In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not
science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?



Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.



Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?


I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.









Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm
of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.


The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?

OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
on this planet?

Sheesh.

Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?

Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.