Isaac Asimov on climate change, 1989, 1977

[Trakar]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time...

I believe we have already passed the point where merely stopping what we have been doing will suffice to avoid a drastically and dramatically different planet. Our species may survive its self-absorbed/distracted arrogant ignorances, but I fear we will bottleneck along with most other major life-forms. I hope and pray that I am mistaken, but so far I see little reason to be encouraged about the prospects.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time.

And it is not about Al Gore.

If you want to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere I suggest you start by refusing to breathe for the rest of your life. I have already told you that your carbon footprint is larger than mine, yet you continue to whine about the fact that you use energy. That makes you Al Gore in drag.

 

[Trakar]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time.

And it is not about Al Gore.

How exactly are you going to prevent CO2 from getting into the atmosphere when man only contributes less than 5% of the total amount?

If you turn on your water and add water to a washtub at the same rate that it is draining out, by what percentage do you have to increase the amount flowing in to eventually fill and overflow the tub?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If name calling and cursing are your idea of intelligent rational discourse then there is little reason to continue to attempt mature, reasoned discussion with you, ...your choice.

I do not attempt to rationally discuss things with delusional people. My experience is that doing so gives me a headache, and makes them more delusional. If you choose to interpret me telling you that your position is full of shit as name calling, you can run home and play with your Barbie Dolls. Do not expect me to get upset because you cannot perceive reality.

I lived through the '50s, '60s, '70s, etc., and you've left out several issues including lead contamination, asbestos, sulfur emissions, CFCs, Nuclear annihilation, etc., and of course we are smart enough to realize and deal with the problem,...well, many of us are.

Nuclear annihilation? When, exactly, did that happen? If it were not for the idiots like you that were worried about the impossible happening back then we would not still be burning fossil fuels today. We could have built a large infrastructure of nuclear power plants, and kept our emissions level below the point where you could now be demanding we give up civilization.

That is because we actually were allowed to act on the science and information without a concerted internal political opposition to action.

I completely agree. Alarmists kept trying to scare us, and they succeeded because no one stood up and publicly mocked them. Guess what, I am not going to let you do that again.

The choice is always yours, when you wish to discuss mainstream science I will be happy to enjoin that discussion. If you cannot or will not consider information, evaluations and evidences that disagree with your personal beliefs then I can understand your reasons for declining such a course of action.

You are delusional if you think I should be worried about something that people are saying is all but impossible. You cannot even address my position, you seem to think I am a climate change denier, when the truth is a am an alarmist skeptic. I point out that we have technology that can deal with rising sea levels, and you respond by posting articles about the sea level going up more than is expected.

You are not even discussing the same thing I am, so how can you possibly be claiming I am ignoring data?

 

[Trakar]

less than 3% according to trakars link in another post
http://redirectingat.com/?id=1629X6...ard.com/environment/157078-gw-is-a-lie-4.html

We currently add ~2.857% of the carbon to the combined active carbon cycle each year. If we look at the actual paper statement I can clarify this better:

...Each year approximately 120 Gt
carbon are exchanged between the atmosphere and
terrestrial ecosystems, and another 90 Gt between the
atmosphere and the oceans [5]. In contrast, current
annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt ofcarbon.
About half of this amount is observed as an
increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The
other half is sequestered by other compartments. Currently,
both the oceans and the terrestrial system show
a net uptake of carbon [6]. The oxygen and carbon
isotopic compositions of individual components, in
particular air-CO2 provide a potentially powerful tool
towards quantifying the contribution of different components
to ecosystem exchange...

6/(120 + 90) = .0285714286
in looking at the above however, we can see that only half of the total environmental amounts should be considered atmospheric amounts (more in the winter, less in the summer), so on average the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 should be calculated according to the atmospheric component or:
6/105 = .0571428571
so 5% isn't a terrible approximation for our atmospheric contribution.
luckily, so far other carbon sinks absorb and temporarily sequester about half of this human emitted carbon so only a little less than 3 Gt of carbon accumulate in the active carbon cycle each year. Over the last 130 years, however, we have accumulated enough carbon to increase the atmospheric percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere by about a third.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can whine about the problem, or be part of the solution.


I intend not to be remembered as a whiner.

Acknowledging a problem and its causation are the first steps to taking actions to address that problem.

That depends on what the problem is. You seem to think CO2 is the problem, I think it is that we need to deal with the fact that major coastal cities are sinking because we are draining the aquafier. Guess which one is the more immediate problem? I will give you a hint, Tokyo has sunk 5 meters feet since 1930, and you want me to worry about a measly meter over the next century.

Bjorn Lomborg - Cost-effective ways to address climate change

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science isn't about "proving."

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

 

[Trakar]

Science isn't about "proving."

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

 

[westwall]

Science isn't about "proving."

