JackC

Read the links.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking. Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe. Which one of these facts do you deny? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration? That thermodynamics works? The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit? What part of "prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2" was too difficult for you to understand? Three links. Read them.

You have yet to prove that the temperature is rising BECAUSE of the increased CO2 - something that conveniently gets forgotten when the AGW faithful start talking. Sorry, but "It's the CO2, stupid" ain't cutting it. Show the link - make me believe. Which one of these facts do you deny? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration? That thermodynamics works? The laws of physics do not magically change just because the system you are looking at is a bit more complicated than you're used to. If you increase the insulation of a system so that it can retain more heat than it can dissipate and keep on supplying heat, the temperature has to go up. It's the law. What part of that do you think is bullshit?

Not really. Maths conforms to a fixed set of logical rules and the answer does not depend on who you ask. If you get two different answers from two different people, at least one of them is wrong. In this case the proof only works because 3.999... is asymptotically equal to 4. That is the difference bewteen 3.999... and 4 gets closer and closer to zero as you add more 9s and it is implied that there are an infinite number of 9s so the difference is infinitesimally close to zero (read: is equal to zero if the series extends to infinity). The proof is correct but intentionally designed to confuse readers not familiar with the concept of infinite series in maths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series

You know it's a piss poor argument when the author starts blaming global warming on a loss of faith in Christianity. It is dead simple: CO2 is a greenhouse gas The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing Thermodynamics works. With those 3 undisputable facts you have AGW.

This is the correct answer.

There is no prefered trend length, there are many trend lengths. You have diurnal cycles, Milankovic cycles, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Niño Southern Oscillation, Pacific decadal oscillation, the Arctic oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, Hale cycles and many more. To try and measure AGW you need to strip away all of those cycles and the many feedback mechanisms to get to the underlying basline. And despite all of these complications you still have the known physical facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the atmospheric concentreation of it is increasing and thermodynamics works. IMHO there is a massive problem with people getting all their information from pop science sources (or worse still, the conspiracy theorists dressed up as pop scientists). From astronomy to zoology; people who learn from pop science sources always, always, always have the wrong end of the stick. They have mastered the big words but they do not understand the underlying concepts and this is because big words sell pop science books, underlying concepts put people off. To paraphrase Steven Hawking "every equation in a pop science book halfs the readership", and to paraphrase my old physics prof on science without maths "you have physics with calculus, physics without calculus, and physics without physics". Pop science is living proof of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I really wouldn't consider faith to be a good thing. If you're prepared to believe one far-fetched story about impossible beings with dubious moral values based on circular reasoning, having to explain away the logical incoherencies by invoking "faith" because there is no supporting evidence whatsoever, what else are you likely to believe? It is very reminiscent of a particular mindset known as gullibility, a mindset which can be used to make people say and do all manner of crazy and repugnant things. That is a condition that I think should be eliminated, not encouraged.

What would you call it then? So we've agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it allows visible and UV light in but wont let IR out), that atmospheric CO2 concentration are increasing, that mankind is producing a net increase in atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels and that thermodynamics is right. Yet you somehow still think there is some complication that negates all of thise facts and magically stops them from adding up to AGW. What is this magic you are proposing?

How can you have the gaul to try and argue your corner when you don't even understand the most basic scientific principles related to the subject?

Why is faith different? Why should faith be allowed a free pass when circular reasoning wouldn't even be entertained if applied any other subject? The rules should be the same for all. No exceptions.

You didn't seem to make any points, hence my question about turning English into gibberish. More insulation means more heat gets trapped and unless something else affects the system, it gets hotter. That is thermodynamics 101. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising - fact Thermodynamics works - fact Complications do not detract from these basic facts.

And you have to assume Star Trek is real before you can have a meaningful discussion on the history of Klingon opera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Some people do appear to have the intelligence of an amoeba so yes, I would assume there are some people who think the sun has nothing to do with climate. What is your point? Is this some lawyer trick to turn English into pure gibberish in order to baffle the jury? Does it work?

A process which is known as begging the question. Exactly! I can think of no circumstances in which this can be considered a good or positive thing.

A process which is known as begging the question.

That appears to be an excellent reference. For what? Are you trying to produce an SI standard nutter, the nutter by which all other nutters are calibrated?

No, not really. How is thins causing global warming again? People can quite happily understand that you stay warmer wearing an extra jumper, or that your house stays warmer with loft insulation but cannot make the mental leap to something the size of a planet. They somehow think the laws of physics are different when the scale of things get beyond what they are used to.

To see God, we must perceive Him as He originally created us, perfect and uncorrupted. Sin obscures the existence of God and turns His Words into gibberish. Through sin we replace God and insert ourselves as creator, deciding right from wrong. ... Nah, it's religion that turn peoples words to gibberish. If you want to see how religion can turn otherwise sane people into a bunch of babbling idiots, check out http://www.raptureready.com

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact Burning fossil fuels results in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 - fact The human race is burning shit loads of fossil fuels - fact The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing - fact Is the conclusion not blindingly obvious?

What's with the comic?

It's seems quite common these days to specify Paypal deals to add a percentage to cover the fees since they are extortionate. It is worth noting that eBay (who own and force you to use Paypal) do not allow this practice. As always, cash is still king.

When I first bought an audible I set it to 5k, 4k and 2.5k. Over the course of many jumps I have grown used to the mk1 eyeball, my wrist alti, my audible and my internal freefall stopwatch all being syncronised and it only adds confusion when they're not (say because someone borrows my audible and sets it at different altitudes). I find it easier to adjust to not having an audible than having one set at a height you aren't used to. So I'm a fan of picking your audible settings and sticking to them.

I find it amusing how people object to being accused of using sophistry ... ... and then explain exactly why they need use sophistry. If you are aware that your arguments are outside the bounds of rational thinking, even if you believe them, yet you try to make the irrational appear rational then you are using sophistry. It is a very common tactic in religious discussions since it is one of the only ways the apologist can attempt to defend their position (the illogical position they hold often leaves no other defense possible). The tragedy is that it is seen as an acceptable method of plugging your views.

Sophistry certainly seems to go hand in hand with religion, along with a need to resort to emotional blackmail, an inability to understand the nature of evidence, shifting the definition words, pretty much every philosophical and psychological dirty trick in the book. I'm not sure whether that is a deliberate ploy or whether the religious really can't smell what they are shoveling. Either prospect makes religion a decidedly vulgar business.