There may be correlation, but without causality you can't say why - how do you know that the temperature going up isn't causing the extra CO2? - It's like the old "every time it is cold outside, my feet are cold. Therefore, my feet being cold is causing it to be cold outside"when i said about correlation, i was referring to the test itself relating to RL, not about GW itself
And assuming climatologists haven't done basic due diligence?I just assumed you were advocating that scientists can't know anything because they don't know everything, it that wasn't your intention then I apologize.
But they are one and the same. To be able to do the things that create CO2 we also destroy the eart (eg cars require mines, roads, fuel, etc). The illusion that we could do the former without the latter is just that, illusion.
Sorry, but I disagree. It's like banning DDT because there's the chance it might cause cancer 30 years from now, while you die tomorrow from the malaria-ridden mosquitos. Sometimes the cure is worse than the poison.
You should always assume that due diligence may not have been performed, which is exactly why scientific papers are so long and tedious - the experimenter must spell out the exact methodology (including relevant variables and the steps taken to control for them) used so that the experiment can be performed again by a third party.Trust but verify.I'm not saying scientists can't know anything at all, my only issue was the claim that "'Gathering every possible variable' is not a required step." It most certainly is a required step, even though we can never identify, isolate, and control EVERY single variable, the ones mentioned by the OP are most definitely relevant and should be considered.
auto98Jun 25, 2008
There may be correlation, but without causality you can't say why - how do you know that the temperature going up isn't causing the extra CO2? - It's like the old "every time it is cold outside, my feet are cold. Therefore, my feet being cold is causing it to be cold outside"when i said about correlation, i was referring to the test itself relating to RL, not about GW itself
laserdogJun 25, 2008
And assuming climatologists haven't done basic due diligence?I just assumed you were advocating that scientists can't know anything because they don't know everything, it that wasn't your intention then I apologize.
greenfyreJun 25, 2008
But they are one and the same. To be able to do the things that create CO2 we also destroy the eart (eg cars require mines, roads, fuel, etc). The illusion that we could do the former without the latter is just that, illusion.
henryjonesjrJun 25, 2008
Sorry, but I disagree. It's like banning DDT because there's the chance it might cause cancer 30 years from now, while you die tomorrow from the malaria-ridden mosquitos. Sometimes the cure is worse than the poison.
greenfyreJun 26, 2008
Got anything for us other than a mindless rant abusing other people? Some actual evidence or maybe a credible fact?
thebaron2Jun 26, 2008
You should always assume that due diligence may not have been performed, which is exactly why scientific papers are so long and tedious - the experimenter must spell out the exact methodology (including relevant variables and the steps taken to control for them) used so that the experiment can be performed again by a third party.Trust but verify.I'm not saying scientists can't know anything at all, my only issue was the claim that "'Gathering every possible variable' is not a required step." It most certainly is a required step, even though we can never identify, isolate, and control EVERY single variable, the ones mentioned by the OP are most definitely relevant and should be considered.
greenfyreJun 26, 2008
Here's one that may make you rethink that <a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...</a>
Closed AccountJun 26, 2008
Watch and believe TV...you will be hapy sheep
dafunkmonsterJul 1, 2008
Yes, you can say there's a correlation between A and B. But to ignore a possible C causing both is just ignorant.