On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:43:47 +1000, ozonb wrote:

It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all,
because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then
compared with observations that the average person can check for
himself.

The theory is that if man made CO2 emissions build up, global
temperatures will rise. And behold ......

http://tinyurl.com/2sk83e

http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8

Your argument seems to be that they've failed to produce a computer model
that simulates the entire planet, ergo the theory fails. This is a load
of crap IMHO. Let's see you produce a complete computer model that
accurately predicts cloud cover given a certain level of cosmic ray flux
if that's the case.


--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
onservatives."- John Stuart Mill

On May 20, 12:08*am, netvegetable wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:43:47 +1000, ozonb wrote:
It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all,
because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then
compared with observations that the average person can check for
himself.

The theory is that if man made CO2 emissions build up, global
temperatures will rise. And behold .....

•• Yes indeed it is a nice theory absent science but
historic evidence indicates that whenever CO2
in the atmosphere exceeds 300 ppm the
interglacial period in ending.

| In 1979, Dr Genevieve Woillard, a paleologist in France,
| concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a
| warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the
| beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago,
| took "less than 20 years." Her observationss led her to
| conclude we may be in a similar period of rapid
| climatic change.

| Research has shown that this 20-year period is one in
| which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on humanity.

| If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard and
| others who studied past ice ages are any indication of
| the pace of glaciation, once it starts, the transition
| period is a mere 20 years or so. And we may be well
| into that 20-year period now. Woillard estimated that
| the period before that final 20 years — when the earth
| began gearing up for an end to the interglacial period
| — could be as long as 150 years and as short as 75
| years."

| According to Woillard's studies and those of other
| paleological climate researchers, the transition
| between interglacial and glacial periods is one of
| increasing violence — more volcanic eruptions,
| storms, earthquakes, extreme hot spells, extreme
| cold spells and other natural disasters.


Your argument seems to be that they've failed to produce a computer model
that simulates the entire planet, ergo the theory fails. This is a load
of crap IMHO. Let's see you produce a complete computer model that
accurately predicts cloud cover given a certain level of cosmic ray flux
if that's the case.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.