Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:cuts no ice | |
Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
Date/Time: | 01/07/08 17:24:00 |
You've completely missed my point while illustrating perfectly how deniers advocate untestable propositions - you can't possibly PROVE a link is a coincidence. What you might hope to disprove is the correlation between the amount of CO2 produced by humans and an increase in global temperatures. But the evidence is heavily in the other direction. Or you might want disprove that more CO2 causes a heating effect in the atmosphere. You'd have to overturn an even greater weight of scientific evidence there. But you could avoid having to disprove either of the above if you could show another effect swamps the warming due to CO2. This is what scientists have been studying ever since the warming effects of CO2 were first identified. But all of the possibilities, for instance sun activity, volcanicity, and orbital cycles, look like they have a much weaker effect on the climate than the increase in CO2. I certainly wouldn't deny religion adapts to survive. In contrast science adapts to new evidence. Deniers seem not to be interested in producing any new evidence. |