Conservatism, evolution, global warming, and the truth.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@vivalostwages

Yeah, I keep hearing that from a pal in upstate NY. But it’s not like that around here.
(You know, of course, that “warming” does not mean “it’s getting warmer all over the place.”)

Of course not; “warming” means “it was fairly warm all over the place in '98, but deniers started noting it got cooler the year after that – which didn’t count, since a drop from one year to the next involves mere short-term weather instead of long-term climate change. But the deniers kept saying it when that continued for a second year, which of course still didn’t yet count. And they kept saying it during the third straight year, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and the tenth, and the eleventh – always getting derided for pointing not just at record-breaking cold temperatures in this or that local area, but also at the global cooling.”

[sqweels]

@Rune

I think it used to be that way. But a lot of things have suddenly changed. It also used to be sound liberal thought that art should be provocative. But after Salman Rushdie, Gert Wilders and the Muhammed Cartoons etc. I hear many liberal commentators say how provocative art is very bad and self-censureship is a virtue that should be practised more actively. It also used to be said that liberals were progressive.

I had to go and drop the L-bomb, didn’t I? :rolleyes:

Conservatism is not defined in terms of how liberalism is defined. Liberalism is scatterbrained, while conservatism is the ongoing defence of a set of familiar mores that have been handed down by history. You wouldn’t expect it to change and if it did in some case, the question would be, is it liberalizing?

[sqweels]

@BrotherCadfael

The so-called “ClimateGate” (I hate that term) revelations do not in any way disprove AGW, but they do cast doubt upon the validity of the “scientific consensus”.

This raises the question as to whether conservatism takes a too-narrow view of the scientific community, seeing it as though it were an individual politician whose reputation can be destroyed with one good scandal.

If a proper review (conducted by impartial, qualified, scientists, rather than advocates for either side) shows that the data is in fact valid, then we can move forward. If it shows that the data is at best equivocal, that we can relax.

I was under the impression that impartial scientists were continuously reviewing the evidence in establishments all over the world. It would be helpful if the results from all of them could be summarized and put before the public in a way that is highly visible in the media and concise enough for people to understand. But by putting all the eggs in one basket like that, they risk conservatives nitpicking some flaw and capsizing the credibility of climate change science on a global scale.

I do tend to believe that there is some warming going on, am not (yet) convinced that there is a significant anthropogenic component, but that the panicmongers (such as Gore and Lovelock) are grossly distorting the science to advance agendas that have little to nothing to do with the subject.

Panicmongers? To panic is to respond to a crisis with a paralyzing shock or hysteria rather than address the situatoin calmly and methodically. Al Gore strikes me as the very embodiment of the calm, methodical approach.

But you have a point in that conservatism often portrays those who challenge the status quo as harboring a more sinister and far-reaching agenda.

[sqweels]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course not; “warming” means “it was fairly warm all over the place in '98, but deniers started noting it got cooler the year after that – which didn’t count, since a drop from one year to the next involves mere short-term weather instead of long-term climate change. But the deniers kept saying it when that continued for a second year, which of course still didn’t yet count. And they kept saying it during the third straight year, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and the tenth, and the eleventh – always getting derided for pointing not just at record-breaking cold temperatures in this or that local area, but also at the global cooling.”

So all those conservatives who believe that global warming is happening but due to a natural cycle are wrong and should be lambasted relentlessly on FOX News?

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course not; “warming” means “it was fairly warm all over the place in '98, but deniers started noting it got cooler the year after that – which didn’t count, since a drop from one year to the next involves mere short-term weather instead of long-term climate change. But the deniers kept saying it when that continued for a second year, which of course still didn’t yet count. And they kept saying it during the third straight year, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and the tenth, and the eleventh – always getting derided for pointing not just at record-breaking cold temperatures in this or that local area, but also at the global cooling.”

First, 2005 was almost as warm as 1998. all the other last 13 years remain among the hottest in record. That is the bit the deniers always ignore when misleading people.

Also the “apparent” cooling was expected and explained several times before:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/of-moles-and-whacking-mojib-latif-predicted-two-decades-of-cooling/

On interannual (more than a single year) and decadal (tens of years) scales, natural variability swamps the long term anthropogenic warming trend. That is to say that variations in naturally occurring aspects of the climate system have more of an impact on the ultimate value of, say, global average temperature over a span of 10 or so years than man-made global warming does. For example, changes in ENSO are one of the largest sources of natural variability and thus influence on global average temperatures in the climate system on interannual scales. In 1998, a very strong El Niño boosted the global average temperature much higher than the overall trend, while in 2008, a persistent La Niña in cahoots with a solar minimum ensured that temperature was in the top 10 (#9 for NASA, #10 for Met Hadley) hottest years on record, but not a record breaker.

While this might be surprising for some readers, let’s be clear: This is not “new” information. This does not represent a “shake up” of the climate science community’s understanding of the system, or a blow to “settled science”. This is acknowledged in the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report (AR4 WG1 8.3 and 9.4) as well as in the relevant primary literature. For example, the AR4 Synthesis Report states:

On scales [smaller than 50 years], natural climate variability is relatively larger [than human influences], making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external [e.g.man-made] forcings.

