Skip to main content

View Diary: Carter & Harris: Gore "an embarrassment to U.S. science" (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then you are wrong. The link between (4+ / 0-)

    CO2 and global warming IS  proven.

    Find a single peer-reviewed scientific paper which denies it.

    Also, see my post below about the CO2-global warming connection.

    Why do you think the Venus is so damn hot? No not just because it is closer to the Sun than the Earth.
    Actually the Merkur is even closer and it's surface is cooler than that of the Venus.

    Venus
    Avg. distance from Sun 108,208,926 km
    CO2 96.5%
    Surface mean temperature  737 K.

    Merkur
    Avg. distance from Sun 57,909,176 km
    CO2 3.6%
    Surface mean temperature 440 K

    •  Careful there. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rustybias

      I come from a background in mathematics, so when I say "proven", it's to a much more rigorous standard than most would have.  Identifying a strong correlation is not yet enough to say something is proven, as correlation does not imply causation.  Even "clear and undeniable evidence" does not imply that it's "proven", at least mathematically speaking.

      I will say there's a very strong link between the two.  But I'll also say that when there's a strong correlation between two things, there's usually a reason behind it.  So even if there isn't a causal relationship, there's probably some kind of confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation, and that in itself should be investigated.

      I agree with you about the connection.  I just want us to be careful not to misuse a loaded word like "prove" when talking about these things.

      •  By that standard nothing can be proven outside of (0+ / 0-)
        mathematics.

        But of course people use the word "proven" often when they see irrefutable physicical evidence for something.

        It's not colleration it's causation.
        More GHG in the atmosphere leads to higher global mean temperatures.

        "So even if there isn't a causal relationship, there's probably some kind of confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation, and that in itself should be investigated"

        What does that "confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation" mean in this particular case?

        The word 'prove' has meaning outside of mathematics,
        whether you like it or not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site