But don't do that by ignoring the larger discussion and only picking out the parts you like.