How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

JC456, you're a bot produced by Venezuelan oil companies to spout anti-AGW propaganda.

No one has admitted those data are fake. Ocean temperatures are taken by ships and satellites. Military and research vessels drop XBT buoys at least daily providing a huge library of data to several thousand feet of depth. If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface physically occupied by thermometers, I'm sure it is a tiny fraction of 1%. If you'd like to calculate the area of the Earth's surface accurately monitored by thermometers, you will come to a much, much larger number.

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

 

[Dick Foster]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

All of which still fails to contain:

• Predictability
  
• Quantifiability
• Fasifiablility
• A static control
• Any baseline proposal of what the "ideal" temperature should be

And the warmer Bozos still claim that they're proponents of science.

Speaking of quantifiability....did you know that to date, there is not one single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically, measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not one single published paper.

And every day one of the warmer wackos tells us that the science is settled.

It helps to bear in mind that most of the warmer types have arts degrees and know not one lick of science, scientific methods or higher math skills. When you stray from gay arts history and crap like that, they're completely lost.

 

[SSDD]

Watch what liars Republicans are

“Sea level rise and changes in the climate, those are measurable,” Rubio said. “I don’t think there’s a debate about whether that’s happening because you can measure that.” See? He’s a reasonable guy! Not some crazy denier.

“The secondary aspect,” he adds, “is how much of that is due to human activity...”

Tapper pushes on: “Do you believe it is man-made?”

“Humanity and its behavior, scientists say, is contributing to that,” Rubio acknowledged. “I can’t tell you to what percentage is contributing and many scientists would debate the percentage is contributable to man versus normal fluctuations, but there’s a rise in sea level, temperatures are warmer in the waters than they were 50, 80, 100 years ago. That’s measurable.”

In short: The climate is changing but we’re not sure why.

Make note of what policy might follow from this perspective. We don’t really know how much humans are contributing to climate change, so there’s no sense in trying hard to reduce our emissions.

Rubio’s is not a new rhetorical ploy, of course, nor is it unique to him. But it has helped the GOP wriggle out from under the uncomfortable “denier” label. Conservative leaders who pull this move tend to get the headlines they want: “Republican acknowledges climate change.”

There are two things to say about this rhetorical move by the GOP.

First, this is still denialism. It doesn’t get Republicans out of the trap like they think it does, unless the media is incredibly lazy. (Ahem.) Second, and more broadly, the ever-shifting rhetoric of climate denial reveals that particular arguments about science were never really offered in good faith. The fact is, the GOP is the party of fossil fuels; it recognizes, accurately, that to acknowledge climate change is to empower its opponents.

I can't help but notice that you never provide actual science to support your claims..it is always comments by some politician or an opinion piece from the mainstream media. Ever wonder why you can't actually produce any real science to support your claims?

It is because there is none...

 

[SSDD]

Toddsterdummy

I think if anybody has proved to be an idiot it is you. You actually believe this silly AGW scam.

I am not a climate expert but I am an Environmental Engineer. Worked in the field for 30 years. I actually know what pollution really is. I have cleaned up more pollution in my career than you and ten thousand of your Moon Bat buddies will ever see in your lifetimes.

While not an expert I am very well read on the subject because in post retirement I taught college courses in Environmental Science and had to well versed on it for the course.

Global warming and climate change is real. No doubt about it. It has been the case since the end of the last ice age. However, there is absolutely no proof that man has altered the climate with greenhouse gasses. We have polluted the hell out of a lot of things but absolutely no proof we have altered the atmosphere.

The reason these yokels have to make up data and none of their predictions ever come true is because there is no substance to the scam.

You are either an idiot or you are gullible. Maybe even both.

You wasted you time typing to me. I read the first 2 sentences and then just stopped. Don't waste your time idiot. Bye

Of course you did......that is what cult's recommend... As soon as someone starts to challenge your faith, you are to clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. That way you can pretend that you didn't hear and don't have to actually try to defend your indefensible position.

 

[SSDD]

Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.

People who are not dupes care. People who are actually interested in the science care. Clearly, you are not one of those people.

And you believe pointing out that CO2 doesn't "trap" anything is stupid and irrelevant? You think that pointing out that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is stupid and irrelevant? You think pointing out that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses is stupid and irrelevant? Really?

