CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[flacaltenn]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

The climate is always changing.. What man is supposed to be responsible for is what is in question.

The empirical evidence shows that our current rise of 0.8 deg C is right in line with the LOG of CO2 but it can not all be attributed to it however. The evidence is right in front of your eyes in the empirical evidence presented.

The IPCC and the UN have co-opted this for their end run around our self governance in an effort to control us. Call it what you want, but it is well documented as UN Agenda 21.

I am asking for evidence that scientists all over the world are deliberately misleading me. Show it to me. Do you have a link? Do you really think scientists are lying so plainly and so openly? Do you think scientific institutions all over the globe have been fooled so easily?

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

 

[Confounding]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

 

[flacaltenn]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

Sure.. Man plays a role in CO2 emissions. But what man puts into the atmos every year is 1/20 of what NATURE puts up there.. And of that 5%, there is enough "excess carbon sink" capability in the oceans to eat up half of man's contributions.. There's also some "accounting fraud" in what CO2 emissions are CHARGED to man.. Because before farting cows, there were massive herds of buffalo and deer that got replaced --- for instance.

I gave a brief synopsis of the 1.1DegC per doubling as the BASIC power of CO2 to warm the surfaces a couple pages back.. Based on just that -- without all the scary "adjunct theories" about CATASTROPHIC GWarming, it looks like man accounts for somewhat less than half the warming in our lifetimes.

And the only part of this that I can't buy into is those "catastrophic" portions of GW theories. The Earth's climate system is not that fragile. Our "recent climate history" is a series of 4 Ice Ages with mile thick rivers of glaciers and the planet RECOVERED from each one of those. Going from nearly zero CO2 in the Atmos at the BOTTOM of each ice age to something like a mean of 280ppm at the brief, livable warm interludes like the one that MAN developed in..

And never ONCE during any of those four DEEP freeze cycles, did the subsequent warming and release of sequestered CO2 "runaway" or "accelerate" in any kind of irreversible fashion... They always STOPPED before all those frozen hydrocarbons thawed and released to the atmos...



.

 

[task0778]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

"I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth."

Most scientists will say that this statement is PROBABLY true. But they will also state that there is no scientific proof that such is the case, OR that if it is true there is no scientific evidence that indicates how much that contribution is. That is because to date no one knows the extent of global warming that is NOT caused by anthropogenic events, i.e., man-made.

See, here's the problem: After two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970, environmentalists projected a cooling trend. Are you old enough to remember when the big scare in the 1970s was global cooling with the accompanying mass starvation? Like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

But then, guess what? The climate changed again. After a few decades of warmer temperatures, from the 1970s to the late 1990s, they all jumped onto the bandwagon of projecting a continued warming trend—and the darned climate changed again, staying roughly flat since about 1998. Think about it -- how much carbon is being spewed into the air by all those coal-fired plants in India and Asia, so why has global temps been fairly flat for the past 20 years? How is anyone supposed to believe that global warming is primarily caused by mankind? Some? Maybe. How much? No one knows. Enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on high speed rail? I think not.

 

[Elton]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

Dr David Evans is a good place to start. He explains the IPCC hypothesis and then point by point dissects it.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Would you say your position on AGW is motivated by politics more than science?

I have been reading about global warming for a long time now. I have also been learning about how science is supposed to work. One thing that is glaring to me is how the climatologists seem to be violating every scientific rule out there. I ain't a scientist, but all of the politicking seems to be from the climatologists side, everything they are doing seems to have a political goal in mind.

 

[Elton]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

CO2 "influence" is not Zero.. You need to be more careful... CO2 is RELATED to surface temp.. It is both a forcing and a Feedback effect. It's just been given "superpowers" by academics that believe the Earth's climate is so entirely fragile that a mere 2degC would irreversibly and permanently render the planet uninhabitable..

It was my intention to show the exaggeration. That is why I stated it was "at or near zero" in our current cycle. We have identified CO2's potential contribution is just about its LOG value.

View attachment 249202
CO2's ability is roughly 95% spent, so there is not much left for it to affect. The red line is actual observations and it is almost flat line at 800ppm.

On that log chart, it doesn't matter what the rate of warming is -- it only matters that given WHERE WE ARE on that graph -- you WILL get about 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration.. WITHOUT the more fantastic claims about "positive feedbacks", accelerations, trigger temps that have spawned out of GW speculation..

