Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Welsh cake]

That is complete bullshit, almost every single meta-analysis on the issue has measurements for solar activity in a variety of forms as well as the earths current aphelion/perihelion and eccentricities.

May I ask for a citation please?

You asserted it, but your argument is full of shit, it amounts to nothing more than "bu...bu..but there might be something going on in the sun!" Show me the data! Oh, wait, it doesn't fucking exist.

That the sun, and not us, is responsible for our weather? Why so disingenuous Void? You shouldn't even have to Wikipedia the painfully obvious fact that energy from its light supports most life on Earth via photosynthesis (as opposed to quoting atrociously inaccurate graph models from said site), but it creates Earth's climate and weather because it heats this planet unevenly.

Are you fucking shitting me? Do you not understand that the strongest correlation is the most likely cause and is thus the cause that we are justified in believing to be true? C02 emissions are EASILY the strongest correlation, thus they are by far the most likely cause.

If you are correct then how do you differentiate between naturally reoccurring weather events and events induced by anthropogenic climate change? How do you define natural weather? How do you distinguish the manmade trend from it?

Because Wales accounts for FUCK ALL of the earth's emissions. Are you now denying that C02 emissions are increasing? You need to go and look at the most rudimentary data if you believe that is the case!

Not according to the Welsh Assembly Government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6932667.stm
Again, our industry is virtually a skeleton of what it once was, please answer the question.

Also you agree with me then simultaneously disagree with me. If you expect me to change my views please be more consistent and methodical about your responses. Not to mention calming the fuck down and being more civil towards me also wouldn't hurt your cause, since you've taken it upon yourself.

More biases, great! Your financial situation in Wales has absolutely nothing to do with the data.

You've failed miserably to identify I was being facetious there. Did the smiley not tip you off?

Since jesting with you accomplishes nothing, let me close with this - you remain utterly and wholly convinced by your apparent responses that anthropogenic climate change is not only demonstrably real but actually caused primarily, if not entirely, by carbon emissions by us humans. I doubt you are willing to consider other views at this point. If the data present is enough to satisfy your standards of evidence, that's fine, that's your prerogative. I however have observed and taken note of strange reoccurring variations, for example we've had two especially cold winters recently here in the UK, the worst in decades and I cannot help but remain skeptical that mankind is the sole contributor to a gradual climate warming as people claim. I simply don't know. I don't doubt we can't have an impact upon our environment on a local scale VOID, but a significant global scale over a mere few decades is still too much for me to currently accept that extreme view.

That's not to say my position can't change, but currently the evidence available is insufficient to convince me. Now that we've established what I believe is of no fault of your own, kindly calm down VOID, geez.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being completely disingenuous by deliberately misinterpreting what I said to score cheap points.

"~" If you actually GAVE me the benefit of the doubt why even address how you interpreted my post in the first instance?

My point was, that there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. All you can say is how likely something is to be true in probabilistic terms given the sum of the available data.

You, not me, made the broad-faced assertion that AGW is indisputable, you yourself said there's really nothing I can argue against with, which is simply not true, there is a dispute and controversy surrounding the issue and in any case scientific methodology doesn't work this way.

The only way you can manipulate statistics is by cherry-picking the data. That's known in science as research fraud. And it can be tested for using forensic statistics considering things such as Benford's Law.

I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, I'm simply stating statistics are beneficial to support a hypothesis, but under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to accept any view where statistical correlations conclusively prove direct cause and effect, that is fallacious is it not? Will you grant me that?

That's bordering on irrelevant. I accepted that the sun dictates the earth's received energy flux. I stated that directly in the quote.

I realise that now, apologies, although you'll appreciate you can't logically have said effect without its necessary cause.

Please don't misuse the term open-mindedness. It doesn't mean being treating all ideas as equally likely to be true, it means being willing to alter one's beliefs upon the presentation of evidence contrary to a currently held belief.

I never said it did.

You have been asked several times by myself and theVOID to present evidence; thus far you have not done so.

We've established the Sun is responsible for Earth's climate, so what are you asking for now? Evidence for arguing a negative? Kindly oblige to make your case first. Please quit shifting the burden of proof and demonstrate the truth of your assertion behind AGW.

Take for example, the things you were saying a few posts back which were refuted.

???

That is simply not true.

Nevertheless, they've come up with a hypothesis and are now seeking evidence to support it, its pretty much what you're doing right now. That's not how we go about investigating observable phenomena within reality.

Sure, but once again, you're misapplying the principle.

What do you mean? I concur with everything else you go on to state after this, but this opening statement doesn't make sense. I was simply pointing out the obvious logical fallacy.