Yeah OK, you are half right and half wrong above but every science organization on earth, along with Exxon believe man's release of greenhouse gasses has caused the temps to rapidly rise beyond any natural cause. Do you want me to start quoting all the AGW position statements of all the science orgs in the world and Exxon and BP and The Weather Channel? The science is clear, overwhelming and obvious. Man's release of greenhouse gasses - mostly CO2 - has increased the greenhouse effect of earth's atmosphere which has caused heating of the earth and it continues to increase unabated. There is nearly unanimous agreement among the world's science community and the experts are in 97% consensus about this. All sorts of red herrings and disinformation can be offered, but anyone who would say this not true is simply wrong. Various reasons can be given for them being wrong. But wrong they are.
If the science were clear you would not be employing logical fallacies (such and an improper appeal to authority) to prove what should be a basic point. If you have all these papers and experts proving man made co2 causes warming on earth... (instead of it being a thermostat) you would produce some of the papers, the science, and the facts... showing man made co2 causing warming on earth. You don't because such science does not exist.
But of course you know the earth as a whole has continued to warm unabated over that time period. Good. You are learning ............troll.
How is this different from you using the guy on the video? Using the NASA observations on high-altitude CO2?
I guess you have missed the previous 20 posts wherein piezoe and I start with the science showing the physical properties of CO2 and go from there. Hmmm. I wonder why you missed it? Troll.
1. the physical properties of co2 are that it can warm and that it can cool. I presented the NASA experiment to prove that. 2. as an example of why showing physical properties is not proof of what happens in a dynamic, complex system.... Lets take the largest green house gas... water vapor. When you add more water vapor to earth right now does it cause warming or cooling? I just showed you NASA admits it does know know. 3. What happens when you add aerosols another greenhouse gas... The recent papers seem to conclude adding that ghc causes cooling. Therefore... adding greenhouse gases to our current mix does not necessarily cause warming.
So you do not understand when using experts and science to prove a point is legit and when it is a fallicy.... I know you are smarter than that ricter so I will tell you to google it. For others who may be new to rhetoric.... there is a time when appealing to authority is a logical fallicy and when it is a legit way to make a point when it is backed up by scientific evidence that people can access. For instance when court allows expert testimony to interpret evidence in front of a jury. Such as DNA evidence or finger print evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
His authorities are not so by decree, but by expertise. You're confounding a fallacy with legitimate argumentation.
1. first of all if you break down his authorities... the cook papers excluded 2/3 of the papers as not coming to a conclusion. Cook basically stands for the fact that 97% of the papers supporting agw support agw... you need to go read cooks own breakdown if you do not believe me. Next it was shown cook would not re produce his stats or results.. 2. A consensus in science is ridiculous. You need the science out front... and then you can rely on experts to explain it, if it is out of reach of the layman. 3. First you need the science then you can rely on expertise in evaluation....that is the proper use of an authority.