When someone says "the science is settled", it's simply them admitting it isn't settled, and they are too ignorant to articulate anything different.
That is incorrect. It is another way of stating there is no longer any debate on the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming. The conclusion of the IPCC, that human activities (GHG emissions and deforestation) are the primary or dominant cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years and particularly the last 50.
I've read a number of these reports that supposedly prove the science is settled, and it's amazing how often it says "we don't know...."
That conclusions are given as likelihoods is a common and necessary aspect of natural science. It has no bearing on whether or not the science is considered settled. You would find the same sort of statements in papers on a dozen subjects you'd consider settled long ago.
The only reports that even attempt to really claim the science is settled, are reports by government, which are designed to justify the position of those in power.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Scientific studies - peer reviewed publications - don't waste their time making the claim that AGW is settled. As Cook et al's study clearly showed, the vast majority simply DO accept it and move on.
Those reports are routinely proven fabricated and error ridden.
That would be what we call an unsubstantiated assertion, more widely known as anally-derived bullshit.
The most infamous was the hockey stick graph of the IPCC in 1998. The graph was so clearly fabricated, they used different sources of information that contradicted each other, and eliminate information that didn't fit with the claims.
I'm sorry. Did you not realize that people here have been debating global warming for several years? You've walked into a community college classroom with a pocketful of grade school arguments. Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 is infamous only with the deniers it showed blatantly wrong. The data were not fabricated and no one has ever made such a charge. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick charged that MBH's primary component analysis was flawed but correcting for the errors they found made absolutely no difference to the conclusions of MBH 98
Moreover, some names placed on the report, as being climatologists, were in fact government staffers, who had no degrees.
Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American
climatologist and
geophysicist,
[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at
Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the
temperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data".
[3]
Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley is a
climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of
Geosciences at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also research director of the
Climate System Research Center. Bradley's work indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms.
Malcolm K. Hughes is a meso-
climatologist and Regents' Professor of
Dendrochronology in the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at the
University of Arizona. He was born in Matlock, Derbyshire, England, and earned a Ph.D in
ecology from the
University of Durham. Since 1998, he is a fellow of the
American Geophysical Union. His research is on the nature of climate variability, specifically focusing on the timescales of years to centuries. He uses natural recorded records such as
tree rings.
[1]
So, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
As if that wasn't enough, some climatologists who were there, and disagreed with the conclusions made in the IPCC report, had to file lawsuits against the IPCC, to have their names removed.
You've made a leap here from Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1999 to the IPCC's assessment reports. As seems to be common among deniers, you don't even know what it is that the IPCC DOES. MBH 99 was not produced FOR the IPCC. Like ALL the science the IPCC uses in its assessment reports, it was simply a published, peer-reviewed study from a scientific journal. The IPCC does NOT conduct climatological research.
If this is your idea of "settled science" when scientists have to sue the government to get their name of a report they do not believe.... you are a nut job.
Hundreds of scientists have put their names quite happily and proudly on the IPCC's assessment reports. The IPCC, in order to defuse criticism from the likes of you, has opened the review process of those reports to a wide variety of people (in re qualifications and fundamental positions on this issues). When you do that, you get people who think the opportunity is given them to make a show of it for their ego's sake rather than to accomplish some good for mankind. I think you will find that those who've asked to remove their names (none have yet succeeded in breaching the contracts they signed in that manner) are, with very few exceptions, people whose presence and participation in the process was utterly irrelevant in any case.
Global warming is quite real and the primary or dominant cause for the warming observed over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions and deforestation. That point is settled science accepted by virtually every single climate scientist on the planet.
What are you? 12? Yes, they grow wheat around windfarms. That doesn't negate the fact that they are fucking eyesores does it? Solar farms on the other hand cover everything and nothing can grow in those ares very well. You posted a picture of a strip mine as if it was a bad thing. And it is. However the physical footprint for mines is smaller than for solar and windfarms. That is a fact. Thus there is no lie in anything I posted you pathetic little twerp.
[/URL]
