You are obfuscating again. The point is that you are claiming that CO2 levels are a cause of GW and that the rise is man made. You have not addressed either point.Geni wrote:ed wrote:You are making a claim with far reaching implications, it is up to you to support that claim. Thats science 101.
Supporting it is fairly easy. We know CO2 levels are riseing and we know that CO" creates a greenhouse effect. We have no reason to think that the greenhouse effect will stop working once a certian level of CO2 is reached (in fact we know it doesn't from the issues with venus.
Hypothesising technology to make a claim falsifiable is really absurd. If that is acceptable I am hard pressed think of any claim, wackey or no, that is falsifiable. This is the GW version of the plaint of the Woo who declares that "the paranormal will not appear for unbeliever". Sadly, you appear to be the one with an imperfect understanding of falsifiability. It's ok, seen it before with believers.You lack of understanding as to what falsifiable isn't my problem. If you wish to alter your request to "falsifiable with currently availible technology within a reasonable timeframe" please just say so.Either one can make a falsifiable hypothesis or not. If not we have entered the world of religion.
Your earlier effort failed in that regard. You do realize that, no?
I understand that you claim that.You can test it.ETA I suspect that you will draw parallels to cosmology or somesuch and I think the argument that I make still holds. If you can't test it the conjecture is simply a conjecture. This is relevent because of the massive impact that "combating global warming Inc." would have on lots of things.
:D Cute. How many assumptions does it take for this one? This is hardly a controlled experiment, is it?That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.
For CO2 not to cause a greenhose effect requires our understanding of the behavior of CO2 and electromagnetic radation to be complete bollocks. Which is somewhat unlikely. It would also cause the problem that we would be unable to explain the surface temp of venus or why liquid water can commonly be found on the earth's surface (without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of earth would be probably a bit bellow -10C).
Here is what you are doing