Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid

Hrm, ignore? The only person who ignored scientific theory here was the guy who decided to use Oceanic currents to build an atmospheric model.


Are you an expert? If so, what is the valid model to use in this circumstances? With what parameters? What is the proper statistical analysis should be applied?

No, nether you nor I are specialists. So we can only play numbers game. Listen to overwhelming majority of specialists that say it is happening or listen to tiny minority of with one or another conflict of interest that tell you it isn't.

You could also read the studies. While finer points might be lost on you, it doesn't take sophistication to understand them. Looking at ice cores. Looking at tree rings. Looking at STUFF, all that tells us it is happening.


What I am an expert on is usage of English, and I can say with full confidence that what I have attacked this entire thread is a particular model that makes unproven assumptions that the particular Oceanic measurements used for the model had the same temperature relationship with atmospheric conditions over the course of 4k years as it does today. Which is silly on the face of it, and also being brought to light during the peer review process by people who are experts in the field.

On the other hand, what you have defended the entire thread is the concept of "global warming" in general. Aka a straw man. You are asserting that because "global warming" has not been disproven, that this study must also be correct since its claims fall in line with the general concept of global warming. This is an obvious fallacy.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)