Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

I'd agree that the data we use is insufficient to make any conclusions, and that even the forty years of satellite data is questionable as the area and accuracy that is covered has been greatly expanded. There is no baseline for comparison from today and forty years ago, in order for data to be considered relevant and accurate you would need a baseline that covers a defined area with a defined metric of accuracy. That would probably leave us with around 20 years of relevant data...

 

Agreed. It's been said that we need at least 30 years of data to determine whether the climate is actually changing so the "reliable" data set is less than that.

 

That 30-year baseline is not enough because the dominant cycle in the relevant period is ~60y.

 

Yes. The IPCC claims 30 years. Of course the IPCC only considers human CO2 emissions and ignores all other cyclical phenomena.

 

No, they didn't. They did use search algorithms to find papers related to the topic, and then evaluated them. They also backed it up with surveys. And, if you don't like that, there are several otehr studies that came to essentially the same conclusion. On the other hand, you could just believe unsubstantiated stories from political hacks. Good way to evaluate existential threats.

 

They are multiple studies showing the scientific consensus. The lia recovery is a political story that no serious scientist takes seriously.

 

No, you gave me one story. A story that isn't reviewed by anyone who knows what they are talking about. It is not a science document, it is a political document aimed at people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Oh, no. I mean of course you would get a mechanic's opinion on your car. I see your point. In fact every time there is some kind of 'paper' signed by a bunch of 'scientists' denying man made climate change it's always a bunch of people not in the field, or even sometimes engineers or computer scientists or data scientists. In other words, dentists giving opinions on your cancer (usually paid by the gigantic corporation that is making their money from giving you cancer). The closer you get to oncologist, the more they say you have cancer.

Unsupportable? What legitimate scientific organizations deny man made global warming?

 

Do you really think that this is solid logic? I mean really really think about it.

 

Logic? I posted facts.

 

Does uranium control your health?

 

Wait, you described what happens at the IPCC. To a T.

Does it bother you that such an infinitesimal amount of the healthy trace gas CO2 is demonized?

 

Lol, I mean if by that you mean in not any way whatsoever. Sure.

Doesn't it bother you that you have no idea what you are talking about?

 

I want to spend more time contemplating that so get back to me.

Apparently you do not understand the role of alarmists. They first blame man. Thus when they blame man, it is presumed man controls climate and thus as the controller is screwing it up big time. But they deny man controls climate. They argue out of two faces.

 

I have not been rude to you. Perhaps what you wish is a fight and not a conversation.

 

That's my point. Uranium doesn't control your health. However, it can give you cancer. Affect and even destroy isn't the same as control.

 

What do you call this scientific organization? Is it the political body known as IPCC?

 

Was I ruder than you? I believe I'm correct, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

There is no point to blame man given he has no control as you surmise.

 

You mean these?
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

 

Look, you are rude.

 

But man has a very powerful effect.

 

Why are you extremely frightened? Alarmists have truly worked you over.

 

How?

 

I'm frightened because everyone who knows what they are talking about is frightened. The only one's who aren't are political hacks tightly controlled by the people who make money from the denial.