What are you talking about? How many instances do you need in which the books were cooked for the purpose of perpetuating man made global warming? Being a skeptic is by far the wiser course than blindly believing in made up numbers to push a political agenda...
I repeat that i am not asking you that question that you address regarding climate But a much more simple question Without regard to climate Has mankind demonstrated an ability to change the environment on a global scale?
The examples are cranked out en masse by the denialist rumor mill. Doesn't mean there's any substance to them. The example I was citing was one of the most recent ones, from the blogger Steven Goddard. Basically, any attempt to account for differences in raw data is held up as proof of tampering, even if it's something completely logical like time of day.
Every change (adjustment) to the data the US uses to present to politicians always cools the past and warms the present. Every single one. With the hiatus going on 18+ years and over 60 explanations for it, they change the data again, this time not using ARGO data which was designed for science and favoring problematic ship engine intake temperatures and bucket temperatures. Since there is no measurement in the Arctic, they extend the land data to the Arctic. So instead of having to explain the hiatus, they suddenly and conveniently make it disappear with another 'adjustment' just before the Paris meeting. Whistle blowers have complained to Congress. That isn't denialist rumor as you like to put it, that is just the fact.
Except when they are. For instance, the recent Marvel et. al. used simulated forcings called iRF where they primarily represent increased albedo but areas cleared for cultivation and grazing are typically brighter than the forest or other natural vegetation they replace. Also, new growth uptakes CO2 quicker than old growth does. The point is that nobody really has a handle on this or you would have one model and 100% agreement. Instead you have over 100 models and no agreement.
And in this case they aren't. Neither the UN nor the IPCC ignores reforestation. I'm all for reforestation, as I've stated repeatedly. The point is, aside from a remote fringe, the scientific consensus, backed up by evidence, is that the earth is warming and that our emissions are the primary cause of the current warming trend. The fringe uses workarounds by cherry-picking, quote mining and otherwise chanting the familiar denialist mantra: Just put on these blinders and you'll see more clearly. There are over 100 models of climate change and there is literally no agreement between them? Evidence, please.
Well, it is evident you are talking out of your butt since you have no clue about the models. So what is it, political affiliation that makes you a blind follower?
And it is evident that you have no intent of providing sources, and you have repeatedly refused to do so when asked. And no, as I've stated before repeatedly, I'm a pro-market libertarian. AGW is extremely inconvenient for my political beliefs. I just refuse to rewrite reality to support my political leanings.
"Everyone knows I'm right" isn't discussion and debate. It is an attempt to shut down discussion and debate through fiat rather than facts. If you would ever like to discuss or debate these topics, I'm here. If not, then there is really no use in continuing as if there were a real conversation going on.
Do some due diligence instead of showing your ignorance on the subject. If you knew anything about the models then you would know that no two are alike and they average them to give you a curve.
You'd have to be more specific about your claim, about which models you are making the claim about and what information they disagree about and to what extent. If you are talking about climate models of the past, then the models are in broad agreement. You can layer them on top of each other and easily see the pattern.
Your position, as I understand it, is until everything is shown to be absolutely, 100% proof-positive (not even 99% will be satisfactory) that humanity is a major contributor to our spurt in warming, then it cannot be taken seriously. Sorry, but if you understand science, then you know there is never 100% guaranteed proof. If it were, then it wouldn't be science.
I said we need an all inclusive model that can factor in everything that effects climate then make a decision. It would appear your side just wants to stumble on in ignorance and assumptions, if that's what you call science the problem isn't mine...
The general outline of the model is there and has been for years. We're just filling in details now, but if you expect a forecast today (or any date in the future) for what will happen twenty years from now, it can't happen because there are simply too many variables.
So that is why politicians are moving on making changes because of what the models say will happen in 2100 eh?
Or, you could wait until then to take action. It's the old "ounce of prevention" thing - cheap to do now, with few problems for everyone, but terribly expensive if you wait. Your choice.
LOL, taxes are not cheap. Redistribution of money to developing nations is not cheap. Expensive energy is not cheap. What you propose is that since they cannot predict the future, forge on anyway based on fear mongering and a history of false claims. Gotta love the new religion.
Again, if you want to save pennies now and pay hundreds later, all you need do is close your eyes and pretend it isn't happening, something that deniers are really good at. Or start now with more research and smaller projects that can be done by those developing countries with only modest assistance. Your choice.
It seems pretty idiotic to jump to conclusions when we don't understand all the variables, that is what the skeptics have been saying for years. Regardless of results the decimation of Western economies is not the answer, but yet that is the only solution the AGW crowd seems to accept...
What "skeptics" are you talking about? The skeptic movement pushes for us to look to evidence and science. There is NO question of what science and evidence say about the likelihood that we face a serious problem in climate change. Beyond that, please document your claims of projected economic doom.
Nope, the science does not say we face a serious problem, the politicians and alarmists do. It is an opinion.
POLL: 91% Of Americans Aren't Worried About 'Global Warming'... http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/