So far I've counted one submission that you've answered well Chris - the CO2 not responsible one. In this case making a response by linking to another (alarmist) website does not evidence make. You are meant to be a physics PhD for Christ's sake. Yet you are just linking to bogus alarmist sites as "proof". Where's the original sources? Where's the peer-reviewed papers? Where's the data?
I would question the assertion that a website that references peer reviewed sources is "alarmist."
You are free to question. You'd be wrong. It's the easiest thing in the world to mention a few peer-reviewed studies that support your assertion and ignore the ones that don't. That's what Skeptical Science, and Wattsupwiththat, have been doing for years.
Proof. There is no proof.No proof that it is either man made or natural.There are indications, but no proof.Albert Einstein's general (and special) relativity theory has not been proven either. And most likely will not, if ever, be proven.There has been experiments and observations that the theory predixcts, but that is merely indications, and not proof.For example.The earth is the center of the solar system.They had models that could show the mechanics behind the movements and could use it to predict future placement of neighboring planets.We now know that that was wrong.But back then, it made sense. They had a working model.And so it is with global warming. You can make indications that shows wether it is man made pr not, depending on how you chose to present the data.But that in itself is no proof.And so your challenge is silly.Maybe when we get a unified theory of everything and are able to predict future events based on that, it might reveal wether human input is large or small enough to be of any importance.With regards;DQ
Hi Christopher,Here are but a couple links that introduce doubt into the AGW argument. If you ask me personally, I'm of the opinion that man's arrogance -- not climate -- is the enemy here. Man's quest to control the universe around him has always been met with "opposite, equal reaction" and then some! Even Lovelock, with his Gaia Theory, loosely suggests that our biosphere is self-healing, yet somehow man can help it heal itself. That's a faulty proposition in that it insinuates the cause of the problem can also be the solution to it. To err is human...I don't expect to win anything with this response, but I do hope to point out that wisdom is derived through having more questions, not more answers. At this point in time, with only Hollywood seemingly at the apex of climate enlightenment (joke), it would behoove us to have an honest discussion -- devoid of political gain -- on whether man is supposed to survive eternally. If we cannot control what happens ON the earth, how can we possibly control that which is out of this world? It's funny...man creates a catalytic converter to block CO pollution and in the process, creates a producer of N2O. Sorry professor, but man is too insignificant to affect the universe on a measurable scale....http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf
I want to congratulate you Dr. Keating for make this important issue alive and interestingI am psychologist and I want to approach this as such and want to point out three relevant factors that might affecting global warming.Environmental factors as the human race is larger and emission of CO2 is more than ever is heating up the earth environment. We are also destroying the outer layer of the atmosphere such as thinning of the Ozone layer that is a fact due to human activity and that is affecting global warming.Secondly we have the sun rays that push the earth away from the sun. The stronger the sun rays will initially heat the earth and then the earth will move further out and then it will ultimately cause colder climate again.Thirdly we have to acknowledge the fact of the cold black rays coming from the black holes. These rays keep the earth in balance towards the sun. Thus the gravity is not pulling force from the sun it is a combination of pushing force from the sun and the black hole.Sun rays to be initiated in fusion on the surface of the sun thus the heat on the sun is on the surface and the core is not that hot. The black rays are made of fission that dissolves the sunrays and indeed every matter and send out rays that are faster than the speed of light as can be seen that the daylight in the morning is slower than the darkening at night, and that will explain the shadow even in broad daylight. That can be easily measured.We have therefore to accept the facts:1. that gravity is not pulling force.2. Black rays travel faster than speed of light3. Black holes disolve the light in a fission4. The maximum cold is more than -274°Climate change can therefore be due to three elements that we only account for two of them that is the environmental changes within our atmosphere and effects from the sun. As we do not account for the cold and black rays we are not in a position to determine the full effects of the other factors.I might have sent my thougts earlier, but I have not seen it so I did resend it.Again I congratulaty Dr. Keating for this interesting blog.Bjorn Vernhardsson psychologist Iceland.