If so, then you just proved that you are both stupid and irrelevant...

 

[SSDD]

all three of which are beliefs founded on mountains of evidence.

All three are founded on mountains of failed models...nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

You have been shown large amounts of date supporting AGW. What you refer to is the bullshit, rhetorical question you ask over and over again and then reject any answer given - just like your idol SSDD. You have been shown the amount of warming that human GHG emissions has produced. What else are you pretending to need?

No skidmark....we have not. Not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the only evidence you have shown is evidence of how easily you are fooled..

 

[sealybobo]

Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.

People who are not dupes care. People who are actually interested in the science care. Clearly, you are not one of those people.

And you believe pointing out that CO2 doesn't "trap" anything is stupid and irrelevant? You think that pointing out that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is stupid and irrelevant? You think pointing out that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses is stupid and irrelevant? Really?

If so, then you just proved that you are both stupid and irrelevant...

Oh stfu. Plenty of science out there. You ignore it so why post it?

 

[Flash]

Toddsterdummy

I think if anybody has proved to be an idiot it is you. You actually believe this silly AGW scam.

I am not a climate expert but I am an Environmental Engineer. Worked in the field for 30 years. I actually know what pollution really is. I have cleaned up more pollution in my career than you and ten thousand of your Moon Bat buddies will ever see in your lifetimes.

While not an expert I am very well read on the subject because in post retirement I taught college courses in Environmental Science and had to well versed on it for the course.

Global warming and climate change is real. No doubt about it. It has been the case since the end of the last ice age. However, there is absolutely no proof that man has altered the climate with greenhouse gasses. We have polluted the hell out of a lot of things but absolutely no proof we have altered the atmosphere.

The reason these yokels have to make up data and none of their predictions ever come true is because there is no substance to the scam.

You are either an idiot or you are gullible. Maybe even both.

You wasted you time typing to me. I read the first 2 sentences and then just stopped. Don't waste your time idiot. Bye

Of course you did......that is what cult's recommend... As soon as someone starts to challenge your faith, you are to clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. That way you can pretend that you didn't hear and don't have to actually try to defend your indefensible position.

These Moon Bats have given up on believing in God and have replaced God with this silly ass Global Warming religion as their object of worship.

It is really pathetic when you think about it.

 

[sealybobo]

Toddsterdummy

I think if anybody has proved to be an idiot it is you. You actually believe this silly AGW scam.

I am not a climate expert but I am an Environmental Engineer. Worked in the field for 30 years. I actually know what pollution really is. I have cleaned up more pollution in my career than you and ten thousand of your Moon Bat buddies will ever see in your lifetimes.

While not an expert I am very well read on the subject because in post retirement I taught college courses in Environmental Science and had to well versed on it for the course.

Global warming and climate change is real. No doubt about it. It has been the case since the end of the last ice age. However, there is absolutely no proof that man has altered the climate with greenhouse gasses. We have polluted the hell out of a lot of things but absolutely no proof we have altered the atmosphere.

The reason these yokels have to make up data and none of their predictions ever come true is because there is no substance to the scam.

You are either an idiot or you are gullible. Maybe even both.

You wasted you time typing to me. I read the first 2 sentences and then just stopped. Don't waste your time idiot. Bye

Of course you did......that is what cult's recommend... As soon as someone starts to challenge your faith, you are to clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. That way you can pretend that you didn't hear and don't have to actually try to defend your indefensible position.

These Moon Bats have given up on believing in God and have replaced God with this silly ass Global Warming religion as their object of worship.

It is really pathetic when you think about it.

Your religion is like global warming. It too is man made.

Better to worship the earth and not ruin it like you bible thumpers who actually worship corporations more than you do god.

 

[Flash]

Toddsterdummy

I think if anybody has proved to be an idiot it is you. You actually believe this silly AGW scam.

I am not a climate expert but I am an Environmental Engineer. Worked in the field for 30 years. I actually know what pollution really is. I have cleaned up more pollution in my career than you and ten thousand of your Moon Bat buddies will ever see in your lifetimes.

While not an expert I am very well read on the subject because in post retirement I taught college courses in Environmental Science and had to well versed on it for the course.

