Climate Change denial vs History

Then I have no clue what your position is.

 

You haven't scratched the surface of the science.

By definition AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is human caused. But all global warming is not human caused. The IPCC studies only AGW. QED.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you choose to reside in the AGW only world of science that's your choice and out of my control to change it. If you have no curiosity and initiative so be it.

 

Has anyone claimed that ALL global warming is caused by man?

No?

Then why ask for a defense of what hasn't been claimed?

Oh...it's the dishonesty. I get it

 

No. Only the part that humans can control.

Absolutely false! Where did you demonstrate that? Show references....

I see. So you make a wild irrational claim, and you want me to find a justification that doesn't exist.

Kinda reminds you of when Trump says "Obama wiretapped me, and it's your fault if you can't find any evidence!".

One thing we can count on when discussing with those who deny Science is that they make the wildest claims imaginable. But never produce a reference to back up their claims. And when you ask them for one.... they just hide.

 

The guy just wants to find some way out of the corner he got himself into. You can't expect much from somebody who claims to have "complete knowledge" about Global Warming, but is clueless about what the IPCC reports contain.

I had some hope for him, but he turned out to be just a waste of time.

 

You claim to be very familiar with the IPCC. Then you should know that they only consider AGW.

If you are not interested in investigating the science in its entirety I can not control that. I'm not interested in changing your mind - only you can do that by doing the homework. If you are interested I can provide ~ 30 references (and there are more).

 

That claim is made routinely on this very forum. If you agree that humans are responsible for only some of the observed global warming then how much is that ?? 25% 50% ??

What does the IPCC say in the latest assessment report AR5 ??

 

Your reading comprehension abilities match your dishonesty. You were the one who said you had "complete knowledge". I explicitly said that I didn't.

I have good (not complete, like you claim, but ok) knowledge of how Science works (epistemology). Which is enough to form a rational opinion

 

Only interested in Science. If you can produce real science: Actual peer-reviewed research , then go for it!

You will need to explain what you are proving, and how your reference proves it. The reference is only to support what you say.

 

I've never said I have complete knowledge ?? No one has complete knowledge. The basis for your knowledge was the IPCC website. So what does the IPCC say about the human contribution to the totality of global warming ??

 

Global Warming References


Climate Change Reconsidered II - Physical Science


Climate Change Reconsidered II - Biological Impacts


Evidence Based Climate Science


The Age of Global Warming


Smart Solutions to Climate Change


Climate Economics


The Climate Casino


Climate Change the Facts


The Hockey Stick Illusion


Hiding the Decline


Climate - The Counter Consensus


Heaven and Earth


The Great Global Warming Blunder


The Climate Fix


Lukewarming


The Delinquent Teenager - IPCC


Miracle Molecule


The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels


The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science


Disgrace to the Profession


The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change


The Precautionary Principle


Cool It

 

If "that claim is made on this very forum" please show us quotes or admit your dishonesty

 

You can read. Look it up yourself.

 

Your defeat is accepted. An apology is in order

 

Your lack of initiative and curiosity is accepted. There is no excusing that.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that science is never settled?

 

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

 

And that is no reason for inaction

 

The latest is AR5. You refer to AR4.

And there it is - you are indicating that all (since you refuse to define what most means in terms of a percentage) global warming is human caused. QED

 

Actions are only justified by projected results. What are the actions and what are the projected results in terms on global temperature reduction in the year 2100, i.e. how much cooler would it be with the implementation of these actions than with no actions.

 

If you want exact predictions that is ridiculous. Can a doctor tell you exactly how many more years of life you will get by removing a tumor?

 

I'll settle for any predictions. What are they ??

 

Reducing green house gases will slow the rate of global warming

 

How much reduction and how much temperature difference ?? A1B says we will be at ~ 700 ppm CO2 by 2100. Assuming a 1.5 deg C climate sensitivity of CO2 the temperature will be 1.5 deg C higher in 2100 than in 2000. What actions will reduce that and what will be the resultant temperature reduction.

 

The actions are well documented and the resultant temperature will be lower