Anthropogenic Climate Change

[downbeatplumb]

Humans are definitely the cause of the warming of the climate.
Given that we introduce vast amounts of carbon dioxide through power plants, cars etc while interrupting the carbon cooling cycle by preventing rivers reaching the sea etc, cutting down vast swathes of forrests, farm methane producing cattle and scatter methane producing rubbish mounds hither and yon then there is no way that the climate could not be affected by our actions.
To claim otherwise is to blind yourself to the reality of he situation, it is akin to the blind denial of evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Quite often the denial of man made global warming and the denial of evolution go hand in hand.

[Welsh cake]

[Sam]

[lilphil1989]

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.

anthrpogenic warming is caused primarily by carbon emissions, yes. Although we are not claiming that carbon emissions are the only factor driving the increase in global average temperature.

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.

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

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?

I won't grant you that, no. Observing correlations is the only way you can determine causation.
Of course, causation is more likely given data with greater statistical significance, and even better if you have a model which predicts the correlation, and best of all if it predicts the quantitative form of the correlation, but at the heart of the scientific method is the observation of correlations.

We've established the Sun is responsible for Earth's climate, so what are you asking for now? Evidence for arguing a negative?

We've established that the sun is responsible for the incoming energy flux. Your statement would be true if it were amended:
"The sun is at least partially responsible for Earth's climate"
and no-one is disputing that. But to claim that it's the only factor is far too simplistic, and as theVOID pointed out, if you take into account only variations in solar output, climate models don't even come close to reproducing the data.

As for evidence, you claimed that climate scientists ignore solar forcing. A few recent papers or reviews in the literature which (in context) fail to take into account or make reference to solar forcing would be adequate evidence for this claim.

Please quit shifting the burden of proof and demonstrate the truth of your assertion behind AGW.

The most accessible and emcompassing reviews of the evidence are those by the IPCC. Given the snide comments you've made regarding the IPCC, it seems futile to even offer the evidence.

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.

Yes, it is. You gather data, make a hypothesis, then gather more data to see whether or not it fits the predictions of your hypothesis. If it does, great, your hypothesis is now better supported by the evidence, go look for more.
If not, you refine or adjust the hypothesis, or throw it out and look for another.

There is a distinction between a conclusion and an evidence-supported hypothesis. Seeking evidence to support a conclusion is of course fallacious. Seeking evidence to further support or refute a hypothesis is not; in fact, it is the only way you can make a judgement about it.

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.

When you're presented with evidence that is statistically significant in the context of some hypothesis, it's not enough to simply say "correlation does not imply causation".
You can say that about any scientific claim, that doesn't mean you've adequately refuted, or demonstrated that the evidence does not support the claim.



You seem to think that an absolute claim is being made. Rather, a scientific claim is being made. That is that, at present, the evidence supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. But like all scientific claims, it is probabilistic rather than absolute, and it will be subject to review in light of new evidence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[Minimalist]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

[Anomalocaris]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

In his defense, sodomy occurs in the bible, while anthropogenic climate change does not.

[binny]

I also do, but I do not think it is solely cause by such. Methane has quite the role in this.

Those damn farting cows!

[Minimalist]

What ? Did he take time off from sodomizing little boys???

In his defense, sodomy occurs in the bible, while anthropogenic climate change does not.

Somehow.....I just don't find that an acceptable defense.

[Welsh cake]