Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

My beef is with the very last bit. We have lots of evidence to say anthropogenic CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming, supported by more peer-reviewed papers than I care to count ....

Physical evidence, I believe, was the phrase Singer used.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seems to think? Ha! It's quite clear. Surely even you must realize that the major news media has not mentioned this years very cold Alaskan summer and it was kept local.

That's because it's local news. "Cold Summer in Alaska" is not national news even in the US.

I checked the following web sites..

I commend your diligence.

NY Times-no mention, but they did mention a warm summer in Alaska back in 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/n...2&sq=alaska coldest summer&st=cse&oref=slogin

To quote

'While this has not been the warmest summer on record in Umiat, temperatures both here and around Alaska until early August have been turning heads.

Rick Thoman, a forecaster for the National Weather Service in Fairbanks, demurred when asked if global warming was the cause. But he said the weather in inland Alaska had become increasingly peculiar.

"This would not be unusual in June," Mr. Thoman said. "But this is the third year in four when a big high pressure system has come in north of the Alaska Range in August and blocked the rain. Three years out of four doesn't equal climate change. But we're looking at some funny stuff." '

Not just one summer, then, but a continuing process. Also lots of human interest and the uniqueness of Umiat (coldest place in the US). That could be national news in a slow season, such as August in an odd-numbered year.

Washington Post-in an article of imperiled walrus from receding sea ice, it was briefly mentioned, but was buried well into the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082803489.html

Again, a continuing story with lots of human interest.

ABC News-no mention
NBC News-no mention
CBS News-nothing
LA Times-nothing
Chicago Tribune-nothing
Philadelphia Inquirer-nothing.

Did you check WSJ editorial? They tend to favour this sort of story. Mind you, they've got a lot of more mainstream stuff on their minds at the moment.

I still stand with what I said in post 658..
"If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media. "

OK, this is not just an even-numbered year but it's a Presidential Election year, and there's been a financial melt-down. You expect "Coldest Arctic Summer Since 1980" to feature nationally? It may seem very important to you, but put yourself an ordinary person's place. From that perspective it's hardly riveting, is it?

CT proven! Do I hear crickets coming from the Capel Dodger corner?

"CT proven". You won't be allowed to forget that, you know.

I suggest you take it to the right place

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104463&page=8

I'm off there right now.

 

[CapelDodger]

Babble at passing of your more idiotic errors as a refined and sublime bait does not change the nature of your argument.

The chum was cast by TrueSceptic, and you followed your instincts. As I say, it's just like pressing a button.

(The Bourbons are a once-powerful European aristocratic clan that ran itself into the ground by constantly repeating failed policies in the expectation of different outcomes. It's a form of dynastic insanity.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Physical evidence, I believe, was the phrase Singer used.

The physical evidence can be established in a laboratory and has been, repeatedly. After that it's just thermodynamics. Satellite observations are cherries and icing on the cake.

What physical evidence does Singer have to support adding "+/- 500 years" to the DO 1500 year cycle? And what physical evidence does he have for DO cycles during an interglacial?

I'd defy anyone not to find a 1000-2000 year cycle of indeterminate amplitude in a global temperature reconstruction. Which adequately explains Singer's introduction of the "+/- 500" to the DO cycle, which can then be circularly re

Singer only came to this after the event. Before the warming happened he was adamant that it wouldn't; only afterwards has he found the need to cast around for alternative explanations. His only fixed position is that it cannot be AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ever tried reading about how many impartial scientists were actually involved in the IPCC review and conclusion and how many were shut out?

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.12.NumbersHoax.htm

The IPCC reports reference hundreds (if not thousands) of relevant papers produced by thousands of scientists in dozens of institutions across the world. If there was misreprentation those scientists would be speaking out, but they aren't.

The IPCC reports are presented to the governments of the world, who commissioned them. These government have their own scientific advisors and national institutions and would be made well aware of any misrepresentation. They would speak out about it, they would complain mightily and cancel the contract. Something they have signally failed to do, and there have been four reports by now.

Their voices are heard here..

http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists

There is ANYTHING BUT a consensus on AGW. And trying to get to the actual data so that it can be properly peer reviewed is made difficult and you get the run around.

There so is a consensus, and the real world is responsible for that. The consensus is scientific and political, heck, it's even industrial. Nobody serious isn't planning for continued global warming.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

Next year the movers-and-shakers of the world will gather in Copenhagen to thrash out a global mitigation policy. None of them give a toss about McIntyre, and there's a good reason for that. Not because his contributions have been kept hidden from them but because they are piffle. Just like Watts's photo-gallery, Sweet Sixteen's preening, Singer's data-mining, Crichton's paranoia, or any of the stuff you find so convincing, such as a cold summer in Alaska.