Since we're not thru the FIRST doubling (280 to 560) since the Indust. Age, we're about 60% accounted for just thru the BASIC calculation without the fear and dire consequences of the unsettled science. The REST very well COULD be natural variation coming out of a "Little Ice Age"..

To get to the NEXT doubling (560 to 1120ppm), will take TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1DegC.. THAT is why on that curve it LOOKS like we've maxxed out, but Log functions NEVER "max out".. It just takes MORE of the input to get to the same output you had last time..

I SERIOUSLY doubt that we're gonna reach the 1st doubling until at least 2060.. So the next doubling is not probably inside the end of this century --- IF man is actually causing the majority of that CO2 increase...

Please forgive a novice, but why are you starting doubling at 280? What is the zero point to begin the doubling from? I'm sorry if I am not being very clear but wouldn't the doubling begin at 1? And then from 2 to 4 etc.?

 

[Confounding]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

"I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth."

Most scientists will say that this statement is PROBABLY true. But they will also state that there is no scientific proof that such is the case, OR that if it is true there is no scientific evidence that indicates how much that contribution is. That is because to date no one knows the extent of global warming that is NOT caused by anthropogenic events, i.e., man-made.

See, here's the problem: After two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970, environmentalists projected a cooling trend. Are you old enough to remember when the big scare in the 1970s was global cooling with the accompanying mass starvation? Like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

But then, guess what? The climate changed again. After a few decades of warmer temperatures, from the 1970s to the late 1990s, they all jumped onto the bandwagon of projecting a continued warming trend—and the darned climate changed again, staying roughly flat since about 1998. Think about it -- how much carbon is being spewed into the air by all those coal-fired plants in India and Asia, so why has global temps been fairly flat for the past 20 years? How is anyone supposed to believe that global warming is primarily caused by mankind? Some? Maybe. How much? No one knows. Enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on high speed rail? I think not.

I think they've learned a lot from their mistakes. That's one of the great things about science. It embraces mistakes and learns from them. Could some of their current predictions end up being off due to the limitations of our understanding? Yeah, but I still think we should be listening closely to the opinions of the climate scientists, not to be confused with partisan fools selling hysteria to MSNBC. Nobody in the world is better equipped to have an opinion on the matter.

 

[task0778]

It ain't all politics. Consider this, written back in 2016:

8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry. National Review reports:

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.

9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax


Added to that, how much money was spent on companies like Solyndra and Evergreen, money that went right down the drain. Our tax dollars. Then there's that high speed rail boondoggle. Money, money, money.

 

[flacaltenn]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

CO2 "influence" is not Zero.. You need to be more careful... CO2 is RELATED to surface temp.. It is both a forcing and a Feedback effect. It's just been given "superpowers" by academics that believe the Earth's climate is so entirely fragile that a mere 2degC would irreversibly and permanently render the planet uninhabitable..

It was my intention to show the exaggeration. That is why I stated it was "at or near zero" in our current cycle. We have identified CO2's potential contribution is just about its LOG value.

View attachment 249202
CO2's ability is roughly 95% spent, so there is not much left for it to affect. The red line is actual observations and it is almost flat line at 800ppm.

On that log chart, it doesn't matter what the rate of warming is -- it only matters that given WHERE WE ARE on that graph -- you WILL get about 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration.. WITHOUT the more fantastic claims about "positive feedbacks", accelerations, trigger temps that have spawned out of GW speculation..

Since we're not thru the FIRST doubling (280 to 560) since the Indust. Age, we're about 60% accounted for just thru the BASIC calculation without the fear and dire consequences of the unsettled science. The REST very well COULD be natural variation coming out of a "Little Ice Age"..

To get to the NEXT doubling (560 to 1120ppm), will take TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1DegC.. THAT is why on that curve it LOOKS like we've maxxed out, but Log functions NEVER "max out".. It just takes MORE of the input to get to the same output you had last time..

I SERIOUSLY doubt that we're gonna reach the 1st doubling until at least 2060.. So the next doubling is not probably inside the end of this century --- IF man is actually causing the majority of that CO2 increase...

Please forgive a novice, but why are you starting doubling at 280? What is the zero point to begin the doubling from? I'm sorry if I am not being very clear but wouldn't the doubling begin at 1? And then from 2 to 4 etc.?

Only because 280ppm is the accepted starting point prior to the Industrial Revolution.. And if you're looking for anthropomorphic (man-made) effects -- that's the place to start. But in REALITY, the 280ppm is about the mean value since temperatures recovered from the last major Ice Age...

