Tarski wrote:quote="Droopy"
1. This is a scientifically meaningless statement.It is a meaningful statement and you know it since it is exactly what you deny.
You have just claimed that I deny that the climate changes, which virtually no one denies at all, or that it has been changing for several billion years. Your position, and the position of the broad Left, and the environmental movement, is not that climate changes, but that anthropogenic CO2 is altering the climate to a significant or drastic degree and that significant and drastic political action is needed to ameliorate said climate change. Stop the tactical semantics, Tarski, we're all used to them by now and they do not fool anyone.
And of course, the significance part can be quantitatively fleshed out as well and has been as you well know.
And where has this been done?
Flatly false. The evidence is based on measurements and the predictions are based on application of the mathematics appropriate to the physical theory exactly as stated by the climate science community.
Translation: the entire edifice of CAGW has been built on computer modeling, the comparison of computer model output with other computer model output, data fudging, curve fitting, cleverly constructed algorithms that produce hockey stick shapes regardless of what data is fed into them, and more computer modeling based on assumptions about measurements about an inconceivably complex climate system which is in may ways poorly understood and which the best computer models in existence cannot hope to even begin to approach in a realistic way. none of the GCMs have ever been validated, all of which are known to be perfectly useless for the predictive uses to which they have been put, and, more importantly, they have been completely and unambiguously wrong in every major prediction they have ever made. We know this, at the present, as a matter of comparison between model predictions vis-a-vis the IPCC and actual empirical measurements in nature, and nothing the models have predicted has withheld empirical scientific scrutiny, up to this point.
In particular, and your conspiracy theory notwithstanding, the IPCC's annual reports are a summary of several thousand scientists' combined work, detailed research, meticulously argued, evidence-based, published peer-reviewed articles.
Pure bosh. You don't even know what your talking about here, clearly do not care, and even more clearly have no intention of knowing what you're talking about (as that would throw sand in your ideological gears,and those of the interested political movements and powers that be that have been pouring gasoline on the flames of this quasi-religious mass hysteria for the last 20 years)
If I were to state it to a two year old it would do no good. So, as I have suggested elsewhere, your ability to understand the evidence should be established first.
What is the empirical, observational, replicable evidence for DAGW? This shouldn't be that difficult, given your claims of its mountainous presence.
To even list the articles that contain the evidence would make this post several pages long.
Let's just cut the nonsense short here, Tarski, and cut back to the chase: the entire edifice of this neo-Lysenkoist fraud is a series of very sophisticated and expensive computer games loaded with empirically unverified assumptions, guesses, and biases supported by overtly sloppy and, in the case of Mann, clearly tendentious scientific work who's intention was in no uncertain terms to deceive.
There is not now and never has been any significant empirical field science done in support of DAGW, nor is any being done now of any substance. Why? Because empirical field science does not support the "consensus" meme and cannot be harmonized with anything that has come out of empirical climatology and other earth sciences over nearly two decades.
The game is up, Tarski, and vast numbers of Westerners, including those in industrialized Western Europe facing sweltering summers and record freezing winters under a regime of rolling blackouts and unpayable electric bills created and maintained by their political classes as hundreds of billions of dollars and euros are flung to the winds in search of solutions to a problem that never did and cannot exist, have been and are waking up to the sound of their teeth chattering under the sheets at night and realizing that they've been had, and that the consequences are, eventually, going to hit them and hit them hard.
Western living standards are not to be taken lightly. Returning to conditions prior to them, or at levels below consistent and affordable delivery of energy to households and industry, are very soon (and already are in Europe) going to require payment in misery and suffering the gall of which which will be even more acute because of the understanding that the creation of these conditions of energy scarcity has been completely artificial, centered in the decadent, effete political and intellectual classes of the West, and centered around a problem that never existed at all.
What we in the West are heading for is nothing, of course, compared with the dead stop any real economic development in the Third World is and will undergo.
"Grinding upon the face of the poor?" Oh yes, look to the Western leftist intelligentsia, its political/academic class, and its legions of bored, shallow, affluent, materialistic drones, drenched in gadgets, electronic media, pop cultural trivia, the cult of incessant entertainment, self-absorption, and secularist psuedo-moralism for the fulfillment of this Book of Mormon description of conditions among the Gentiles in the Last Days.
Data by itself is useless and there are no bare facts. The data must be interpreted in light of the our previously developed theoretical base and in light of our developed ability to identify possible confounding factors. The data must undergo strict and often subtle statistical analysis
Yes, and that's where the games begin, and that's where CAGW began its doleful existence. The fact remains that the models are completely wrong on every major predication ever generated by and from them, and empirical observation has falsified virtually each of their core assertions about CO2's effects on global climate. Further, no empirical evidence yet exists that C02, whether natural or anthropogenic (and there is no difference between the two) drives climate change or could possible produce the kind of warming predicted by the models, which, as it turns out, has not occurred at all. Nor can the models hindcast anything of much value unless they are simply programmed to predict what is already known to be the case.
They missed the post 2002 cooling trend completely, and, as the earth hasn't warmed in any statistically significant way since 1995, and as a strong cooling trend set in in 2002, after warming ceased after the big El Nino year of 1998, at the present time, there is no "global warming" at all.
The Roman Warm Period and the MWP were warmer than anything achieved during the modest warming (a little over half a degree centigrade) that occurred during the 20th century, which was in no sense unprecedented and was well within known historical parameters.
Hold on, Tarski, hold on for dear life as your great white hope fades and the sickle and hammer have to be deployed once again as the tree frogs, whales, dolphins, and palm fronds no longer work their emotional and psychological magic. Even if you have no love yourself for the sickle and hammer, be advised that many of those at the forefront of this movement most assuredly do, and being in bed with them, especially without a thread of clothing, is not to be envied.