What is AGW? By this, what do you mean when you use the term? Many sources have been supplied showing scientists discussing the theory, under various names. It's not that hard to read the actual scientific papers discussing the theory, and why it is a theory.
Asking for definitions and clear scientific explanations of a subject is considered, by you, to be hard to understand. How unscientific.
Clearly you are talking about the CO2 theory, or AGW. Refusing to discuss what you yourself mention is evasion. Or worse, giving conflicting explanations.
Obviously it is, it is even used in books, like
The Discovery of Global Warming. The author
Spencer R. Weart is certainly a scientists, and beyond the smear efforts of lesser men.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9067[/qimg]
When you say "basic definitions", definitions of what? Will you admit there is a theory? And discuss it?
The evidence clearly shows you are wrong. It's called the CO2 theory, the greenhouse theory of climate change, (
Science magazine), or AGW, global warming, or basic global warming theory, or the
The theory of climate change involving CO2 variations, or simply
the theory of global warming http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf
Oops, there it is, in black and white. In a glossary from NASA.
I've never stated that increasing CO2 isn't the basis of global warming. But you are evading once again, What is the theory? You can't have it both ways, saying there is no theory, and also saying you don't have to educate about the theory. This started when I pointed out that the theory predicts the most warming in NH winters, at high latitudes, and this is what the climate models are programmed to show. Several people denied this, then started saying there was no theory.
A fallacy. If you use a term, and can't define it, or explain it, or show evidence to support it, it's not science.
More evasion. I'm not asking because I don't know, I am asking to see if you know.
The issue is not my understanding, it was the objections to talking about the global warming theory, that climate models are based on, the consensus view.
Your evasion isn't working. The paper I quoted clearly states several facts,
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007
The objections (or denial if you will) were about several things.
Everybody knows that. So what? The denial was over the theory, including denial there even is a theory.
So you say. Obviously, just saying something has very little weight. In this case, none at all.
So we have multiple answers, but none of them are about the theory. The one that the models use, the one that indeed makes predictions about how warming from AGW will happen.
It's quite interesting.
