bascule

See, the funny thing is anyone can write a book. A book is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here's another interesting book: Darwin's Black Box This book clearly explains that the scientific concensus about evolution is wrong. Life could not have resulted from abiogenesis, because of "irreducibly complex" structures. Well, that seals it for me. The biological concensus is wrong, and Michael Behe is right. Evolution is disproven! See, it doesn't work that way. A book simply doesn't compare to a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a journal like Science. For example, the Hansen et al 2005 paper Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Here's a synopsis: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html

The most successful operating systems out there (NT, OS X, Linux) have all started from microkernel concepts and used them to build a macrokernel. While Linux merely borrows conceptually from a microkernel OS (Minix), NT and OS X are both derived directly from microkernel operating systems, and have since been refactored into macrokernels (although NT continues to capitalize on "services" which are somewhat similar to microkernel servers)

Well, if people are going to troll me back into the argument... Everyone being... you and SkepticLance? Funny how the professional scientists here don't see it that way... Logic, calculations, and models are the bread and butter of science. Science is about building empirically-derived arguments using logic, calculations, and models. SkepticLance simply wants to ignore the entire argumentation process of climate science, look at the evidence for himself, and come to his own conclusions, ignoring the logic, calculation, and models of climate scientists worldwide.

I think you have a lot of ideas about "the left" which aren't necessarily true. Liberals aren't necessarily PC Liberals don't necessarily support smoking bans Liberals don't necessarily support drug legalization I would say: Libertarians oppose political correctness Libertarians oppose smoking bans Libertarians support drug legalization Totalitarians support political correctness Totalitarians support smoking bans Totalitarians oppose drug legalization You like making these things out into a right/left issue when really they're a libertarian/totalitarian issue, and lately "the right" has been acting far more totalitarian than "the left"

I'll say this at least: smoking bans are a great way to meet new people. If you frequent a bar, particularly on some night where an event is happening (karaoke, open mic, trivia, etc) you end up with a tight knit group of smokers who hang out and talk outside. When you're all freezing your asses off in the middle of winter it tends to build commoraderie. Met lots of great people that way.

I used to live in a town that banned all indoor smoking in public places. Several bars in town closed as a result, while those outside the city limits saw a major increase in business. Now they're trying to do it statewide: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3977323 Many now claim they'll just go to bars in Kansas/Wyoming to smoke.

All right, this time I mean it, I'm done. Those of you who want to ignore climate science research or pretend it's unscientific, go right ahead. I won't stop you. But that's all you're doing: ignoring science. That puts you in the same camp as creationists.

Yes, I'm confused as to what you mean. Bush appointed two of his cronies. One ruled in his favor in the lower courts, and the other ruled in his favor in the SCOTUS decision. So, at least in this instance they acted just like "the left" would expect...

So it's a strawman then. No one is saying that man is the only cause. Yes, there is... please review the NRC report and the IPCC report I linked earlier in the thread.

Of course natural forcings still affect the Earth's radiative imbalance. However, at the present time anthropogenically induced forcings are predominant. Yes, as I answered earlier, increased solar luminosity furthered a warming trend in the early part of the 20th century. This was a coupled with a decrease in naturally occuring reflective sulfate aerosols from volcanic emissions, due to decreased volcanic activity. So your argument is all climate science research to date is wrong. What's the scientific basis for that argument?

Blatant violations of human and civil rights? And this:

Well, that's the last word in the "debate" for me. Past climate change was natural, therefore present climate change is natural. Flawless specious reasoning!

Better explained? At least Penrose posited a real argument, albeit a fallacious one. That sounds little better than "The mind can't be computational. It can't! Why? I dunno. I just can't imagine my conscious experience being a computational effect! Seems wrong. In my gut. Instinct."

As I understand it, our common ancestors with chimpanzees were seperated into a forest dwelling group and a savannah dwelling group. The former evolved into chimpanzees and the latter evolved into early hominids.

Why is that more likely? Where's the study? Who peer reviewed it? To pound the point into your head again: CO2 isn't the only forcing affecting the climate system No, it doesn't. It means other forcings beyond CO2 affect the climate system.

