Come'on man - this quotes the AR4 (2007) which uses the completely discredited MBH hockey stick junk science. There are thousands of scientific papers which establish MWP and the LIA and which show that the MWP was ~ 1 deg C warmer than current temperatures. Please don't embarrass yourself again - do some homework.
You're going to try to hide behind "the government"?? Let's remember that there are LOTS of governments in this world. And, there is no restriction on those who aren't government. And, there is no restriction on those working on science through the graces of federal/state funding, either. So, I'm not sure you you can argue for an adequately sized world wide conspiracy. The science would be incredibly hard to coordinate, as in too many cases, the outcomes of studies can't be determined ahead of time in order to match some conspiracy.
We're never going to have a precise calculation of the impact of CO2. As with the sites I've posted, we'll have the best we have, plus reasonably significant error bars. And, that still can be good enough to indicate the need for public policy. I would point out that EVERY other fist world nation has taxed fuel aggressively, yet their economies are competing with ours. So, I don't agree with the damage aspect. I don't have a plan concerning what to do about our CO2 contribution. In general, I'd advocate progress in multiple ways if possible, to distribute any load. My main point is to demonstrate that we DO have an issue that needs to be addressed. When too few people accept that, we're not going to get to good policy. It will be far more likely to be purely political.
They are competing with the Obama economy of ~ 1% gdp growth per capita. They cannot compete with the supply side economy of ~ 3% gdp growth per capita. A problem that cannot be quantified cannot be solved. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1 deg C. Global warming of 3 deg C or less is net beneficial and using the A1B IPCC CO2 scenario means that we have over 200 years of beneficial warming (based on today's world economies). There are no economic policies which can possible make a dent in the rate of CO2 emissions globally. Why - because of the iron law of climate policy which states that any politicians that propose energy policy which would significantly reduce CO2 emissions to the point of significantly decreasing the global average temperature would be "immediately" voted out of office. The biggest contributor to the CO2 emissions total is China which is not doing a thing until ~ 2030 (if you believe that they will do anything then .....).
Logical fallacy. All of those cover known things that have happened. AGW is pushed with fear using the highest model output which will never happen. - - - Updated - - - That link tells you everything that they put into a model but it does not tell you what they don't know. Can you tell me the one thing they put in the models that they understand the least and cannot model very well. The biggest one since there are many.
You can, of course, provide evidence for that assertion, can't you. That is the same nonsense that has been and is being said about TOE. Also, you didn't answer... I'm guessing you don't believe TOE either.
Look at any scientist that wants to have a reasonable discussion on climate science, they are branded deniers.
That's what the Republican Mayor of Coral Gables believes. (my emphasis) http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/47701...is-republican-mayor-a-climate-change-believer
You haven't identified any fallacy. My cites of NASA and NOAA results show error bars that are indications of where more work could be done.. For example, the error bars on greenhouse gasses include a fairly large range in the magnitude of forcing. Nevertheless, even the lowest bound of greenhouse gas affect shows that source as being the primary source.
Association fallacy. Because government covers A and government covers B then B must be true because A is.
Then I'm guessing you don't know the Catholic Church does accept TOE. You admit you disbelieve both TOE and AGW. Not surprising. Are you sure you accept Heliocentricity? The Church argued against that for a long time too. Lay people, like yourself, argued against it for Centuries.
Yet the Viking sagas continually get confirmation by archeology. Like Greenland was, green. Green enough. What is your second guess? Where was Vinland? Gracias Did you ever watch [video=youtube;LObn2Sk7tVg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg&t=702s[/video] The first 20 minutes or so covers the Medieval Climate Optimum, the Medieval Warm Up before the Ice Age. And do please let me know your second guess on, Where was Vinland? Moi r > g
I don't see a way of applying that to what I've said on this thread. Maybe you should say something other than "a" and "b" and "government".
Oh, please. There are many thousands of climatologists. As we went over yesterday, there are numerous studies showing that the vast majority of climatologists see human contribution as the significant component. And, you also need to remember that Curry is interested in the US taking MORE action on climate, as the global average temperature is rising, and that is a serious issue.
The only reason for bringing up Vinland is to attempt to refute data on earth's temperature from that period. But, descriptions from one single area of earth can't do that, as there are political reasons for the descriptions (as shown by the naming of Iceland and Greenland) a well as an understanding of how heat was distributed across the earth at that time. I'm not going to watch the video, as it is too much time, plus would invariably require verification of claims. If you have a source from science I absolutely will read that.
Actually, there are not many thousands of climatologists. For instance, Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick is a physicist, not a climatologist. Judith Curry is an Atmospheric Scientist.
