> Well I think the remaining debate (such that there is) will be resolved in the next 10 years or so.
It will be on this board. I have a $1000 dollar bet running with Dean Fellabaum, the original poster on this thread, that the temperature trend between 2005 and 2020 will be down not up. ;-)
> You see, the great thing about science is that some evidence is almost irrefutable, and the guy (gal) who devises the experiment/data collection technique that comes up with the "proof" will become quite famous in the scientific community. Now that *is* something that scientists care about.
I think you have this the wrong way round. Albert Einstein put it this way:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
To quote another poster:
"Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. "
So when the hardline warmies tell me that, "Ah yes, the cooling was expected and predicted by our theory of global warming" I smell a rat. If warming is caused by co2, and cooling is also caused by co2, where's the falsifiable content to the man made global warming theory?
The key points which refute man made global warming theory are:
1) Ocean heat content has been dropping since 2003 while co2 levels continue to rise. Co2 traps heat and the sun is very constant. Where can the extra heat be hiding? It's not in the atmosphere or we'd have measured it. It's not up Al Gore's chuff either, though he does expound a lot of hot air I'll admit.
2) Even the hardest of hardline co2 warmie scientists admit that co2 can't raise the Earth's temperature much on it's own. For that, it needs the help of water vapour, a far more prevalent and much stronger greenhouse gas. Specifically, the models predict a hot spot in the tropical troposphere, raising absolute humidity. Problem is, it doesn't seem to be there. Is it dodging the meteo balloons? Can't the satellites spot it? Perhaps it's just not there.
3) In the face of the newer data the warmie scientists tell us:
"Ah well, natural variation can make it cooler for several decades at a time, but then the evil warming will return with a vengeance and nasty big teeth."
If this is the case, how do they know the warming of the last few decades wasn't natural variation also, in which co2 played a tag along role of increasing it's level in response the the naturally caused temperature rise? And where did the heat generated by the radiative forcing of co2 hide in the meantime? Stuart took the huff and vanished in a puff of insouciance when I asked him this, so I'm still awaiting a reply.
Meanwhile, the Earth quietly cools.
> On the question of warming, I hope you are right, but strongly suspect you are wrong. ;-)
Fair enough, but you're talking as an individual there not as a scientist. Science doesn't deal in hopes and suspicions, it deals in data and it's analysis.