Chris
Thanks for your response.
I think you have pinpointed where our basic disagreement lies.
You cite “physics” (rather than “physical observations”) as the basis for the postulations leading to the CAGW premise.
By this, I suppose you are referring to greenhouse theory or climate sensitivity hypotheses used in the climate model simulations.
These are great, but as a rational skeptic, I would like to see empirical data to validate the hypotheses (which you call “physics”).
If the “physics” tell me one thing, but the “physical observations” are showing me something else, I’ll go with the physical observations, especially in a science that is still in its infancy, such as climate science.
Until these hypotheses (your “physics”) are validated by empirical evidence, based on real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation, they remain uncorroborated hypotheses.
This is how “physics” (and all other sciences) work, Chris. Hypotheses and theories are tested against empirical evidence. If the empirical evidence shows that they can pass repeated falsification attempts, they can become “corroborated hypotheses” and eventually “reliable scientific data”. The CAGW hypothesis has not passed this test.
Show me (and Girma) the empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis, i.e. that human GHG emissions have been the primary cause for past global warming and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.
But don’t just tell me it’s based on the “physics”.
Max