Global warming and climate change is real. No doubt about it. It has been the case since the end of the last ice age. However, there is absolutely no proof that man has altered the climate with greenhouse gasses. We have polluted the hell out of a lot of things but absolutely no proof we have altered the atmosphere.

The reason these yokels have to make up data and none of their predictions ever come true is because there is no substance to the scam.

You are either an idiot or you are gullible. Maybe even both.

You wasted you time typing to me. I read the first 2 sentences and then just stopped. Don't waste your time idiot. Bye

Of course you did......that is what cult's recommend... As soon as someone starts to challenge your faith, you are to clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. That way you can pretend that you didn't hear and don't have to actually try to defend your indefensible position.

These Moon Bats have given up on believing in God and have replaced God with this silly ass Global Warming religion as their object of worship.

It is really pathetic when you think about it.

Your religion is like global warming. It too is man made.

Better to worship the earth and not ruin it like you bible thumpers who actually worship corporations more than you do god.

You stupid Moon Bats have a triune AGW God just like us Christians do. The AGW Scam Father, the Son of Stupidity and the Holy Spirit of Economic Destruction.

That is OK. You stupid Moon Bats can support the Disciples of the AGW God for President all you want. Lets see how far that $100 trillion price tag just for the US alone to "save the planet" gets you in 2020.

 

[basquebromance]

"This week, Diamond & Silk claimed that the climate was changing because of the speed of the rotation of the Earth, which is truly a breathtaking level of scientific ignorance."

 

[SSDD]

Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.

People who are not dupes care. People who are actually interested in the science care. Clearly, you are not one of those people.

And you believe pointing out that CO2 doesn't "trap" anything is stupid and irrelevant? You think that pointing out that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is stupid and irrelevant? You think pointing out that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses is stupid and irrelevant? Really?

If so, then you just proved that you are both stupid and irrelevant...

Oh stfu. Plenty of science out there. You ignore it so why post it?

I am not ignoring anything...I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and neither you, nor any other warmer seems to be able to produce it...not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence.

But do feel free to post a bit of what you claim I am ignoring...I would like to see it. We both know that you won't be posting anything though...it is easy to say there is plenty of evidence...it is another thing entirely to step up to the plate and produce it...and neither you nor anyone else will be producing it because none exists...

 

[SSDD]

"This week, Diamond & Silk claimed that the climate was changing because of the speed of the rotation of the Earth, which is truly a breathtaking level of scientific ignorance."

Some time ago, they were claiming that climate change was going to both speed up and slow down the rate of rotation of the earth...that didn't work out so they just switched it around hoping that might work out better.

 

[Sunsettommy]

all three of which are beliefs founded on mountains of evidence.

All three are founded on mountains of failed models...nothing more.

That is what they never seem to understand, is that untestable/unverifiable climate models are the hallmarks of pseudoscience. They continually ignore The Scientific Method way of research, which is why their many prediction/projections never works.

========================

Pseudoscience: from Wikipedia,

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization."

The Scientific Method: from Wikipedia,

"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises."

========================

Too many science illiterates fail to distinguish the difference between the two definitions.

Meanwhile those same science illiterates will ignore the many documented failures of their pseudoscience bullcrap, such as this sampling:

Where is the "hot spot"?
Where is the .30C per decade warming rate?

on and on....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who cares. You’re not a scientist are you? Stop pretending to understand. And you’re just trying to stall the progress with stupid irrelevant questions. Republicans tactic.

People who are not dupes care. People who are actually interested in the science care. Clearly, you are not one of those people.

And you believe pointing out that CO2 doesn't "trap" anything is stupid and irrelevant? You think that pointing out that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is stupid and irrelevant? You think pointing out that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses is stupid and irrelevant? Really?

If so, then you just proved that you are both stupid and irrelevant...

Oh stfu. Plenty of science out there. You ignore it so why post it?

Models are NOT evidence moron... Try yourself some EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED evidence to support your failed model.. When models have no ability to match reality, it tells us that the model is worthless.

 

[Olde Europe]

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?

Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Natural Law: "an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms. This is why I am a skeptic. Even the scientists agree, when obliged to be truly honest, we simply do not know for sure. Ask any scientist, when you are no longer a skeptic on a matter, you are no longer in a mental position to be impartial, and open to unexpected findings. In short, if you are no longer skeptical, you are no longer a good scientist.

