"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90...
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84...
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was
intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have
more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave
Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?
So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an
answer to this question...again?
You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do
you require for real proof?
Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science.
What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with
this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing
concern follows.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic
ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the
fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global
Warming is what is the cause? You need more proof than what you post as to
say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. We have had
warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around.