Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Cuyo]

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).

Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on. I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman. But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field. And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena - Eventually, the evidence will be so overwhelming, the vested interests in denial will have no choice but to concede. But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is. The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.

 

[Si modo]

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).

Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on. I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman. But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field. And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena. But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is. The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.

Yes, that is a strawman as is your post-script comment about it.

My stating the fact that NOTHING is EVER proved in science does not equate to proof not being enough because it doesn't even apply to science. If any scientist were to say that they have 'proven' something, they would have serious trouble getting that work past even the first round of peer-review.

And, few scientists would say that there is 'proof' of gravity, for example; they WOULD say that the concept of gravity has been supported billions of times AND has yet to be falsified.

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

 

[Amelia]

Crows are susceptible to West Nile virus. I wouldn't eat them.

 

[westwall]

No amount of proof will be sufficient.Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Since no amount has yet been produced and that amount has proven insufficient, I must point out that you are wrong.

Climatologists disagree with you.

But what the hell do they know?

Your continued "Nuh-uh" is far more compelling.

Climatologists who pervert peer review and falsify data are not scientists, they are propagandists.

 

[westwall]

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.

It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently. 'Different' assigns no value judgment.

Actually Si, based on the ADMITTED perversion of the peer review process by the climatologists, it is an apt analogy.

 

[westwall]

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

Because we are the same people who warned you that adding MTBE into the gasoline in CA would have disastrous effects. You ignored us there and countless billions of dollars of environmental damage were caused BY YOU! YOU are the people who caused thousands of water wells all over the state of CA to be poisoned.

We warned you, you ignored us. We were correct. You were wrong. That's why you should listen to us. Our record is much better then yours.

 

[Oddball]

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).

Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on. I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman. But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field. And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena - Eventually, the evidence will be so overwhelming, the vested interests in denial will have no choice but to concede. But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is. The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.

I don't know if you've been paying attention or not, but the speed of light was recently cast into question as the absolute cosmic speed limit.

Yet, somehow or another, the shaky theory that climate change on a planetary scale is caused by industrial man is absolutely incontrovertible.

Now, I believe you were babbling something about others listening only to those who tell them what they want to hear?

 

[Cuyo]

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

Because we are the same people who warned you that adding MTBE into the gasoline in CA would have disastrous effects. You ignored us there and countless billions of dollars of environmental damage were caused BY YOU! YOU are the people who caused thousands of water wells all over the state of CA to be poisoned.

We warned you, you ignored us. We were correct. You were wrong. That's why you should listen to us. Our record is much better then yours.

How come every time I'm having a decent conversation with Modo, you have to show up and remind everyone what a lumbering moron you are?

We get it, you are really, really stupid. I'll stipulate. I don't need you to keep providing evidence.

 

[westwall]

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

Because we are the same people who warned you that adding MTBE into the gasoline in CA would have disastrous effects. You ignored us there and countless billions of dollars of environmental damage were caused BY YOU! YOU are the people who caused thousands of water wells all over the state of CA to be poisoned.

We warned you, you ignored us. We were correct. You were wrong. That's why you should listen to us. Our record is much better then yours.

How come every time I'm having a decent conversation with Modo, you have to show up and remind everyone what a lumbering moron you are?

We get it, you are really, really stupid. I'll stipulate. I don't need you to keep providing evidence.

Sure thing buckwheat. You just hate being reminded what fools you are. I get it. Too bad. YOU were wrong then and you are probably wrong now.

 

[Cuyo]

You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).

Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on. I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman. But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field. And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena. But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is. The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.

Yes, that is a strawman as is your post-script comment about it.

My stating the fact that NOTHING is EVER proved in science does not equate to proof not being enough because it doesn't even apply to science. If any scientist were to say that they have 'proven' something, they would have serious trouble getting that work past even the first round of peer-review.

And, few scientists would say that there is 'proof' of gravity, for example; they WOULD say that the concept of gravity has been supported billions of times AND has yet to be falsified.

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

How is the post-script a strawman?

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming. The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening. That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth. Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities. Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause. But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense? Where does that come from? Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are 100% sure that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility. Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.

 

[gslack]

Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on. I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman. But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field. And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena. But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is. The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.

Yes, that is a strawman as is your post-script comment about it.

My stating the fact that NOTHING is EVER proved in science does not equate to proof not being enough because it doesn't even apply to science. If any scientist were to say that they have 'proven' something, they would have serious trouble getting that work past even the first round of peer-review.

And, few scientists would say that there is 'proof' of gravity, for example; they WOULD say that the concept of gravity has been supported billions of times AND has yet to be falsified.

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

How is the post-script a strawman?

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming. The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening. That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth. Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities. Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause. But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense? Where does that come from? Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are 100% sure that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility. Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.

I am aware of no evidence of more and more severe storms, nor am I aware of evidence that ice caps are melting on the scale they claim, nor any of the myriad of alarmist talking points you just spewed out...

Evidence of a short term change in weather does not equal climate. And natural variability tells us these things if happening have happened before even in the not so distant past.. And they will continue to happen into the future..

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, that is a strawman as is your post-script comment about it.

