| |
|
| |
Nov 18, 2009 1:26 am |
|
re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths |
Thomas Holford
| |
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> Please also add ALL the other arguments you think you can defend. Please argue science. If you want to understand what science is read about Sir Karl Popper on scientific method.
This is naive. The problem is that there are so many issues and so much data that dispute human caused global warming that dialogue and debates on global warming inevitably spin off in all directions.
The epistemology of western civilization requires that the burden of proof is on the affirmative proposition.
In order to establish the validity of the human caused global warming proposition, proponents need to carefully establish a lengthy and complicated chain of causality:
E.g., that the earth is warming, that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, that CO2 is the principle gas causing the global warming, that human activity is the principle source of human caused global warming, that normal natural processes that remove atmospheric CO2 somehow fail to remove CO2, etc. etc. etc.
For human caused global warming to be true, all of the elements in the chain of causality must be shown to be true.
If ONE element in the chain of causality is discredited,, then the ulimate proposition cannot be asserted as valid.
There is a long, and growing list of issues and data that dispute or call into question the global warming chain of causality.
My experience has been that global warming believers view the multiplicity of discrediting data as too much to deal with and tend to dismiss it. Their understanding of human caused global warming is based on a limited set of premises, and disproving their premises entails a long discovery process to understand exactly which premises they think are the KEY ones.
In the specific case of Al Gore, it is obvious that his PowerPoint presentation contains a number of flawed premises. Specifically, Gore asserts that increasing CO2 CAUSES atmospheric warming, when in fact the causal relationship is exactly reversed: atmospheric warming causes ocean warmimg, which causes the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, which results in increased atmospheric CO2.
To my knowledge, Al Gore has never acknowledged that his assertions about atmospheric CO2 and temperature are reversed from scientific reality, and since he never exposes himself to questioning or debate, it is unclear what data would have any effect on his beliefs.
For the record, here are some sources of information that dispute human caused global warming. There are MANY arguments and much data encompassed by these sources, but neither I nor anyone else can assert that these are ALL arguments that dispute human caused global warming.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://icecap.us/index.php
And 35 books on "deconstructing global warming".
http://amzn.com/l/RS5NNWLFR2YUY
And to save yourself from the embarrassment of claiming that people who "deny" human caused global warming are nothing but a bunch of ignorant provincial neanderthals, you might want to read this book first:
http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=cm_lmf_tit_8
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|