The world moves on, leaving you behind. Do I hear whining coming from easycruise?

 

[varwoche]

see two posts above and feel free to put it in your thread as a CT proven.

There is no limbo contest in which your standard of proof would not be a heavy favorite.

 

[CapelDodger]

I tried a quick look for the Australian frauds that I know of.

And why not? We've been on this beat long enough to recognise the usual suspects, and the pool is shrinking by actuarial inevitablity. They've long had a recruitment problem, but with Lucia and Sweet Sixteen they're now desperate enough to sign up anybody that comes through the door.

And then there's Inhofe, which is simply nostalgia. The world moves on and they're left behind, whinging like the worst sort of pom.

 

[CapelDodger]

see two posts above and feel free to put it in your thread as a CT proven.

The Conspiracy forum is not about competing conspiracies going head to head. It's about conspiracists banging their heads against a wall of scepticism.

The normal world-view isn't one of competing conspiracies. The cock-up theory of history is prevalent in sceptic circles.

 

[David Rodale]

Ermmm.... seeing as I'm not even sure what point my 'strawman' argument was against, I'll just have to respond with a 'whatever'.



So you were saying what about strawmen now? Would any of this 'contrary data' indicate it's all a load of rubbish and GW isn't happening? There are differences in the specific data but not in the trends.



Yet again, if you'd actually bothered checking the relevant section of the IPCC report, you would have found this (figure 3.6):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2478548e5d8f0d7c66.png

Those definitely look like error bars to me. The paper that this is adapted from is Brohan et al. (2006) (bolding mine).



So there are others who are already miles ahead of you.



Back at you.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850

The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this data set, HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent improvements to the sea surface temperature data set which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: Estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid twentieth century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small, and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the twentieth century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

That comes from the same Phil Jones who said

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.

Warmers don't want to be bothered with evidence though do they? Slogans and reassurances from the High Priests are sufficient.

Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global
land surface temperature trends

An examination of 1997–2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma


That must be what, going on 10 articles on problems with surface station network data presented in conflict with your pristine sources? What do you want, 10 more? Apparently a Warmologist disciple can't bear to stray from the flock. Station dropout can't possibly have any possible connection to these issues either, right?

When you can provide a comprehensive study to support your POV, please do so. Until then, the actual observational evidence is in direct contradiction to the fictitious "consensus".

 

[David Rodale]

The IPCC reports reference hundreds (if not thousands) of relevant papers produced by thousands of scientists in dozens of institutions across the world. If there was misreprentation those scientists would be speaking out, but they aren't.

The IPCC reports are presented to the governments of the world, who commissioned them. These government have their own scientific advisors and national institutions and would be made well aware of any misrepresentation. They would speak out about it, they would complain mightily and cancel the contract. Something they have signally failed to do, and there have been four reports by now.



There so is a consensus, and the real world is responsible for that. The consensus is scientific and political, heck, it's even industrial. Nobody serious isn't planning for continued global warming.



Next year the movers-and-shakers of the world will gather in Copenhagen to thrash out a global mitigation policy. None of them give a toss about McIntyre, and there's a good reason for that. Not because his contributions have been kept hidden from them but because they are piffle. Just like Watts's photo-gallery, Sweet Sixteen's preening, Singer's data-mining, Crichton's paranoia, or any of the stuff you find so convincing, such as a cold summer in Alaska.

The world moves on, leaving you behind. Do I hear whining coming from easycruise?

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

The IPCC reports are presented to the governments of the world, who commissioned them.

IPCC AR4 SR/SPM is written according to the whims of government bureaucrats. Would you care to argue the point? Your track record isn't all that great when it comes to presenting facts.

We're still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence CO2 has been largely responsible for sea ice melt for any given period. In the meantime:

Two new studies point to random, wind-induced circulation changes in the ocean--not global warming--as the dominant cause of the recent ice losses through the glaciers draining both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

‘Acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ triggered by warm subsurface ocean waters’

‘Modelling Circumpolar Deep Water intrusions on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, Antarctica’

Would you care to reiterate your predictions for next year?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

[David Rodale]

The physical evidence can be established in a laboratory and has been, repeatedly. After that it's just thermodynamics. Satellite observations are cherries and icing on the cake.

What physical evidence does Singer have to support adding "+/- 500 years" to the DO 1500 year cycle? And what physical evidence does he have for DO cycles during an interglacial?

