KungFooMasta wrote:The fundamental flaw in Jerky's logic is that he assumes Global Warming to be fiction because it cannot be proven (at this point in time) as fact. You don't know the past 3.5 billion years worth of C02 levels in the atmosphere, yet you somehow think that disproves Global Warming? Why not try to make sense of things from a "this is the data we have, what can we derive from it" point of view, instead of claiming we don't know enough, therefore Global Warming is fiction. Regardless of temperature/C02 correlation, you don't see anything unnatural about the graph in terms of C02? Or maybe you think C02 can be whatever it wants to be and everybody will be happy?
That's funny. I would contest that there isn't a fundamental flaw in my logic. It is so simple that it can't be flawed. My logic is: the data is incomplete; so why doesn't someone admit it and build from
it(the incomplete data), rather than the house of cards that stands there now. I haven't heard or seen anyone so far that can refute that logic.
Actually, I don't disagree that most people's take on Global Warming (that it exists). I disagree with the
interpretation of the data we have and the way in which the information is shared with the public. That doesn't mean I don't think it exists, or that there isn't relevent data to be (re)interpreted. I completely agree that we *SHOULD* look at it from a "this is the data we gave, what can we derive from it" point of view. That is, in fact, my whole argument. If we quit assuming we have it all figured out, we can admit there is much we don't know, but what we do seems to indicate something. When nobody is looking at it from that perspective, however, I am inclined to shout "BS," because that is what it is. Until someone takes a step backwards and tries to re-analyze the data, based on things we
do know and have good data on, I will begin to support it. Until then I reserve my right to be a Jerk(y)
.
The scientists, however, are *NOT* doing that when they make asinine blanket statements that somehow make it seem like they have it all figured out. It's the bit of humble pie that is missing. I have yet to hear or read anything along those lines. Instead, I continue hearing everything as if it were strict fact and that we should all worshiping them for saving us all with the weak science they dish out. Rather than come up with new theories based on the actual good data, they just continue building on that shaky foundation. The higher and higher they build, the farther and farther they get away from the real truth of the matter. They need to go back to the beginning and re-analyze the data before they keep coming up with more and more BS, just because they feel the pressure of the world who wants answers.
Of course there is something unnatural about the post-1950 CO2 data. Once again, I have yet to hear anybody describe it that way or provide an alternate theory as to why that is. Also, I am curious as to if today's climate CO2 levels actually translate to the ice. Are those figures perfect? What does the ice at the top say the CO2 levels are at? There has to be a large difference between what the ice is recording and what is actually in the atmosphere. There are three possible scenarios that I would like to see here:
1) The data in the ice is much lower than what our air readings show, which would indicate that that the CO2 levels are X% higher than we figure from the ice readings. This would completely explain the spike since 1950, since the 1950 data onward doesn't come from ice readings, it comes from above-ground instruments.
2) The ice data is accurate. In this scenario, I would want someone to then provide some well-grounded theories as to why the CO2 levels now have broken the correlation. What does it mean that the temperature has not risen to meet the CO2 levels? What
other factors could be shown on the graph which might help explain a new correlation (data from 1950 onward) which could explain the CO2 level rise but also explaining the sustaining of the temperatures.
3) The ice data is higher than the actual. This would put me into alarm and I would expect the scientists to be working feverishly to provide us with some alternate explanations as to why the temperature level isn't yet rising with the CO2 readings. At this point, the spike is even higher than expressed in the updated graphs.
Can someone point to me where one of these 3 scenarios has already taken place, if it has? I don't profess to be an expert on global warming, I just am sharing with you my logic and my right to it
.
