Please post all findings from respected scientific bodies

[Red Dawn]

Its been at least 24 hours, and still not one single, solitary recent statement from an established, major professional scientific organization or a national science academy with expertise in climate science, which supports the assertation that humans aren't affecting climate change.

Underline added for emphasis. I think it's very important to note that there are principles that transcend any particular discipline. The idea that one has to be involved in climate science to make valid comments on the processes being employed in climate science is a fallacy.

I know! I provide my opinion on brain surgery, and organic chemistry all the time, even though I'm not trained expert in those scientific disciplines!



At any rate, I guess I'm left to conclude that the Flat Earth society cannot provide one single, solitary finding from a recognized scientific body, per the OP.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[ I think it's very important to note that there are principles that transcend any particular discipline. The idea that one has to be involved in climate science to make valid comments on the processes being employed in climate science is a fallacy.

I know! I provide my opinion on brain surgery, and organic chemistry all the time, even though I'm not trained expert in those scientific disciplines! [/QUOTE]

There are principles that transcend particular disciplines. Say, for example, some microbiologists do an experiment to support their hypothesis that some environmental factor has a certain effect on certain bacteria. Statisticians would be completely qualified to comment on their experimental design. In fact, if you had to bet, you'd be best off betting that the statisticians are more qualified to do so than the microbiologists are.

One principle I've harped on is that cause and effect cannot be inferred from statistical data without controlled experimentation. But that's not the only thing. People familiar with what the requirements of model validation, for instance, are qualified to assess the extent to which climate models have been validated. Also, anybody with an understanding of estimating parameters with statistical data is qualified to comment on the reliability of climate scientists' estimates of things such as the average temperature of the planet either now or in the past; both recent and distant. So on and so forth.

 

[Yukon]

If you want the truth go to:

vatican tour museum city sistine at vatican.com

 

[JohnStOnge]

At any rate, I guess I'm left to conclude that the Flat Earth society cannot provide one single, solitary finding from a recognized scientific body, per the OP.

I don't think a "Flat Earth" analogy is valid; since there is a huge difference between inferring cause and effect without controlled experimentation and while dealing with an extremely complex system and directly observing that the Earth is not flat. But, leaving that aside, I guess you must not have read my latest reference to the IPCC Physical Science basis report. I will quote it again (Chapter 9 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf , page 668, starting at lower left of page):

"Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defi ned level of confi dence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001)."

Underlines added for emphasis. As I said earlier, proving that humankind is not having an effect on the climate is not possible. But, in this situation, neither is proving that humankind is having an effect. The language that follows the terminology "not possible" is irrelevant to that point. If you think it's been unequivocally shown that humankind is the cause of certain changes in the climate of Earth, you are mistaken.

I'll also mention that my use of the term "proving" was intentional because I know those who defend conclusions that have not been established with the highest levels of certainty claim that there is no "proving" anything in science. That's cr*p. As a practical matter, it has been proven that microorganisms can cause disease. As a practical matter, it has been proven that water has solid, liquid, and gaseous forms and it has been proven that it will assume those forms under certain conditions. As a practical matter, it has been proven that the Earth is not flat. As a practical matter, it has been proven that some species reproduce sexually. As a practical matter, it has been proven that certain traits are heritable and it's been proven that certain chromosomes have impacts on certain traits (like whether one of us has XY or XX chromosomes has an impact on our sex). So on and so forth. The "man as cause" of global warming has not been "proven" in the sense that things such as those have been "proven," and it's not even close.

 

[Old Rocks]

At any rate, I guess I'm left to conclude that the Flat Earth society cannot provide one single, solitary finding from a recognized scientific body, per the OP.

I don't think a "Flat Earth" analogy is valid; since there is a huge difference between inferring cause and effect without controlled experimentation and while dealing with an extremely complex system and directly observing that the Earth is not flat. But, leaving that aside, I guess you must not have read my latest reference to the IPCC Physical Science basis report. I will quote it again (Chapter 9 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf , page 668, starting at lower left of page):

"Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defi ned level of confi dence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001)."

Underlines added for emphasis. As I said earlier, proving that humankind is not having an effect on the climate is not possible. But, in this situation, neither is proving that humankind is having an effect. The language that follows the terminology "not possible" is irrelevant to that point. If you think it's been unequivocally shown that humankind is the cause of certain changes in the climate of Earth, you are mistaken.

I'll also mention that my use of the term "proving" was intentional because I know those who defend conclusions that have not been established with the highest levels of certainty claim that there is no "proving" anything in science. That's cr*p. As a practical matter, it has been proven that microorganisms can cause disease. As a practical matter, it has been proven that water has solid, liquid, and gaseous forms and it has been proven that it will assume those forms under certain conditions. As a practical matter, it has been proven that the Earth is not flat. As a practical matter, it has been proven that some species reproduce sexually. As a practical matter, it has been proven that certain traits are heritable and it's been proven that certain chromosomes have impacts on certain traits (like whether one of us has XY or XX chromosomes has an impact on our sex). So on and so forth. The "man as cause" of global warming has not been "proven" in the sense that things such as those have been "proven," and it's not even close.

What is crap is your arguement. We know that the temperatures have warmed significantly since the start of the industrial age. We know from the geological record that the global temperature rises rapidly if there is a significant input of GHGs. We have created a significant input of GHGs. The temperature is rising. Take your statistical crap and do whatever you want with it. It is useful for counting pollen grains and infering trends in that sort of work, it is not any use in this case.

The physics of the GHGs has been proven, proven over a hundred years ago. All the scientific societies that deal with physics state that unequivocally. We have a geological record that states that when GHGs are increased, the earth warms rapidly, and there are bad times for the species that exist then. But you wish to play games with semantics and statistics. Fool.

 

[JohnStOnge]

"Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (see Glossary).

I'll take the opportunity to point out that the IPCC language quoted above contains an example of a circumstance in which one doesn't have to be a climate scientist in order to critique something climate scientists say. Anyone familiar with statistical inference can comment on the terminology "level of confidence."

The IPCC's use of the terminology is misleading and, in fact, objectively inaccurate. For example, if you go to the Glossary it refers you to another portion of report where different "levels of confidence" are defined. Here's how it goes:

"Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance"

In terms of inferring cause and effect, those definitions are nonsensical. There can be no "X in Y" chance that a proposed cause had an effect. It either did or it did not. There cannot be, for instance, a 9 in 10 chance that humankind has had an impact on climate change. It either did or it didn't.

This is the concept behind a "level of confidence" as the term is correctly understood: You do an experiment. Before the experiment starts, you use a probability model to estimate the possible distribution of outcomes that could occur if the proposed cause has no effect. You choose a confidence level, usually 95%, at which you'll conclude that the cause had an effect. That's based on saying that, if the proposed cause does NOT have an effect, there will be only a 0.05 probability that the observed difference in treatement and control groups will be at least as great as it is. But it is NOT a statement of the probability, after the experiment, that the treatment had an effect. It's just saying you're confident that the treatment had an effect because you knew going in that such an experiment would likely not result in that great a difference if it did not. Probability is not a factor after the fact as the IPCC definitions indicate that it is.

Another thing about cause and effect confidence levels is that you can't have them unless you had a controlled experiment. You cannot legitimately establish a cause and effect confidence level through the use of observational data. Doesn't matter if what you're talking about is Climate Science, Astronomy, Microbiology, or any other discipline. And that's what the IPCC has done.