I'd defy anyone not to find a 1000-2000 year cycle of indeterminate amplitude in a global temperature reconstruction. Which adequately explains Singer's introduction of the "+/- 500" to the DO cycle, which can then be circularly re

Singer only came to this after the event. Before the warming happened he was adamant that it wouldn't; only afterwards has he found the need to cast around for alternative explanations. His only fixed position is that it cannot be AGW.

What physical evidence does Singer have to support adding "+/- 500 years" to the DO 1500 year cycle? And what physical evidence does he have for DO cycles during an interglacial?

The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

● An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland
— showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.

None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories
from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.

Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores


Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

Singer only came to this after the event. Before the warming happened he was adamant that it wouldn't; only afterwards has he found the need to cast around for alternative explanations. His only fixed position is that it cannot be AGW.

Yet predicting global warming while it is occurring is a monumental feat? Hmm, was Singer around 12,000+ years ago?

 

[mhaze]

The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

Yet predicting global warming while it is occurring is a monumental feat? Hmm, was Singer around 12,000+ years ago?

Local Warmers must smear Singer, who only aggregates and shows hundreds of studies that support climate cycles at these intervals. That's idiotic.

Singer didn't do the original research. He just brought it to the attention of the community of climate science in an organized manner. Usually the smearing starts when a Warmer has no substantial argument.

Well, which is it? No substantial argument, or any specific science that argues against in whole or part, the approximate 1500 year climate cycle concept?

Go get your heavy guns for this one. Don't they shoot marshmellows?

 

[Spud1k]

Physical evidence, I believe, was the phrase Singer used.

So what physical evidence would qualify exactly? It's not like there's any direct evidence that proves that the current warming is due to anything else.

Climate change attribution isn't like dusting for fingerprints, you know. There's been a lot of work that's gone into showing the current warming is mainly down to increases in CO2 concentrations but it's not like CO2 heat smells any different to any other sort.

 

[Spud1k]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1032348e821a4b689d.gif[/qimg]

That comes from the same Phil Jones who said
Warmers don't want to be bothered with evidence though do they? Slogans and reassurances from the High Priests are sufficient.

Oh noes! We have to worry about Jones cooties now!

That group isn't the only one who has come to that conclusion you know. All the ensemble datasets show the same warming trend, give or take, so it's not like Jones is the keeper of some big lie.

Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global
land surface temperature trends

That paper only shows how these issues could cause problems in the global temperature trends. Got anything that estimates how much of an effect they are overall?

ETA: One of the conclusions of that paper is that sea temperature records should be more reliable than land-based ones. Given that they show a clear warming trend as well, I'm going to have to ask you what your point is.

ETA2: By the way, that wasn't an invitation to post that 'missing heat' article again. CD's already addressed that, so we don't need to see it again unless you're about to enlighten us as to why it amounts to anything.

An examination of 1997–2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahom

Another case study. Yawn.

That must be what, going on 10 articles on problems with surface station network data presented in conflict with your pristine sources? What do you want, 10 more? Apparently a Warmologist disciple can't bear to stray from the flock. Station dropout can't possibly have any possible connection to these issues either, right?

So I'm a 'warmologist disciple' now? Have I just been upgraded?

When did I say they were pristine? There are issues with surface stations. I'm not denying that. But these issues have been dealt with to the best of people's abilities from a climate perspective. They certainly aren't enough to erase the current warming trend at any rate. Got anything that says otherwise?

When you can provide a comprehensive study to support your POV, please do so. Until then, the actual observational evidence is in direct contradiction to the fictitious "consensus".

That Barrow case study you keep repeating is hardly comprehensive when it comes to the global picture. Some of the papers I have pointed to previously are on the other hand. Just for fun, here's appendix 3.B.2, which you seem to ignore the existence of in AR4:

Long-term temperature data from individual climate stations almost always suffer from inhomogeneities, owing to non-climatic factors. These include sudden changes in station location, instruments, thermometer housing, observing time, or algorithms to calculate daily means; and gradual changes arising from instrumental drifts or from changes in the environment due to urban development or land use. Most abrupt changes tend to produce random effects on regional and global trends, and instrument drifts are corrected by routine thermometer calibration. However, changes in observation time (Vose et al., 2004) and urban development are likely to produce widespread systematic biases; for example, relocation may be to a cooler site out of town (Böhm et al., 2001). Urbanisation usually produces warming, although examples exist of cooling in arid areas where irrigation effects dominate.
When dates for discontinuities are known, a widely used approach is to compare the data for a target station with neighbouring sites, and the change in the temperature data due to the non-climatic change can be calculated and applied to the pre-move data to account for the change, if the discontinuity is statistically significant. However, often the change is not documented, and its date must be determined by statistical tests. The procedure moves through the time series checking the data before and after each value in the time series (Easterling and Peterson, 1995; Vincent, 1998; Menne and Williams, 2005): this works for monthly or longer means, but not daily values owing to greater noise at weather timescales. An extensive review is given by Aguilar et al. (2003).
The impact of random discontinuities on area-averaged values typically becomes smaller as the area or region becomes larger, and is negligible on hemispheric scales (Easterling et al., 1996). However, trends averaged over small regions, in particular, may be biased by systematic heterogeneities in the data (Böhm et al., 2001), and the impact of non-random discontinuities can be important even with large averaging areas. The time-of-observation bias documented by Karl et al. (1986) shows a significant impact even with time series derived for the entire contiguous United States. Adjustments for this problem remove an artificial cooling that occurs due to a switch from afternoon to morning observation times for the U.S. Cooperative Observer Network (Vose et al., 2004).
Estimates of urban impacts on temperature data have included approaches such as linear regression against population (Karl et al., 1988), and analysis of differences between urban and rural sites defined by vegetation (Gallo et al., 2002) or night lights (Peterson, 2003) as seen from satellites. Urbanisation impacts on global and hemispheric temperature trends (Karl et al., 1988; Jones et al., 1990; Easterling et al., 1997; Peterson, 2003; Parker, 2004, 2006) have been found to be small. Furthermore, once the landscape around a station becomes urbanized, long-term trends for that station are consistent with nearby rural stations (Böhm, 1998; Easterling et al., 2005, Peterson and Owen, 2005). However, individual stations may suffer marked biases and require treatment on a case-by-case basis (e.g., Davey and Pielke, 2005); the influence of urban development and other heterogeneities on temperature depends on local geography and climate so that adjustment algorithms developed for one region may not be applicable in other parts of the world (Hansen et al., 2001; Peterson, 2003).
Homogenization of daily temperature series requires much more metadata than monthly assessment (see the extensive discussion in Camuffo and Jones, 2002) and only a few series can be classed as totally homogeneous. Daily minima and maxima, and consequently also DTR and analysis of extremes, are particularly sensitive to non-climatic heterogeneities, including changes in height above ground, housing and ventilation of instruments (Auer et al., 2001; Brunet et al., 2006). The ongoing automation of measuring networks is typically accompanied by a change from large and unventilated screens to small and continuously ventilated ones. Assessment of potential homogeneity problems in a network of 60 daily maximum and minimum temperature series, for Europe for the 20th century by Wijngaard et al. (2003), suggests that 94% of series should be classed as of doubtful homogeneity. The percent of doubtful series reduces to 61% when considering 158 series for 1946–1999. Vincent et al. (2002) in a Canadian study of over 200 daily temperature series, develop daily adjustments by smooth interpolation of monthly adjustments. But a new technique adjusts higher order daily statistics (Della Marta and Wanner, 2006).

Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's wrong with each of the papers it references? Or point out the bit where they assume that the data is 'pristine' and ignore these effects?

Bottom line is that the data isn't perfect but people deal with it. And even after they deal with it to the best of their capabilities, global warming is still there, plain as day.

 

[Spud1k]

Well, which is it? No substantial argument, or any specific science that argues against in whole or part, the approximate 1500 year climate cycle concept?

The concept or existence of a 1500 year cycle I don't have a problem with. Hell, even one of the Realclimate folks wrote a paper on it. But do you have anything that says definitively it is responsible for the current spate of warming?

 

[CapelDodger]

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

The fact is that all the scientists in the world, including all those whose work is referenced, have the AR4 available to them. Is there was a problem with it those scientists (and the institutions they work in, plus such institutions as the AAAS and the Royal Society) would be making a great deal of fuss, but they aren't.

IPCC AR4 SR/SPM is written according to the whims of government bureaucrats. Would you care to argue the point?

That claim is extraordinary, so it's up to you to provide the evidence and argue the point.

Which government are you referring to? The IPCC is an international body, set up under the auspices of the UN to provide an unbiased report on the state of current climate research to all governments. Those governments will not take kindly to one government claiming ownership.

The political (or more accurately, diplomatic) input comes towards the very end of the reporting process. The diplomats are despatched by their governments to represent said governments' interests, so how can act according to their own whimsy?

What is the motivation of the government (or governments, perhaps) in promoting an AGW fraud?

Your track record isn't all that great when it comes to presenting facts.

It is a fact that the AR4 is publicly available to the entire scientific community (and indeed to the wider public, if they care to read it). If there were serious flaws in the AR4 scientists would be kicking up a storm but they're not, any more than they did over the previous reports.