Since you didn't read any of the links abu afak provided, you should just have shut up.

Secondly, "the science is settled" means that the folks who actually know whereof they speak - a.k.a. climate scientists - by their vast, overwhelming majority agree that AGW is the best theory, the theory with the most explanatory value, to explain the observed changes of the earth's climate / temperature. That doesn't mean it's "the truth", that is, no longer amenable by way of providing a better explanation. It also doesn't mean it's a mere hypothesis, as it's confirmed from a myriad of different angles, and internally consistent, and consistent with observations and fundamental natural laws.

Requiring scientists to be skeptical, and then using their being skeptical to denigrate the object of their skepticism to be at most a hypothesis - because who could be skeptical of the truth? - is just ludicrous, baloney, a too-smart-by-half joke. There simply is no other way of forcing consistent with the observable climate signals. The Earth Institute link explains things fairly well, and in a fashion that should be easily understood even by those not versed in (climate) science.

You are not a "skeptic". You are just ignorant - not reading any of the links indicates: probably willfully ignorant. That's no way of entering a debate.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?

Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Natural Law: "an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms. This is why I am a skeptic. Even the scientists agree, when obliged to be truly honest, we simply do not know for sure. Ask any scientist, when you are no longer a skeptic on a matter, you are no longer in a mental position to be impartial, and open to unexpected findings. In short, if you are no longer skeptical, you are no longer a good scientist.

Since you didn't read any of the links abu afak provided, you should just have shut up.

Secondly, "the science is settled" means that the folks who actually know whereof they speak - a.k.a. climate scientists - by their vast, overwhelming majority agree that AGW is the best theory, the theory with the most explanatory value, to explain the observed changes of the earth's climate / temperature. That doesn't mean it's "the truth", that is, no longer amenable by way of providing a better explanation. It also doesn't mean it's a mere hypothesis, as it's confirmed from a myriad of different angles, and internally consistent, and consistent with observations and fundamental natural laws.

Requiring scientists to be skeptical, and then using their being skeptical to denigrate the object of their skepticism to be at most a hypothesis - because who could be skeptical of the truth? - is just ludicrous, baloney, a too-smart-by-half joke. There simply is no other way of forcing consistent with the observable climate signals. The Earth Institute link explains things fairly well, and in a fashion that should be easily understood even by those not versed in (climate) science.

You are not a "skeptic". You are just ignorant - not reading any of the links indicates: probably willfully ignorant. That's no way of entering a debate.

So when the Dinosaur bones were first found, and they were studied, and had the bones placed in a certain way, every scientist thought that they, the dinosaurs, were slow moving reptiles, how long did that settled science last? Just because there is a consensus doesnt make the science settle at all, you worthless dumbass. Science is always changing until the proof is in the pudding not in the model...

 

[SSDD]

Secondly, "the science is settled" means that the folks who actually know whereof they speak - a.k.a. climate scientists - by their vast, overwhelming majority agree that AGW is the best theory, the theory with the most explanatory value, to explain the observed changes of the earth's climate / temperature.

Settled science without the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over the null hypothesis? Really? That sounds just like pseudoscience...all is good so long as the funding continues...

Tell me, in what other topic in any field of science do people hold up "consensus" as if it were actual evidence that a hypothesis is correct? I did some searching and couldn't find any other instance...in all of science.

It seems that in every other branch of science, when you question the prevailing mainstream hypothesis or theory, you start getting bombarded with the evidence to support it...and if observed, measured evidence exists, then you get hammered with that.

In real science, when you question the hypothesis or theory, people start handing you evidence...in most cases, more than you ever wanted to see. In climate science though, you get lots of talk about consensus and zero observed measured evidence which supports the hypothesis over natural variability...

Further, in real science, a single predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis scrapped, or radically changed in an effort to formulate a better hypothesis that doesn't experience predictive failures...the landscape of the past 3 decades is littered with failed predictions from climate science...in real science, a predictive failure gets a hypothesis scrapped, or fundamentally altered...in pseudoscience, the hypothesis can fail as many times as it fails...it won't matter so long as the funding continues...

You are a dupe....

 

[SSDD]

Completely unsurprised that you have no answer...because only in climate science do people argue that consensus is evidence...