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

Depends on what branch of science you're speaking of doesn't it? Mathematics is all about proofs (as you note, and I think you would have to agree it is a very precise science). However, science in general is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena.

As far as "Truths and CERTAINTIES" one need look no further than the AGW Alarmist group......

Trenberth: 'Given that global warming is 'unequivocal', to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence'" Spoken at the AMS conference 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
Wednesday, 26 January 2011: 1:45 PM
609 (Washington State Convention Center)


http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unequivocal evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a RELIGION as so graciously defined by Trakar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science isn't about "proving."

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

That is only part of what science is about. You should read about how Galileo proved his theory that heavy objects fall at the same speed as light ones sometime, you might learn a little about how the real universe works.

I know for certain that if I walk off the top of a building I will hit the ground. Truth tells me that the speed of light is absolute in this universe.

By the way, math is many things, but abstract is not one of them. It is a precise language that helps us understand everything, even the things we cannot see.

I think that makes your whole post a fail. Did I miss something?

 

[skookerasbil]

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

Depends on what branch of science you're speaking of doesn't it? Mathematics is all about proofs (as you note, and I think you would have to agree it is a very precise science). However, science in general is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena.

As far as "Truths and CERTAINTIES" one need look no further than the AGW Alarmist group......

Trenberth: 'Given that global warming is 'unequivocal', to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence'" Spoken at the AMS conference 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
Wednesday, 26 January 2011: 1:45 PM
609 (Washington State Convention Center)


Abstract: Promoting climate information and communication of climate change (91st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unequivocal evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a RELIGION as so graciously defined by Trakar.

Trakar pwned again by West............I gotta give him credit though. Gets pwned almost daily on here but keeps coming back for another ball kick.

 

[westwall]

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

That is only part of what science is about. You should read about how Galileo proved his theory that heavy objects fall at the same speed as light ones sometime, you might learn a little about how the real universe works.

I know for certain that if I walk off the top of a building I will hit the ground. Truth tells me that the speed of light is absolute in this universe.

By the way, math is many things, but abstract is not one of them. It is a precise language that helps us understand everything, even the things we cannot see.

I think that makes your whole post a fail. Did I miss something?

No.

 

[Trakar]

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

Depends on what branch of science you're speaking of doesn't it? Mathematics is all about proofs (as you note, and I think you would have to agree it is a very precise science).

Try again, mathematics is not a science, it is a system of abstractions employing logic through self-referent and consistent axioms and definitions.
Mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, science in general is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena.

Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.

As far as "Truths and CERTAINTIES" one need look no further than the AGW Alarmist group......

an assertion without support

Trenberth: 'Given that global warming is 'unequivocal', to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence'" Spoken at the AMS conference 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
Wednesday, 26 January 2011: 1:45 PM
609 (Washington State Convention Center)
Abstract: Promoting climate information and communication of climate change (91st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting)

The IPCC statement that Global Warming is "unequivocal" is a reference to the planetary temperature record, specifically of the last 30 years, which demonstrate "without any equivocation" that the planet has experienced an increase in warming over the prior 30 year period. But just to be clear, I do not see the term "unequivocal" used in the IPCC report. Is this Trenberth's qualification or the IPCC's finding? If IPCC statement, please cite and reference.

(Equivocate - beat around (or about) the bush, hem and haw, straddle the fence)

Trenberth himself acknowledges and agrees with this in the very link you present
http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf

And the actual IPCC statement: - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unequivocal evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a RELIGION as so graciously defined by Trakar.

asserting, without substantive support, that something is so, and then using that assertion as evidence of verification is also known as a circular argument, and is generally as valid as the circular filing cabinet in which such are typically stored.

please do feel free to respond with actual supporting evidence and compelling discussion when you acquire such.

 

[Trakar]

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

That is only part of what science is about. You should read about how Galileo proved his theory that heavy objects fall at the same speed as light ones sometime, you might learn a little about how the real universe works.

Galileo did not "proof" his theory, he provided evidenciary support for his hypothesis, the closest scientific theories come to proofs is in their failure through evidentiary support for their null hypothesis conditionals. BTW, speaking of the real universe, "falling" is a antiquated perceptual construct, the masses are actually accelerating along compressed/distorted space-time metrics and the acceleration is identical regardless of mass because they are traversing greatly similar metrics. Acceleration is determined by the path, not the mass.

I know for certain that if I walk off the top of a building I will hit the ground. Truth tells me that the speed of light is absolute in this universe.

Actually, the speed of light varies according to the media it traverses, and there may be some evidence that even the maximal value of c in a vaccuum has varied somewhat over the age of the universe. Truth is a matter of belief, not fact.

By the way, math is many things, but abstract is not one of them. It is a precise language that helps us understand everything, even the things we cannot see.

