arctic ice increases 60%

You still haven't proven global climate change is anthropogenic. Climate change is a solar function. But I already told you I was wasting my time because you refuse to comprehend.

 

High on my list of best posts for the year....

 

You have nothing that proves (or even reasonably suggests) climate change is just a solar function. On the other hand, there's a lot of data that correlates climate change with human activity....

 

Ok, let's review some basics of logical argument.

This is what's known as an unsupported assertion. It could also be called several types of logical fallacy, such as poisoning the well, ad hominem, false analogy, and probably several others.

Let's assume for the moment that the figures on bird deaths are correct. This still says absolutely nothing about AGW occurring or not occurring. In other words, it is irrelevant to the central question.

Ok then, do you have a realistic idea of what you would accept as proof? If you cant answer that question, it's rather pointless trying to prove anything to you.

Another way of putting this: is there any way you would ever accept that AGW was real, or have you already made up your mind that, no matter what evidence is presented, AGW cannot possibly be true?

Partially, yes. However that does not mean that other factors cannot also play a part. Even leaving the possibility of AGW out of the equation, Milankovitch cycles are known to have a long term effect on climate. So, a blanket statement that "Climate change is a solar function" is not the whole truth, even though it is not actually false since solar change can be a contributing factor.

Well, if you mean I have not so far agreed to devote my life to worshipping at the Church of Hoytedowology just because you have made some claims, then you would be correct.

I have been using most of my spare time to build a boat, so have not done a lot more digging into the science yet. I'll try to get around to it soon.

 

Was just browsing the New Scientist site (they something good to read on most days) and happened to run across this article, which I found rather interesting.

Inside the minds of the JFK conspiracy theorists

 

Also worth reading: The Truth Wears Off Is there something wrong with the scientific method? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

 

That is a good one, although the title is somewhat misleading. The method itself is sound. The article is mainly about how the method is applied in practice.

The final sentence is interesting: "When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

This is going to be subject to varying interpretations. Some people will take it as vindication of their right to just choose any old belief that suits them. My 2c is on what basis are the beliefs being chosen? They should be chosen on best evaulation of the available evidence, IMHO, because that's our best shot even if we don't like it.

 

U.S. methane emissions may be 50% more than EPA measure | USA TODAY

see also http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/u...imates-study-finds.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0

 

Interesting from the BBC...it seems that human influence can be measured and it can be reduced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060

 

Whoever woulda thunk it?

 

Warmnology propaganda leaves a sizeable carbon footprint.

 

Bring on the silicon-based life forms. Dolly Parton is off to a good start.

 

They may be fraudulent but I doubt they're silicon.

 

Not silicon in elemental form, but silicon-based.

 

Well, it's Planes, Trains and Automobiles kind of weather up here North of Cuba. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093748/