It is not a fact that IPCC reports are "written according to the whims of government bureaucrats". You may think you've presented a fact with that, but in fact you haven't. It is, prima facie, an absurd claim. You've said much the same before, but repetition does not make it any less absurd. To do that you need to back your claim up with some evidence and argument.

You could, for instance, start from the rather obvious questions I posed above.

We're still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence CO2 has been largely responsible for sea ice melt for any given period. In the meantime:

‘Acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ triggered by warm subsurface ocean waters’

"We conclude that the prediction of future rapid dynamic responses of other outlet glaciers to climate change will require an improved understanding of the effect of changes in regional ocean and atmosphere circulation on the delivery of warm subsurface waters to the periphery of the ice sheets."

An unremarkable conclusion. Climate change will indeed have impacts on ocean circulation, and they are not well understood. Those changes, in turn, will have impacts on coastal ice. Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect, aka AGW.

‘Modelling Circumpolar Deep Water intrusions on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, Antarctica’

What point are you trying to make with that? I don't find it immediately obvious.

[/quote]Would you care to reiterate your predictions for next year?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348e845dc90780.png[/URL][/quote]

I predict a record minimum Arctic ice-extent in 2009. I have my reasons for doing so.

Do you care to make a prediction? Any prediction? Even if it's just that I'll be proven wrong? If the recent loss of sea-ice extent is down to an unusual coincidence of transient influences you should feel confident enough to predict that. What are the chances of it happening again?

The problem with your approach (focusing on proximate causes for specific events) is that it fails to capture the behaviour of the entire system. The entire system is accumulating energy, including the latent energy required to melt ice. It's doing that because of AGW, as predicted by well-established science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Local Warmers must smear Singer, who only aggregates and shows hundreds of studies that support climate cycles at these intervals. That's idiotic.

There are hundreds of such studies and Singer read them all? While keeping up on all the studies regarding secondary smoking (he concluded that it's not a problem, unsurprisingly). He's a busy guy.

Have you yet found out where his "+/- 500 years" came from? Without that we have another 500 years of warming to come, unless you want to ditch the MWP and conjure up a Dark Ages Warm period. Or we could take the middle of the LIA (1700, say?) as the bottom of the cycle, which would give us another 440 years of warming before we hit the peak.

Singer didn't do the original research. He just brought it to the attention of the community of climate science in an organized manner. Usually the smearing starts when a Warmer has no substantial argument.

The 1500 year cycle is not a substantial argument to explain current warming. Singer knows that, and he knows that the likes of you won't.

Well, which is it? No substantial argument, or any specific science that argues against in whole or part, the approximate 1500 year climate cycle concept?

There may well be such a cycle (just as there may well be a 60-80 year cycle of Arctic ice-extent) but Singer doesn't promote a 1500 year cycle. Singer promotes a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle. Which is a 1000-2000 year cycle with variable amplitude: I defy anyone to not find that in a global temperature reconstruction.

Singer isn't interested in explaining the current warming, he's interested in promoting doubt about AGW (or tobacco, or ozone depletion, or whatever industry-friendly project he's called in on) and he's been the go-to guy for obfuscation and doubt since way back. Singer is not motivated by science, he's motivated by ideology and he operates as a propagandist.

Go get your heavy guns for this one. Don't they shoot marshmellows?

Singer is your heavy gun, and he's been firing blanks for decades.

How's the 60-80 year cycle working out for you? I can remember when you well keen on it, but recently there's been no mention. Did you guys split up?

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ok... I thank you all for your input.

But... it has hardly made the cause for AGW definitive.

The ONLY thing scientists seem to agree upon is...

1. The Earth is warming
2. We don't really know why
3. We cannot find natural causes
4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.

At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !

It all seems to be a "just in case" argument.. which would be fine if we weren't about to sell our economic souls to pay for it !

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, we KNOW that increased CO2 contributes to the warming. That is a physical certainty. The only thing we do NOT know is how much of the warming was so-caused.

BUT we can say with certainty that if we continue to increase the amount it WILL dwarf all other reasons for warming if it does not already. Again, a physical certainty.

 

[Pipirr]

Ok... I thank you all for your input.

But... it has hardly made the cause for AGW definitive.

The ONLY thing scientists seem to agree upon is...

1. The Earth is warming
2. We don't really know why
3. We cannot find natural causes
4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.

At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !

It all seems to be a "just in case" argument.. which would be fine if we weren't about to sell our economic souls to pay for it !

I can't imagine from where you obtained such a bizarre view of what scientists agree upon.

If you would like to know what scientists think, you could do worse than read this epic list of statements from various national academies, foundations, societies and unions.