Math, in its purest form, is an abstraction of empirical reality. Numbers have no inherent seperate value or significance, but through numbered value abstractions we can use logical rules (axioms) and set definitions to manipulate those abstractions and perceive interactions and comparisons that often aren't apparent in more casual empirical observations.

I think that makes your whole post a fail. Did I miss something?

just the part where you are supposed to support your considerations with verifiable evidences, references and/or sound and compelling logical reasoning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Galileo did not "proof" his theory, he provided evidenciary support for his hypothesis, the closest scientific theories come to proofs is in their failure through evidentiary support for their null hypothesis conditionals. BTW, speaking of the real universe, "falling" is a antiquated perceptual construct, the masses are actually accelerating along compressed/distorted space-time metrics and the acceleration is identical regardless of mass because they are traversing greatly similar metrics. Acceleration is determined by the path, not the mass.

You think semantics trumps facts, it doesn't. Science relies on evidence and proof, not smoke and mirrors, or even words.

BTW, vector is only a part of acceleration. The rest of what you said makes even less sense. I would respond, but I cannot even guess at what you think you are saying.

Actually, the speed of light varies according to the media it traverses, and there may be some evidence that even the maximal value of c in a vaccuum has varied somewhat over the age of the universe. Truth is a matter of belief, not fact.

Did I say that it was constant through all mediums? I said, and maintain, that it is absolute in our universe. To put that words that you will understand, nothing is faster than light.

Math, in its purest form, is an abstraction of empirical reality. Numbers have no inherent seperate value or significance, but through numbered value abstractions we can use logical rules (axioms) and set definitions to manipulate those abstractions and perceive interactions and comparisons that often aren't apparent in more casual empirical observations.

You read words in Wikipedia, and totally fail to understand what they mean. When mathematicians talk about abstracting they do not mean that they are not talking about reality, they are just removing what they are talking about from reality to consider it separately.

just the part where you are supposed to support your considerations with verifiable evidences, references and/or sound and compelling logical reasoning.

I am not offering scientific evidence, I am simply pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.

 

[westwall]

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

Depends on what branch of science you're speaking of doesn't it? Mathematics is all about proofs (as you note, and I think you would have to agree it is a very precise science).

Try again, mathematics is not a science, it is a system of abstractions employing logic through self-referent and consistent axioms and definitions.
Mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.



an assertion without support

Trenberth: 'Given that global warming is 'unequivocal', to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence'" Spoken at the AMS conference 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
Wednesday, 26 January 2011: 1:45 PM
609 (Washington State Convention Center)
Abstract: Promoting climate information and communication of climate change (91st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting)

The IPCC statement that Global Warming is "unequivocal" is a reference to the planetary temperature record, specifically of the last 30 years, which demonstrate "without any equivocation" that the planet has experienced an increase in warming over the prior 30 year period. But just to be clear, I do not see the term "unequivocal" used in the IPCC report. Is this Trenberth's qualification or the IPCC's finding? If IPCC statement, please cite and reference.

(Equivocate - beat around (or about) the bush, hem and haw, straddle the fence)

Trenberth himself acknowledges and agrees with this in the very link you present
http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf

And the actual IPCC statement: - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unequivocal evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a RELIGION as so graciously defined by Trakar.

asserting, without substantive support, that something is so, and then using that assertion as evidence of verification is also known as a circular argument, and is generally as valid as the circular filing cabinet in which such are typically stored.

please do feel free to respond with actual supporting evidence and compelling discussion when you acquire such.

Who cares about the last 30 years? Anybody with a brain knows that temperatures run in cycles. The Farmers Alamanac knew that 200 years ago why do you think it's still around. Interesting how primitive non scientist farmers were able to give better long term weather predictions then the UK's Met office can do today.

As far as your attempt at backpedalling, nice try but that is an epic fail.

 

[westwall]

Galileo did not "proof" his theory, he provided evidenciary support for his hypothesis, the closest scientific theories come to proofs is in their failure through evidentiary support for their null hypothesis conditionals. BTW, speaking of the real universe, "falling" is a antiquated perceptual construct, the masses are actually accelerating along compressed/distorted space-time metrics and the acceleration is identical regardless of mass because they are traversing greatly similar metrics. Acceleration is determined by the path, not the mass.

You think semantics trumps facts, it doesn't. Science relies on evidence and proof, not smoke and mirrors, or even words.

BTW, vector is only a part of acceleration. The rest of what you said makes even less sense. I would respond, but I cannot even guess at what you think you are saying.

Actually, the speed of light varies according to the media it traverses, and there may be some evidence that even the maximal value of c in a vaccuum has varied somewhat over the age of the universe. Truth is a matter of belief, not fact.

Did I say that it was constant through all mediums? I said, and maintain, that it is absolute in our universe. To put that words that you will understand, nothing is faster than light.

