I sure wouldn't use any data from that to prove or disprove anything but that is a nice little experiment for kids to do.
Obama is literally using the same argument about cigarettes tonight in front of an audience of fundraisers. What an absolute doofball. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/us-usa-obama-climatechange-idUSKBN0F106920140626
Actually, it is, at least being measurable within a controlled environment. Again, when the entire earth is the control group, it's a bit hard to conduct experiments on two fractions of the entire earth's being.
Denny, you really do fascinate me. You're so skeptical of "science" you don't believe in, such as AGW, yet for something even more ridiculous in theory like the Big Bang, you can't provide any proof it happened, and often contradict yourself without knowing it. I'm a born cynic, btw. I remember waiting to get out of the altar boy smock as a 6th grader so I could get home to watch the NFL, and wondering the entire time why my parents were wasting their time on praying to something that we couldn't possibly prove to exist.
The Big Bang is a scientific theory. I'd be open to alternative explanations, but it fits what we observe. Global Warming is a theory as well. It is well supported by observable and measurable evidence. AGW is a hypothesis. I don't contradict myself.
Wow, you disappoint me. Testing simplified models is how science works. I didn't know you're a science rube.
Computer models are subject to human bias and human error, as well as issues with computers in general (like rounding errors). A computer model cannot be a satisfactory replacement for the real thing. Ever. I didn't know you were so gullible to believe that they could be.
The legs supporting science are theory, hypothesis (model if complex) based upon the theory, experiment, confirm or disprove theory, evolve theory, repeat. I thought you were smart enough to understand that scientists begin with an imperfect model and evolve it. Your requirement that their models be perfect from the start would stop all science. If Thomas Edison had started with a perfect model for the light bulb, he wouldn't have tried hundreds of materials before getting it right.
http://www.definitions.net/definition/scientific model 1.scientific model (Noun) An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system. A scientific model is a representation/replica of a complicated system which leaves out all details except a few (maybe only one) variables. If the real world has 500 variables, and an experiment can handle only 5, then the science team designs hundreds of overlapping experiments, each with 5 variables, which crosscheck each other. If you don't believe in science, why are you on a computer at this moment? All scientific studies you see in the paper (disease cures, vitamins, Kepler satellite discovering 1500 planets around other stars, etc.) were done using complex models. All I'm asking for is a study to find an estimate of cost & benefit for each global warming option (e.g. the expensive, middle, and cheap options). As I said, if cost exceeds benefits, then I oppose that option. But Denny opposes even this simple cost-benefit analysis.
Who said it has to replace the real thing? That seems like a gigantic and bizarre strawman you've built there. barfo
And here I thought Denny was a smart guy. He's a science rube! Well I won't be hard on myself, we can all be wrong a couple of times in life, I guess it's okay, just don't make a habit of it, predictions should always be right from the get-go.
The real world climate has 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 variables. I may be understating the number. It can't be modeled accurately, or even close.
