An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[pinhead]

OK lets try this again.

Don't misrepresent the data to support your arguement. This is a typical response of the "denyers". Misinterpret, use references based on old data, take information out of context.

You provide us with this from wikipedia

Originally Posted by AndyL

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere...

And it is completely wrong. The article does not say this anywhere. In fact the same article says something completely different.

"During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm"

Did you even read the article?

Originally Posted by AndyL

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models;

One of my earlier statements was the average person does not understand the scientific method or how science works.

Science can't really prove anything - but we can show it is very likely. Science is continually changing as new experiments, newer technology and new data are gathered. As more information is gathered our ideas change. Some hypotheses are discarded, some are modified and some are confirmed. If a hypothesis results in a correct prediction we high confidence in it. That is not to say that new information will come to light that causes us to modify our hypothesis.

We were able to correctly predict eclipses long before we had spacecraft and technology to confirm our models of the orbits of the earth and moon.

Originally Posted by AndyL

computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Computer models depend on accurate data. By taking data from years already past and entering them in our models we should be able to reproduce the course of the climate in last century. They match with what actually happened. Our models are correct. These same models are now being used to project what is likely to occur.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232

Originally Posted by AndyL

Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

And if we wait 10 years and you are wrong?

For those who don't like the links in wikipedia and sourcewatch, I'd be happy to forward the original reference.

Just read them and voice your opinion after you have all the facts rather than repeating these inaccuracies.