Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The point is that they havn't proved it. And many of the orgs you cite are known to carry an agenda. That doesn't necessiarily make them wrong, but it makes them suspect.
Yes it has been proven.
-humans release greenhouse gases into atmosphere - Proven
-this leads to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases across the globe - proven
-increased concentrations of greenhouse gases result in increase downwelling IR radiaion - proven and the increase in radiation can be quantified
-this anthropogenic forcing of the climate will result in increased global temperatures - proven and observed.
care to point out where this theory doesn't have ample proof to support if???
On to your other points, mainly that the NAS, IPCC, AMS, AGU etc all have an agenda. Well, in the sense that every org. and every person has an agenda, yes they do. But because they have this agenda (gasp! the advancement of science and knowledge) they are therefore suspect. That is total garbage. I guess we can't trust any scientific org. in any field becuase they have a suspect agenda. Unless you can point out how the agenda of the NAS, IPCC, AMS, AGU are somehow different than physics or chemestry professional organizations.
Next you bring this real whopper:
It's been proven on more than one occasion that advocates of the GW theory have used insuficient samples, concoted data and have in many cases refused to release methodology for peer review. The infamous "hockey stick" GW graph is the most notorious example of this.
I take it all of this criticism - the insufficient samples, made up data etc - is in refrence to the Mann et al. paper that contains the "infamous" hockey stick. Its funny how conservatives / global warming skeptics always point to this study and the associated criticisms from two economists from canada. This somehow makes the entire theory invalid. Well the criticisms from the two economists, McIntyre and McKitrick have been totally discredited and have no merit at all.
An interesting aspect of this controversy is that a group of republican congressmen, citing a Wall St. Journal editoral wrote the authors of Mann et al demanding answers to the questions posed by M&M. You can read the letters from the republicans
here, then read the response from Mann
here
It turns out that Mann's work has been reproduced by peers multiple times. This work has been published in peer reviewed jounals. Mann never released the code to his work (or he refused to release methodology, as you put it), but he could not (due to intellectual property) and should not anyway. Scientists should be able to reproduce the results from the written methodology (not computer code) from Mann's paper. Real climate scientists have been able to do exactly that, and they confirm Mann's results. Perhaps McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to based on them not being knowledgable in the field and their own incompetence. I should point out that McIntyre and McKitrick published their work in a energy opinion journal that was NOT peer reviewed. Yet we have all the global warming skeptics including US congressmen spouting off on these results as if they know what they're talking about and they found the kryptonite to stop these damn environmentalists.
To review, on the global warming side:
Publications in peer-reviewed scientific jounals.
The support of all the professional orgs. in climate science, as well as the NAS
On the global warming skeptic side we have:
Work from economists published in a non-peer reviewed opinion journal.
A wall St. Journal editoral.
Republican Congressmen.
Now tell me who we should be suspicious of due to thier agenda.
What next are you going to point to some discredited study using microwave sounding data to prove that the earth hasn't been warming?? I'm waiting.
Well.... All the research doesn't point to the same conclusion. There is a ton of conflicting data out there.
Perhaps you could point to some of this conflicting data that is published. Afterall there is a ton of it out there.