[quote=“Jotham”]You’re totally off. I never questioned that greenhouse gases have a warming effect or can influence the temperature of the earth. The controversy is how much of the warming in the past was CO2 really responsible for. I never implied that the proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is from models. In fact, I said that models are designed to work in a fairytale world where CO2 is responsible for 80 or 90% of the warming. There is no proof of that, that is only theory. I would suggest if it were really true, it would be proven already.
I was scoffing the idea that you can predict with any certainty via models what the earths temperature will be without greenhouse gases when you can’t even predict as much with them…
…My appropriate ridicule of your arrogant certainty of temperatures using models under theoretic, fairyland conditions (no greenhouse gases) when certainty repeatedly falls short using them under real-world conditions is not implying that the science of AGW rests solely on climate models. You only inferred it.[/quote]
:no-no: Oh, so now we’ve retreated back to the second-to-last goalpost, just before we get to "It’s happening and we’re causing it, but maybe it will be good…
…or at least ‘We can’t know what will happen!’ I always find that one hilarious when espoused by alleged “conservatives”. ‘Sure, let’s conduct a humongous, one-time-only experiment on the atmosphere of our one and only planet! Who knows - might turn out ok!’ But I digress…
In any case, if this has always been your stance, why didn’t you say so in the first place and be done with it, so we can discuss sensitivity?
Debating with you really gets more and more like debating with a 9/11 Truther or anti-vaccine advocate. Xeno provides you with excellent resources like this:
pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publi … o_2008.pdf
…and…
eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl … radiation/
…and all you want to do is show us a graph from your spin blogs. I find it really disappointing, because for a moment or two, I almost found myself believing you’d actually care about the truth of the matter, and perhaps worry that modern conservatism is locking itself ever tighter into an epistemic bubble - a situation decried by intellectually honest conservatives like David Frumm. You guys used to love to make fun of the Left for its anti-science stance back in the day - RIGHTLY, I’ll add! - and not look what you’ve become. Post Modernists and conspiracy theorists.
In any case, I’ve already shown you empirical evidence that the warming we are seeing has the fingerprints of anthrogenesis. You ignore this and go on with this line. I’ve also pointed out that if Tisdale’s hypothesis were true, we ought not be seeing this evidence, or else we should be seeing a whole lot more warming on top of what we do. You ignore that too. Thus by default, you are indeed denying the entire scientific basis of AGW. But now it’s suddenly all just about sensitivity.
Before, I was ok playing fetch-boy for you because it provides me with ego-incentive to learn more, and I already have a considerable financial incentive to learn as much as I can (figured that might impress you, since it seems to be the only thing conservatives respect). But this is getting ridiculous. You talk as if scientists are either insidiously evil or idiots, and yet you don’t demonstrate much awareness of the copious research that exists unless it is through the filter of your pseudo-skeptical blogs. Here is a mere sample of the extensive research that investigates the natural vs. human-caused composition of global warming:
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do … 1&type=pdf
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/ … alance.pdf
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/ … ations.pdf
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- … etype=.pdf
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. … 2.0.CO%3B2
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
(The first might be of particular interest to you, because it attempts to incorporate the effect of ENSO.) Now if you’re going to argue in simplistic soundbites like “scientists just do this and that, and then PRESTO!”, why don’t you go ahead and cite some of this research DIRECTLY.