My stating the fact that NOTHING is EVER proved in science does not equate to proof not being enough because it doesn't even apply to science. If any scientist were to say that they have 'proven' something, they would have serious trouble getting that work past even the first round of peer-review.

And, few scientists would say that there is 'proof' of gravity, for example; they WOULD say that the concept of gravity has been supported billions of times AND has yet to be falsified.

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

How is the post-script a strawman?

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming. The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening. That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth. Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities. Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause. But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense? Where does that come from? Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are 100% sure that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility. Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.

I am aware of no evidence of more and more severe storms, nor am I aware of evidence that ice caps are melting on the scale they claim, nor any of the myriad of alarmist talking points you just spewed out...

Evidence of a short term change in weather does not equal climate. And natural variability tells us these things if happening have happened before even in the not so distant past.. And they will continue to happen into the future..

You are not much aware of anything, G-vig. Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

THE number of weather-related disasters has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

And global warming is the only logical explanation, according to a comprehensive analysis of storms, floods and droughts.

There were 828 "weather catastrophes" involving loss of life and major economic damage across the world last year, compared with 317 in 1980.

The analysis by Munich Re, the reinsurance company, found 385 such events in the first six months of this year - the second highest in any January to June period since records began in 1974. The report does not include this week's flooding in Pakistan, landslides in China and wildfires in Russia.

Liz Bentley, of the Royal Meteorological Society, said the figures were evidence that man-made emissions were having an impact: "It is possible to make the link when you look at 30-year trends.

 

[gslack]

How is the post-script a strawman?

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming. The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening. That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth. Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities. Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause. But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense? Where does that come from? Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are 100% sure that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility. Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.

I am aware of no evidence of more and more severe storms, nor am I aware of evidence that ice caps are melting on the scale they claim, nor any of the myriad of alarmist talking points you just spewed out...

Evidence of a short term change in weather does not equal climate. And natural variability tells us these things if happening have happened before even in the not so distant past.. And they will continue to happen into the future..

You are not much aware of anything, G-vig. Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

THE number of weather-related disasters has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

And global warming is the only logical explanation, according to a comprehensive analysis of storms, floods and droughts.

There were 828 "weather catastrophes" involving loss of life and major economic damage across the world last year, compared with 317 in 1980.

The analysis by Munich Re, the reinsurance company, found 385 such events in the first six months of this year - the second highest in any January to June period since records began in 1974. The report does not include this week's flooding in Pakistan, landslides in China and wildfires in Russia.

Liz Bentley, of the Royal Meteorological Society, said the figures were evidence that man-made emissions were having an impact: "It is possible to make the link when you look at 30-year trends.

Doubled from what? Whats your point of reference? 30 years? Thats it? Natural disasters dont go by your wrist watch... And that being the case using 30 years to claim there has been more disasters than the previous 30 or hell even 60 years in terms of climate is just plain irresponsible as well as non-scientific..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is the post-script a strawman?

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming. The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening. That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth. Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities. Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause. But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense? Where does that come from? Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are 100% sure that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility. Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.

I am aware of no evidence of more and more severe storms, nor am I aware of evidence that ice caps are melting on the scale they claim, nor any of the myriad of alarmist talking points you just spewed out...

Evidence of a short term change in weather does not equal climate. And natural variability tells us these things if happening have happened before even in the not so distant past.. And they will continue to happen into the future..

You are not much aware of anything, G-vig. Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

THE number of weather-related disasters has more than doubled in the past 30 years.

And global warming is the only logical explanation, according to a comprehensive analysis of storms, floods and droughts.

There were 828 "weather catastrophes" involving loss of life and major economic damage across the world last year, compared with 317 in 1980.

The analysis by Munich Re, the reinsurance company, found 385 such events in the first six months of this year - the second highest in any January to June period since records began in 1974. The report does not include this week's flooding in Pakistan, landslides in China and wildfires in Russia.

Liz Bentley, of the Royal Meteorological Society, said the figures were evidence that man-made emissions were having an impact: "It is possible to make the link when you look at 30-year trends.

Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years.

How much of the increase is due to natural variability? Precisely?
How much is due to global warming?
How much is due to population growth?
How much is due to the percentage of global warming you can prove is caused by man?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Toddster, were you to actually read what Swiss Re and Munich Re have to say, you would know what they think on each of those questions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Toddster, were you to actually read what Swiss Re and Munich Re have to say, you would know what they think on each of those questions.

I didn't see where they quantified how much of the increase is due to natural variability.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to global warming.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to population growth.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to the percentage of global warming they can prove is caused by man.

Did you?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hysterical watching the k00ks melt down when SiModo pwns them

 

[Si modo]

The scientific community has a less rigid standard of peer review. I know. I am a Geophysicist, and my wife is an Accountant.

As I said, 'different' assigns no value judgment.

When was your last science peer review?

About six months ago. It passed and is published.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and the number of repeatable laboratory experiments showing climate change and ocean acidification by eliminating all variables except for a 100PPM increase in CO2 is still 0.

 

[RollingThunder]

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

Scientific opinion on climate change - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion...

American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32]


American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).


American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[41] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.


Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.