My question is simple. If there is a "good" (intellectually satisfying) answer to it, it should be able to be outlined concisely and painlessly. If not, there's a problem there. I will explain than give examples. I did not ask you to make a scientific representation for my sake to prove that there is methodology, data and what their quality and conclusions are. In principle I'll take your word for it that it was scientifically satisfied. The compelling evidence I asked for was the one that convinced the scientists put in general terms: what was the methodology used and how strong the data were (in simple terms). Here are some examples: "Give me compelling evidence that GW exist". Answer: outline of example methodologies of measurements, links to 2-3 graphs. "Give me compelling evidence that big portion of the carbon in the atmosphere is form fossil burning origin". Answer: Carbon isotope ratios (some details) in plants, atmosphere etc. is typical to those of fossil fuel and is different from that of other origins (a detail). And I can of course give you more which will cover the entire GW claim. See? If the scientific area is well established this does not have to take 40K posts or even 12 scientific articles to out line a simple explanation. The longer/complicated and harder to put in simple terms, the weaker (rule of thumb of course with rare exceptions though). In my fields, if asked such a question by a layman, I cannot think of a corroborated hypothesis I cannot explain reasonably in few relaxed sentences (half a page tops).Now, I came here with a simple question about the A. Can you or can't you give me concise few sentences of explanation (I don't want the proofs by "materials and methods" and data quality and analysis, I'll take your word for it). Go back, see those posters' reactions and you might understand the eyebrow raising here (understatement).
I volunteer in popularization of science mainly to youth (16-18). My main show is a 12 (x1.5h) sessions presentation that this year is called "nanotechnology and life". As part of my vision I dedicate last two sessions to, critical thinking, politics in science, argumentation and debating. My last interaction in the current forum gave me new, high quality material and I PrtScned it to my presentation, can't wait for the 11th session (Feb 2014) to present "empirical hot evidence from the field concerning a high profile world mixed scientific-political debate". Oh, lastly but most importantly, regarding A.: I read before and also in the last few days from the links I've been sent to. I do still have a problem as they all show correlations (no causation) and words like "most likely" (with many possible, probable mechanisms, one place even spoke quantitatively in terms of 95% confidence level, but how did they get to it?). Can you (and are you willing) to give me something stronger. And very importantly, is there, what I call "theoretical feasibility study" in which, on paper, the A connection can be shown. Meaning something like: so much human-caused-carbon is released to atmosphere, ergo so much CO2 (e.g.) concentration per time is built up, thus per the GHG thermodynamic theory so much heat is generated per some assumed (expected) forcing, thus so much temperature rise is expected and how it agrees with observed data. ?
)
