http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160205&page=2Oh my.
I've been considerably worried about Fat Che, ever since his wife lost her job and Fat Che's home got foreclosed upon.
Happily, Fat Che appears alive and well, in this bonfire at the Rancid Rhodes web-site, where debunking scientists are debunked.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
November 23, 2009
AGW without HADCRUT3
Suppose we throw away all of the data that the reality-denying Right is calling into question as a result of hacking some email accounts.
What is left?
Everything.
Yeah, yeah, as if Fat Che knows about stuff like this.
Then Fat Che lists a whole lot of links, but never mind.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
November 23, 2009
Ignore reality if you like. But there it is, Sparky. Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement.
That is Science.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
November 23, 2009
This is called "moving the goalposts" because no matter what standard of proof is proffered, it will be rejected as "inconclusive."
This of course flies in the face of the fact that most science is exactly as sound a basis as AGW - no proof is actually ever conclusive. All results can be attacked by new data and new analysis, and all we can ever achieve is consensus.
What we have here for AGW is an especially strong case;
1. The effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 was predicted 182 years ago by the French mathematician Joseph Fourier. (You've heard of him, correct?)
2. We see this effect in the atmospheres of other planets, and it agrees with predictions in those cases.
3. We have excellent results that show that atmospheric CO2 is regularly increasing, and that this rate of change is increasing.
4. We have excellent isotope data to show that the carbon entering the atmosphere was from a fossil source. So much so that recent radiocarbon age measurements have to be scaled on a table that takes this into account.
5. We have an observed warming trend that matches theoretical predictions for this amount of CO2 rise.
6. We have glaciers melting worldwide at rates that agree with those observed warming trends.
7. We are seeing the range of certain plants move steadily towards the poles.
So, not "conclusive" but that is an improper standard for scientific debate.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
November 23, 2009
There are a zillion (OK, I'll be honest, only 0.87 zillion) sources.
Google is your friend.
I gave you three sources for #5 that are not HADCRUT3 related at all, see graphs above.
The rest of this is not dependent on temperature data at all. (The critters can't read temperature data, and the ice is dumb.)
After which Fat Che clogs the thread with more links.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
November 24, 2009
Can you bag together more unrelated crap if you tried?
We KNOW that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes heating. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the past other than the fact that you can see its effect in past climate and even in mass extinctions.
We know how much CO2 has risen and can COMPUTE from basic physical principles how much this changes energy retention.
I'm sorry if you want to disbelieve the facts so badly that you will embrace any lie to do it, but this does not change the laws of nature.