Now as promised.My position is based on verifiable facts, which you and your faith can not produce. Without these facts to prove the hypothesis valid, your belief is, at best, unwarranted.My position is based on my faith that the educational system is capable of educating people in a chosen field to a degree that makes them more competent in their job than some random poster who claims he knows better. I personally find that a perfectly intelligent position.My thought process is self-evident. I even spell it out. If I have to believe a single person who holds a masters degree and thereby disregard a multitude of people who hold Ph.D.'s, some I imagine in the field you practice then I'm violating Occam's razor am I not? And no I didn't mean to attack you. I'm using logic. As to your boast and what I can only assume is a dig at me. So what? My logic stands regardless if I have the theoretical knowledge to defend climate change myself. Not for nothing meteorologist. Have a problem with the majority opinion? Fine go ahead and publish and go through the process. Move the consensus and I'll be on board. Until that time you are nothing more than me. A guy trying to defend his position on a POLITICAL forum, which by the way seems an odd place to defend a position on global warming if you're an actual scientist in a related field.Atmospheric Physics...and a Practicing meteorologist..First what Ph.D.?
Second NASA, NOAA, UCS, Department of Agriculture, UN, probably the Easter Bunny, all disagree with your assessment. Occam's razor... What's more likely a Ph.D. candidate in an unspecified field being right, or a multitude and I mean a multitude of actual Ph.D.'s and a mythological rabbit being right?
LOL.. You cite Occam's razor and omit its meaning and process from your thought pattern. Very Nice... Then try to say the failed modeling is more accurate than empirically observed evidence which shows your hypothesis failed. Again, very nice... Lastly you attack the person because they do not agree with your hyperbole... F**k Off! Your bantering doesn't bother me. I have discussions with Ph.D.'s that you cant even grasp the simple concepts on..
Your position is one of faith...unfortunate that the educational system has failed you to that degree...that you must accept any scientific claim on faith....just like they did back in the dark ages...
You are aware that appealing to authority is a logical fallacy argument in science, dont you?
Hypothesis: Man is making the earth warmer by emitting CO2 in the atmosphere at an unsustainable rate.
-First, this means we have to establish that the earth's CO2 level is rising. I will suppose you don't challenge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhous Gases)
That is a verifiable fact, isn't it?
-Second, we need to establish that CO2 is trapping heat.
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/News/ConferencesandEvents/DAT_2042918.html?lang=EN
This shows 2 different IR satellites showing a steady drop in radiation going out at the wavelengths of CO2.
Again verifiable.
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
This shows an analysis of high-resolution spectral data from the surface and isolates the different greenhouse gasses.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
This one is a study of heat buildup.
-Lastly, we have to establish that humans are the cause of this rise in CO2.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Total Energy Annual Data
Here you see a precise calculation of all energy sources in the US similar information exists by nation.
Do these qualify as verifiable facts?