The graph in red is the empirical measurements you were asking for. The rest of the graphs are from model output. That graph is showing that the models agree with the empirical measurements. These are independent studies, conducted with different models, all showing similar results which, surprise surprise, agree with the empirical data. *gasp* When the models and empirical data agree, maybe the models are accurate. I have a graph which shows a direct correlation between pirates and global warming. Some guy pulled it out of his ass. The graphs I gave there are from the results of multiple, independent climate science research groups. What do they illustrate? A scientific concensus. It will be interesting to see where your graph comes from. Ooh, a "number of suggested mechanisms". Well, according to the pirate theory of global warming, the creation of robot pirates which displaced human pirates is responsible. How would that theory survive climate science peer review? You already agreed that increases in CO2 throughout the 20th century come from primarily anthropogenic sources. No backpedaling. You can't turn around now and say that this isn't the case.

Okay, another caveat: natural forcings were predominant in the period of time between the "Little Ice Age" and 1940. In particular, we saw a period of decreased volcanic activity which brought about a decrease in reflective sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, altering Earth's albedo and causing increased warming. Furthermore, we saw an overall increase in solar luminosity during this time. These forcings are not applicable past 1940.

So I take it you completely reject the Mann "hockey stick" reconstruction and the dozen other independent northern hemisphere reconstructions AND the instrumental record which give nearly identical results: And you further reject the IPCC's detection and attribution studies: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm And studies of Antarctic ice core data which show a clear correlation between CO2 concentrations and global average temperature: So the question becomes, is there any climate science research you do accept?

What is your argument against the IPCC's methodology for doing so and the empirical data they used to justify their position? They've made an argument based upon empirical data. You're committing the shifting the burden of proof fallacy by failing to undermine their argument. In fact it seems you simply pretend it doesn't exist.

So wait, calling into question the costs of the war is a red herring in an argument about its sustainability? Zuh? Seriously, you're shouting red herring and shifting the burden of proof here. I don't think I've done any of those things, and I think the sagging value of the dollar and the widening US trade deficit (which with a sagging dollar should be narrowing, should it not?) are some pretty sound indicators of the economic unsustainability of the war. I post here fairly infrequently because you're something of a vitriol bilge pump. If you're going to accuse me of logical fallacies, you better pick ones that are applicable to my arguments. I still stand by my original point: the Iraq war is unsustainable. Go ahead and argue that that's irrelevant; that's a sound argument. Claiming it's sustainable, and my reasoning is flawed without something to counter my arguments beyond specious claims of fallacies is not.

Where's their paper? And the peer review?

Pangloss, here's the abstract from the Martell paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1285 Cigarette smoke contains ionizing alpha emitters. Of course it's going to cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has not been filtered and is more hazardous than that inhaled directly by smokers. I compiled a letter to my senators tonight which I'm sending off tomorrow, calling for them to grant the EPA the power to regulate alpha emitters in cigarettes. We'll see what happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science

I recently asked the EPA why they don't regulate the presence of alpha emitters in cigarettes. They told me they aren't authorized to do so. Ed Martell's paper has convinced me that alpha emitters are one of the most potent carcinogens in cigarettes: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1285 Those still unconvinced may wish to read Philip Morris's take on Martell's original paper: http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/CgHmPMI19800402.Me.html I'm compiling a letter I plan to send to my senator asking him to give the EPA the authority to regulate alpha emitters in cigarettes. I'm convinced that if cigarettes are required, by government mandate, to be free of alpha emitters, particularly polonium-210 and lead-210, that the incidence of cigarette-related cancers will be dramatically reduced. I certainly believe that secondhand smoke causes cancer. I also believe it doesn't have to. Marlboros, made by Philip Morris, contain higher levels of another carcinogen, nitrosamine, than any other cigarette in the world. Nitrosamine forms on flue-cured tobacco leaves during the curing process through a chemical reaction between nicotine and other compounds contained in the uncured leaf and various oxides of nitrogen found in all combustion gases. However, switching to indirect-fire curing has been shown to reduce nitrosamine to undetectable levels (less than 0.1 part per million).

You still haven't stated what form you would like this evidence in. Can you describe what kind of evidence would convince you that anthropogenic CO2 is a first order climate forcing and the primary one affecting the climate system? What form would it take? Your question is so vague I simply don't know what you're asking for. There isn't a direct one-to-one relationship between greenhouse gasses and mean surface temperature, because greenhouse gasses aren't the only forcing affecting the climate system. For example, in the early 20th century there were no governmental controls on sulfate emissions, and the effect of sulfate aerosols (which cause acid rain) caused a cooling effect (see the "reflective aerosols" section of the chart I linked above). Once environmental regulations were in place to limit emissions of sulfates, we began to see the global average surface temeprature rise again. You both have a rather sophomoric view of the climate system. I suggest you both educate yourselves better on the issues before attempting to debate them.