Math, in its purest form, is an abstraction of empirical reality. Numbers have no inherent seperate value or significance, but through numbered value abstractions we can use logical rules (axioms) and set definitions to manipulate those abstractions and perceive interactions and comparisons that often aren't apparent in more casual empirical observations.

You read words in Wikipedia, and totally fail to understand what they mean. When mathematicians talk about abstracting they do not mean that they are not talking about reality, they are just removing what they are talking about from reality to consider it separately.

just the part where you are supposed to support your considerations with verifiable evidences, references and/or sound and compelling logical reasoning.

I am not offering scientific evidence, I am simply pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.

And doing it well. A scientist Traker is not. A parrot of wiki verbiage he/she is.

 

[Oddball]

Science isn't about "proving."

Since when? Should I tell all the scientist that are striving to prove relativity that they can stop, because they have been misled all their lives?

"Proofs" are not a part of the scientific method, nor in accord with scientific understandings of the universe. Science is not about "proving," science is about observing, measuring, and then organizing that data into categories and understandings that best define and explain that data. Science doesn't deal in certainties only provisional and conditional explanations. If you want proofs you need to explore the abstractions of mathematics and logic, if you want Truths and certainties you need to look to religion and philosophy. Science is based upon empiric evidences and the understandings those evidences support.

I'll tell you at least four things involved in scientific method, which are completely missing form gullible warming science fiction.

1) A static control.

2) Falsifiability (IOW words, all other possibilities or combinations thereof can't be disproved).

3) Can't be reproduced on demand and in context.

4) Can't be positively quantified.

You may now feel free to post some meaningless charts and graphs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Depends on what branch of science you're speaking of doesn't it? Mathematics is all about proofs (as you note, and I think you would have to agree it is a very precise science).

Try again, mathematics is not a science, it is a system of abstractions employing logic through self-referent and consistent axioms and definitions.
Mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.



an assertion without support



The IPCC statement that Global Warming is "unequivocal" is a reference to the planetary temperature record, specifically of the last 30 years, which demonstrate "without any equivocation" that the planet has experienced an increase in warming over the prior 30 year period. But just to be clear, I do not see the term "unequivocal" used in the IPCC report. Is this Trenberth's qualification or the IPCC's finding? If IPCC statement, please cite and reference.

(Equivocate - beat around (or about) the bush, hem and haw, straddle the fence)

Trenberth himself acknowledges and agrees with this in the very link you present
http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf

And the actual IPCC statement: - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present unequivocal evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a RELIGION as so graciously defined by Trakar.

asserting, without substantive support, that something is so, and then using that assertion as evidence of verification is also known as a circular argument, and is generally as valid as the circular filing cabinet in which such are typically stored.

please do feel free to respond with actual supporting evidence and compelling discussion when you acquire such.

Who cares about the last 30 years? Anybody with a brain knows that temperatures run in cycles. The Farmers Alamanac knew that 200 years ago why do you think it's still around. Interesting how primitive non scientist farmers were able to give better long term weather predictions then the UK's Met office can do today.

As far as your attempt at backpedalling, nice try but that is an epic fail.

LOL. Walleyes, once again you are proving that you are not a scientist.

 

[westwall]

Try again, mathematics is not a science, it is a system of abstractions employing logic through self-referent and consistent axioms and definitions.
Mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.



an assertion without support



The IPCC statement that Global Warming is "unequivocal" is a reference to the planetary temperature record, specifically of the last 30 years, which demonstrate "without any equivocation" that the planet has experienced an increase in warming over the prior 30 year period. But just to be clear, I do not see the term "unequivocal" used in the IPCC report. Is this Trenberth's qualification or the IPCC's finding? If IPCC statement, please cite and reference.

(Equivocate - beat around (or about) the bush, hem and haw, straddle the fence)

Trenberth himself acknowledges and agrees with this in the very link you present
http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf

And the actual IPCC statement: - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf



asserting, without substantive support, that something is so, and then using that assertion as evidence of verification is also known as a circular argument, and is generally as valid as the circular filing cabinet in which such are typically stored.

please do feel free to respond with actual supporting evidence and compelling discussion when you acquire such.

Who cares about the last 30 years? Anybody with a brain knows that temperatures run in cycles. The Farmers Alamanac knew that 200 years ago why do you think it's still around. Interesting how primitive non scientist farmers were able to give better long term weather predictions then the UK's Met office can do today.

As far as your attempt at backpedalling, nice try but that is an epic fail.

LOL. Walleyes, once again you are proving that you are not a scientist.

Trying to save yourself with silly insults are we? A scientist looks at the whole story you silly person, not just that which conforms to your particular tale. You silly anti-science cultists only look at the last thirty years as if that is a meaningful span of time. It isn't, it is merely the latest in a long line of cycles going back to the beginning of time on this planet.