On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:


At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that
says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause
severe problems in the future.

Not true, Mr. Ward. The "proponents" make a baseless claim that
anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. They don't have a theory, a
theory makes useful predictions. It isn't even a hypothesis, as their
"hypothesis" has failed to predict every damn time.

They not only don't have a hypothesis, but when the opposite of their
claims comes to be, they aren't FAZED by that at all!! Indeed, they claim
the recent record cold and snowfall is a result of AGW!! There is NO
FRACKEN WAY to "disprove" their "theory" to them.

So, it is NOT a theory, it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a baseless
unscientific claim.

snip

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks
which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They
seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they
believe climate models, but don't understand them.

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.