| PLEX86 | ||
Evidence for global climate change 1898Lloyd Parker Argument by bad analogy and circular logic.Simply saying so doesn't make it so. And since it is being "debated" right here, you're clearly wrong. But not only is it being debated here, but there is a strong difference of opinion when it comes to man made causes. Evidence for global climate change 1900 Lloyd Parker A falsehood (because not all the scientific literature does) and an Argumentum ad Populum (argument that because it is a popular view... But lets say you're right, and there is no debate. Then your argument is Argumentum ad Populum, yet another error. Because earlier, there was a negative correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperature. This would suggest that CO2 levels are not the cause of the warming. Red herring. The argument of the anthropogenic global warming advocates is that added CO2 is the cause of the warming. Evidence for global climate change 1899 No, but all the scientific literature does. Since creationism is debated in some groups, does that mean the jury is still out on that? Not among the... The amount of CO2 added to the total system is trivial. Evidence for global climate change 1901 is Yes it all does. Scientific journals, scientific agencies -- it all agrees. No, it goes to... There is a huge amount of carbon in carbonate rocks. There is a very large amount of CO2 in sea water, and a trivial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. These three states, solid, dissolved and gaseous, exist in an equilibrium. Add to one state, and the equilibrium changes to absorb it into the other states. Ergo, it is an error to just consider atmospheric CO2. Scientifically, you must consider the entire system.
Ah. Argumentum ad hominem, and a false claim. The atmosphere holds about 730 million metric tons The oceans hold 38 BILLION metric trons. The amount in the air is trivial by comparison. The amount of carbonate rock is far more vast than the amount in the oceans. Real scientist understand what their closed system is. Global warming advocates don't understand the size of the system. I take it that your argument is that since global temerature increased, while the solar cycle would indicate no warming, that the correlation between global warming and solar cycle is debunked. The problem is, the correlation still holds. The earth has stopped warming.
Ah! the error of Ignoring the Counterevidence. If Jupiter, Mars, and Earth are all warming, this supports the solar hypothesis. You're intentionally ignoring the counter evidence.
|
||||
Evidence for global climate change 1899 Alt Computer Consultants from Newsgroups Not Much Evidence for kOoK Stuart Grey giving up King of the kOoKkOos CrOwN |
||||