That's not to say it's been completely STEADY since the last major Ice Age. CO2 fluctuates even SEASONALLY in each hemisphere in significant amounts and high resolution ice core studies DO SHOW fairly substantial fluctuations of CO2 content over the past 10 or 20 thousand years..

But you bring up an important point. Because each doubling requires SUBSTANTIALLY more CO2.. The previous doubling from 140 to 280 was only 140ppm.. The current doubling we're in requires 280ppm. And the next doubling into the 22 century will require 560ppm ADDITIONAL CO2..

During the bottom of an Ice Age, the atmos CO2 was pretty near zero.. Because the ice-covered oceans and land could not efficiently release their CO2.. So you got fairly rapid warming coming OUT of an Ice Age as the amount required to double was very small... And you see those steep slopes (steep in terms of decades and centuries) in the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica... Wouldn't take much CO2 for the FIRST doubling (post ice age).. Maybe 40 or 50ppm..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The hypothesis has been show fatally flawed.

Despite your claim the scientists still say AGW is happening. Why do you think that is?

Because it undeniably is happening. Just not at the rate or severity they tout. They are politicized whores in my opinion. They use modeling that fails empirical review without exception, as most exaggerate warming by a factor of at least 10.

I say the real rate is at or near zero simply because there is no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Dr Spencer did an analysis of most of the Global Circulation Models and they didn't fare well.

We simply do not understand the atmosphere well enough to model it correctly. Given that bit of information what is man really doing? What is man responsible for? Right now we do not have enough empirical evidence and understanding to accurately say anything. Any one who claims to know is making a wild ass guess.

 

[cnm]

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[Billy_Bob]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

"I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth."

Most scientists will say that this statement is PROBABLY true. But they will also state that there is no scientific proof that such is the case, OR that if it is true there is no scientific evidence that indicates how much that contribution is. That is because to date no one knows the extent of global warming that is NOT caused by anthropogenic events, i.e., man-made.

See, here's the problem: After two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970, environmentalists projected a cooling trend. Are you old enough to remember when the big scare in the 1970s was global cooling with the accompanying mass starvation? Like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

But then, guess what? The climate changed again. After a few decades of warmer temperatures, from the 1970s to the late 1990s, they all jumped onto the bandwagon of projecting a continued warming trend—and the darned climate changed again, staying roughly flat since about 1998. Think about it -- how much carbon is being spewed into the air by all those coal-fired plants in India and Asia, so why has global temps been fairly flat for the past 20 years? How is anyone supposed to believe that global warming is primarily caused by mankind? Some? Maybe. How much? No one knows. Enough to spend hundreds of dollars on high speed rail? I think not.

Solar variance has an effect on Earths Climate...who could not have seen that one coming? One of the latest things we are watching is spectral shift of the suns output. We have registered a loss of energy in the 0.2 to 1.2um spectrum of about 12%. This is the region that heats the earths oceans to 700m. Total Solar IR-radiance (TSI) has only dropped slightly but the power shift in bands is allowing earths oceans to cool rapidly due to the energy input loss. I just hope it is not a long term shift as it has the potential to result in glaciation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

AH yes the altered and retrained graph that shows no predictive phase. So the graphing is worthless and proves nothing. Spencer's graph shows the predictive phase this one does not. Now why would you hide that? Afraid of the failure that is coming?

The IPCC's attempt to give the models cover and it means exactly nothing. It amazes me how many deceptions are rampant in the IPCC literature. Do you know why Spencer placed the radiosonds data in the graph? It was to show the diversion from reality by both the modeling and the HCSN.

 

[SSDD]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

The natural variation of climate on planet earth...it has been happening since day one...

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

The entire paleographic history of earth is evidence of climate change...ice cores record the progression of change since the onset of the present interglacial...of course, the oldest ice cores only go back so far...that is because before the onset of the present ice age, it was so warm that there was no ice at one or both of the poles.....more evidence of climate change.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

To date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our production of CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to said so called greenhouse gasses... There is no observed, measured evidence whatsoever that suggests that CO2 is in any way a real player in the global climate...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Handy Chart

Warmer = Global Warming
Cooler = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

 

[SSDD]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? If you can't...and you can't....you should wonder why...and what exactly brought about the "consensus"...which by the way is just one more bogus claim made by alarmists... When serious polls are done and pointed questions are asked about the climate, and man's contribution, and where the climate is likely progressing to, only 53% of climatologists, and meteorologists are on the consensus bandwagon, of course, these guys very livelihood is dependent on not rocking the boat to hard,..about 36% of engineers and geoscientists, who are more than qualified to assess climate science agree with the consensus.

