I have seen the evidence myself---tons of it. In each case, the statistics and mathematical modelling that makes it clear is far beyond you so your opinion is one of the utter opposite of a qualified person.
Typical. So dismally typical. But, its all the Left has, I realize. Let my reiterate again, and this is nothing that any climate scientist does not know for himself: computer modeling is not empirical climate science. The GCM's cannot accurate model global, or regional climate, one week from today, let alone a century from hence, they are in no sense even marginally adequate to realistically model the complex dynamics of global climate variability, there are abyssal gaps in the models ability to deal with fundamental empirical variables (such as clouds), and, probably most importantly, the models can be tweaked by the modelers to produce whatever scenario is desired, from the much more modest appraisals of the last IPCC report, to the apocalyptic scenarios (11 degree and higher) found in the same reports.
You dance and dance and dance, yet again, around the fundamental crux of the matter: long term empirical temperature data, and empirical paleocliamatological data, falsify the models on, at this juncture, quite literally every point.
AGW is over. Climate change is natural, unstoppable, and caused by terrestrial and extraterrestrial dynamics far beyond our ability to control. Our own input to these systems is trivial and, at least at this juncture, unmeasurable against the vast background of natural CO2 emissions.
The majority is the majority and talking of an increasing minority doesn't change that. Even if it were increasing it could well decrease tomorrow (can you predict that?? LOL). As it stands it isn't even close.
More "if its popular, it must be true" argumentation. "Consensus" anyone? Majorities of scientists have been wrong many times before and they will be so again. Science's self correcting feature, while not perfect by any means, will, unless corrupted (as it has been in climatology, by vast sums of government grant money pouring into AGW research that comes with political strings already attached) eventually, as I think it is really beginning to do now across a plethora of related earth sciences, put an end to the nonsense and the corruption and politicization of the discipline of Climatology by government largess and the media hounding of ideologically interested scientists that has been allowed to occur
Let me once again remind you that you are not trained in, do not understand, cannot grasp, will not even try to understand science, it's practitioners or it's politics.
Ahh yes, the first refuge of a scientist practicing ideology: credentialism. Cover your shoddy arguments, logical whoppers, ideological interestedness, and your own lack of specialization in the relevant fields, with elitist posing.
I understand the descriptive science as well as any non-scientist, and as to AGW, I follow the critiques of competent, distinguished, and eminent authorities in the field, not talk show hosts. Perhaps you should try Tap for a while Tarski, Ballet isn't your forté.
You prove it with every statement you make. You can't even keep climate distinct from weather. Hint: One is long term and can be reasonable predicted. The other is hard to predict in the short term and is chaotic. They have different time scales etc. Saying that a climate scientist has no earthly idea what is coming over the next 300 years is like saying that a weatherman has no earthly idea what the weather will be tomorrow.
Keep up the pose Tarski. I'm quite aware of the difference between climate and weather. Its the AGW cultists who are not, and scientists and meteorologists who should know better. Indeed, the majority of environmentalists who pontificate on the issue do not seem to understand the difference between climate change, global warming, and the "greenhouse effect".
But, you make my point yet again. Global climate is an unimaginably complex chaotic system that the CGMs cannot come close to modeling accurately. They are many orders of magnitude away from any adequate understanding of global climate dynamics, and any insistence that future climate--one week from now or one hundred years from now--can be adequately predicted from such models is intellectually dishonest in extremis. We know they cannot, and the modelers know they cannot. The skeptics know it and the global warmers know it. The differences here is ideology and its thorough infusion into the issue.
Global climate varies along timescales that are decadel, centennial, millennial, and in cycles involving tens and hundreds of thousands of years. All are natural, and none are human caused. Our influence upon them, based on everything we know empirically (forget, again, the models and mathematical calculations for a moment, because we are not doing empirical climate science here but...computer modeling, and the empirical data we have does not conform to the models predictions) indicates that our influences is trivial at best, and will have no actual measurable effect on what the global climate system is going to do anyway in response to the factors that do matter (including solar and cosmic factors).
These guys are the world's brightest.
Fine, then lets see them deal with the real world data, and take their eyes of their CRTs for a while. The earth isn't warming. The Antarctic has been cooling slightly for some thirty years now, and its present ice mass is the largest ever recorded by aerial or satellite mapping. Its ice mass is in balance. The main phase of global warming ended in 1940, and the earth cooled from that point on (precisely at the that the CO2 output of the America and the industrialized west skyrocketed) until the early eighties, when a small warming trend set in again, which ended ten years ago, from which point on warming has been flat. None of the modest warming that has occurred this century is unusual. None of it is alarming. All of it is well within natural historical parameters (we are not even near the natural averages experienced during the MVP).
And, even if human warming was known to be occurring, a few points would still need to be made. The first is that the warming is modest, and will occur of a very long period of time, a century at least, which gives us plenty of time to adapt and prepare for any changes that may occur (there is no evidence whatsoever for catastrophic or abrupt climate change).
Everything we know, historically about climate, human thriving, the biosphere generally, and plant physiology indicates that a somewhat warmer world would be a healthier, more productive, and more verdant world, and is nothing to be feared.
Thirdly, even if AGW were true, democratic capitalism, free markets, economic liberty, and the unleashing of the productive, entrepreneurial, and creative capacities of free people are the answer, not conservation, not government imposed energy austerity, not command and control rationing of energy and resources, and not the turning over of our economic lives and of earths resources to bloated, power hungry, rent seeking bureaucracies and political classes.
Science fiction solutions, such as wind and solar, while attractive to the romantic notions of the intellectually immature and ideologically fevered, are utterly infeasible on a mass scale (solar is a great idea, and perhaps when the technology matures and becomes economically rational, perhaps several decades from now, it will be a good idea in and of itself, regardless of the status of AGW. But at present, solutions that would make it difficult for people other than Ted Turner to afford to pay his electric bill, are not solutions at all.)
Of course, nuclear is and always was, the answer to our energy problems, but we can't have that either because of the same bombastic, histrionic pseudo scientific fears of that that the environmental movement has succeeded in instilling in generations of Americans regarding everything from petroleum, to Styrofoam, to plastic, to french fries.