From Will:
"Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side."
Um, the "sickened" bit was the prelude to "There is NO debate on global warming", "You're...helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases", "the future of the entire planet", and "I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet". It was pretty obvious that alarikf had bought into the Doomsday scenarios (note "doom the planet" above) and he was specifically irked at climate skeptics. His later posts have been more moderate, but alarikf's first post to this thread made a lasting impression.
"As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio"
No, I've been reading up on science, for example the bit about "dihydrogen monoxide"
being the principal infrared-absorbing gas (please, not "greenhouse" gas), and the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide largely overlapping that of water vapor. As a professional programmer I know that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, no more, no less ("Surprise! Our model shows man-made global warming, just like we predicted!"). My brother the geologist and fellow "climate skeptic" has been very helpful with ice core data.
On the other hand alarikf seems to have been listening to Al Gore.
With regard to uncertainty in temperature records, Will's "general store" is a perfect example. What brand of thermometer was it? Was it calibrated? Was it in the shade? Did it get rained on? Was it close enough to the side of the store that it was warmed slightly by the coal stove in winter? Did it have gradations for every degree? Every two degrees? Was it read at the exact same time every day? Was it always read by only the store owner? Was he nearsighted? When the original thermometer was replaced in 1902, how closely did the new thermometer match the old? Was the store in the woods? In town? Surrounded by wheat fields? Near a big lake? When the store was torn down in 1935 and city hall did the temp records, how did that affect the readings? What about when the new airport (30 miles from the old general store) took over in 1962?
Guys,
I'm just scratching the surface here!
"Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing"
[counts to ten] No, children, they're not. Example: That state-of-the-art Acme thermometer over there, the one that measures temps to three decimal places? Well, it's in an ice water bath and it reads 5.142 decrees Celsius. It's very
precise (three decimal places!), but not accurate (it should read zero).
"...it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense."
Actually, as Gozra pointed out, it does; melting tundra, bogs, and such.
"...you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."
No, as long AGW enthusiasts fail to demonstrate a causal relationship, climate skeptics only have to point out holes in the hypothesis. And for
catastrophic AGW, the bar is even higher. And as for the hypothesis that the earth's climate can be predictably adjusted by "tuning"
one variable (i.e. carbon dioxide), the bar is higher yet.
Will, why does your linky point to a dental HMO?