On 26 Feb 2007 22:19:26 -0600, D Smith wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:24:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming,
the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would
be required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as
evidence of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one
needs to start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global
temperature rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.

How?

Determining the carbon isotope ratios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

And what we have from there is that humans are producing some
quantityt of CO2 from fossil fuels. Well _duh_.

...and that quantity is about twice the current rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2.

So?

So if you want to argue that the atmospheric rise is NOT
the result of burning fossil fuels, you need to:

1) give an explanation as to why all (or at least most) the CO2 from
fossil fuels is being removed.

Huh? What does a removal mechanism have to do with identifying a
source?

2) give another (currently unknown) source of CO2 that is adding enough
to the atmosphere to give the observed rise.

What source has prior to the advent of human industry brought about
the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere?

3) explain why the mechanism you postulate for 1) succeeds with CO2
from fossil fuels, but fails to remove the CO2 source you postulate in 2).

Again, what relevance does a removal mechanism have to do with
identifcation of a source? This is like examining the functioning of
the drain to determine whether the puddle in the tub came out of the
tap or the dog.

4) demonstrate that the source you postulate in 2) has an isotope
combination that makes it look exactly the same as CO2 from fossil fuels.
(Note that this means it is difficult to develop an explanation for 3)
that is based on isotope ratios.)

First you need to demonstrate that the isotopic composition of
atmospheric CO2 is completely consistent with a human source bringing
about the observed increase. The Web site that was linked earlier
does not demonstrate this.

It's a long way from there to "humans have caused a massive increase
in CO2 levels in the past 150 years",

Well, it's easier if you put numbers on it. The increase is about 40%.
Do you consider that "massive", or are you using "massive" as a debating
tactic?

Straw man. It's a long way from the information in the site that was
referenced to humans causing the increase you claim.

and it's an even bigger stretch
from there to "human should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2"

Who is saying that? Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.
Besides, what to do about something is a distinct step from "is the
climate science right?"

Figured that out, did you?

and then there is the main point of the econuts which is that
"The United States should immediately and forthwith cease to produce
CO2

A clear strawman.

To you perhaps, not to most of the econuts who rave about global
warming.

while China and the rest of the world massively increase _their_
pollution", which is basically what the "Kyoto accords" require.

The US produce about 25% of the WORLD total. Why shouldn't it show some
global citizenship and take the lead in trying to clean up a problem that
it has taken the lead in creating?

Why should the US be held to a different standard than China?

Right now, the US looks like the older brother who has been stealing
cookies for years, and gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by Mom.
He's claiming he shouldn't be asked to stop because his little brother
might steal some later.

No, he's claiming that he shouldn't be forbidden to eat cookies
forever while baking them in quantity for Junior.

It sounds to me like you're using the "I don't want to make any
changes, so I'll choose to ignore climate science" approach. Works right
up to the point that Mother Nature bites you in the ass.

Yep, I figured you'd get to that one eventually. Typcal econut, come
up with a bunch of irrelevancies, pretend that they are profundities,
and when challenged then launch a personal attack.

plonk