On 7/19/2012 8:04 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 19 Jul 2012 11:51:35 GMT, wrote:

Larry wrote in
:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global
warming is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes
our increasing CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor
effect here. That's the perception I speak of.

And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.

Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means,
to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2
did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.

Yebbut ...

Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output
lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can
release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases
exacerbate the warming trends.

Theoretically. The politically sensitive liberal groups of
"scientists" endorse it, but it has not yet been proven to real
scientists. Solar output can be tracked. And if warming can release
stored CO2, why is man being blamed for it, hmmm? There goes your
anthropogenicity. (new word?


So the primary effect (orbital change-
induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects
due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never
studied climatology at the high end.

You're a scientist, yet you do not question these theories and ask for
proof?

--

Larry, theories are just exactly that. Theories.

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.


Richard