The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules...and the idea of a consensus on a scientific topic, especially in a new field of science such as the study of climate ignores the very nature of science....

 

[SSDD]

AGW is a ruse. As a practicing Meteorologist and Atmospheric Physicist I can say that with 100% certainty.

No man of science would ever say they know that with 100% certainty.

And yet, climate science, politicians, and their media pals will tell you that the science is 100% settled...that there is no doubt that we are causing the climate to change...the latest buzzword is 5 sigma certainty...

 

[SSDD]

You got it all wrong.. There were and still are only a HANDFUL of scientists in the field feeding the media, public, politicians distorted versions of "what the science says"... Like when James Hansen was asked "how bad is gonna get" and he goes off to a reporter about the evolution of the "climate" on Venus and says "THEN the oceans boil away"... Well 6 months later, CBS evening news ran a scare story on GW including a graphic of an ocean with the caption 212 Degrees Farenheit on it and the voice over says "and SCIENTISTS SAY --- this is how bad it's going to get"...

I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth. That's the disagreement I'm having, right? The vast majority of climate scientists believe that man plays a role. The skeptics seem to think the scientists are wrong. I'm not saying Florida will be underwater in 5 years. People that eat up all of the global warming hysteria they see on T.V and the internet are foolish.

"I'm only talking about the belief that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth."

Most scientists will say that this statement is PROBABLY true. But they will also state that there is no scientific proof that such is the case, OR that if it is true there is no scientific evidence that indicates how much that contribution is. That is because to date no one knows the extent of global warming that is NOT caused by anthropogenic events, i.e., man-made.

See, here's the problem: After two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970, environmentalists projected a cooling trend. Are you old enough to remember when the big scare in the 1970s was global cooling with the accompanying mass starvation? Like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

But then, guess what? The climate changed again. After a few decades of warmer temperatures, from the 1970s to the late 1990s, they all jumped onto the bandwagon of projecting a continued warming trend—and the darned climate changed again, staying roughly flat since about 1998. Think about it -- how much carbon is being spewed into the air by all those coal-fired plants in India and Asia, so why has global temps been fairly flat for the past 20 years? How is anyone supposed to believe that global warming is primarily caused by mankind? Some? Maybe. How much? No one knows. Enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on high speed rail? I think not.

I think they've learned a lot from their mistakes. That's one of the great things about science. It embraces mistakes and learns from them. Could some of their current predictions end up being off due to the limitations of our understanding? Yeah, but I still think we should be listening closely to the opinions of the climate scientists, not to be confused with partisan fools selling hysteria to MSNBC. Nobody in the world is better equipped to have an opinion on the matter.

If they have learned anything from their mistakes, why do they keep doubling down on their failures? In real science, one predictive failure is usually enough to invalidate a hypothesis and initiate work on a new, or modified hypothesis which has better predictive powers...in pseudoscience, a hypothesis can fail as often as it fails and requires no modification at all so long as the funding continues....the past 30 years are littered with predictive failures of the AGW hypothesis...

 

[Confounding]

why do they keep doubling down on their failures?

I don't think they failed so much as their models and predictions aren't perfect yet. If there was a bunch of evidence in their face screaming "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" they'd be examining and considering it. That's simply not reality though.

 

[Confounding]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? If you can't...and you can't....you should wonder why...and what exactly brought about the "consensus"...which by the way is just one more bogus claim made by alarmists... When serious polls are done and pointed questions are asked about the climate, and man's contribution, and where the climate is likely progressing to, only 53% of climatologists, and meteorologists are on the consensus bandwagon, of course, these guys very livelihood is dependent on not rocking the boat to hard,..about 36% of engineers and geoscientists, who are more than qualified to assess climate science agree with the consensus.

The fact is that in real science, skepticism rules...and the idea of a consensus on a scientific topic, especially in a new field of science such as the study of climate ignores the very nature of science....

If you were honest in your quest to understand you'd be seeking out scientists rather than spewing the same talking point over and over again to somebody that is telling you they're not going to engage due to not being a scientist. I will not entertain the idea that there is a global conspiracy in science.