Latif begins the section of his presentation misrepresented by Pearce by confirming that the media incorrectly believes that global warming is monotonic- something that we know the warming is decidedly not; something not claimed by “climate science” or “climate scientists”. Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend. Although the press might expect for us to set a new temperature record every year, the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record.

[GIGObuster]

@BrotherCadfael

Given the recent revelations, I believe that virtually all of the data has to be gone over again with a fine-toothed comb.

The so-called “ClimateGate” (I hate that term) revelations do not in any way disprove AGW, but they do cast doubt upon the validity of the “scientific consensus”.

The doubts are based on misleading out of context quotes from the cherry picked stolen emails.

On top of that, one of the main “revelations” deals with temperature reconstructions like the ones from tree rings, the “mac experts” are confused or lied saying that the decline of the global temperature was hidden. The problem is that the reconstructed temperature is not the basis nor the main reason why scientists tell us that the earth is warming up.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

[vivalostwages]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course not; “warming” means “it was fairly warm all over the place in '98, but deniers started noting it got cooler the year after that – which didn’t count, since a drop from one year to the next involves mere short-term weather instead of long-term climate change. But the deniers kept saying it when that continued for a second year, which of course still didn’t yet count. And they kept saying it during the third straight year, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and the tenth, and the eleventh – always getting derided for pointing not just at record-breaking cold temperatures in this or that local area, but also at the global cooling.”

I was just thinking of a friend of mine in upstate NY who dismisses the concept of GW because it gets freezing cold where he is every winter.

[gonzomax]

The vast majority of scientists believe in global warming. They are countered by studies paid for by energy companies and conservatives that are in dispute. Which is more reliable? What is the payoff for a scientist to warn the world that we are causing damage, if we are not? How does a university scientist who releases a study that indicates there is global warming profit from saying it?
Courts prove you can get a doctor or a scientist to testify on anything, if you pay him enough. The scientists are bought and paid for. There may be a couple of honest scientists who believe it is not happening. But the vast majority has made it clear they believe we are headed for trouble.

[XT]

By and large I’m a ‘believer’ in AGW…certainly in the appearance that global climactic change is happening. I think that most people (on either side of the debate) who aren’t technically involved are in the position of belief, one way or the other, as I think that the subject is too technical for the majority of laymen. We don’t understand the math, we don’t understand the models and how they are used, so we are in the position of basically having to judge the subject based on what the experts seem to be saying.

That said:

@gonzomax

The vast majority of scientists believe in global warming.

Science is not a popularity contest. And there have been times when ‘the vast majority of scientists’ have been wrong. Also, your use of ‘believe’ here is significant, since not all the scientists who ‘believe’ in GW are climatologists, and in some cases have only marginally more understanding of the deeper dynamics than our own board specialists here.

They are countered by studies paid for by energy companies and conservatives that are in dispute.

That is true in SOME cases, but it’s not true in ALL of the cases, and there are respected scientists out there that question parts of the theory. Trying to paint with a broad brush like this really doesn’t help any. But then it’s you, so I doubt anyone was paying attention.

What is the payoff for a scientist to warn the world that we are causing damage, if we are not? How does a university scientist who releases a study that indicates there is global warming profit from saying it?

Off the top of my head, I’d say: Tenure. Funding and research grant money. Prestige.

You are fooling yourself if you think that everyone on the AGW/GW side is in it purely for the science, and is selflessly toiling away in the face of all those evil folks on the other side who are motivated solely by money and greed.

-XT

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@sqweels

So all those conservatives who believe that global warming is happening but due to a natural cycle are wrong and should be lambasted relentlessly on FOX News?

Of course not. Look, some conservatives believe in God; some don’t; I don’t figure that either group should be lambasted on FOX News for said belief or lack thereof. I didn’t see God in 1999, or 2000, or '01 or '02 or '03 or '04 or '05 or '06 or '07 or '08 or '09, but I don’t berate anyone for believing in God all the same.

Likewise, some conservatives believe in global warming; some don’t; so what? They can believe as they wish, and in my view neither position deserves a lambasting from FOX News; I saw cooling off from '98 in '99, and kept saying so in 2000, and kept saying so in '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09, but I don’t berate anyone for believing in global warming all the same.

So long as they acknowledge there hasn’t been warming since '98, we’re all on the same page. I mean, take GIGOBuster’s response to my post:

Of course not; “warming” means “it was fairly warm all over the place in '98, but deniers started noting it got cooler the year after that – which didn’t count, since a drop from one year to the next involves mere short-term weather instead of long-term climate change. But the deniers kept saying it when that continued for a second year, which of course still didn’t yet count. And they kept saying it during the third straight year, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth, and the tenth, and the eleventh – always getting derided for pointing not just at record-breaking cold temperatures in this or that local area, but also at the global cooling.”

First, 2005 was almost as warm as 1998.

See? His response to talk about '99 and '00 and '01 and '02 and '03 and '04 and '05 and '06 and '07 and '08 and '09 is to say that '05 was almost as warm as '98. So long as he makes that acknowledgment at the outset, any other descriptions he then tacks on interest me as mere trivia.

As for what he does go on to tack on – well, like a conservative who happens to be a warmist, he doesn’t seem to deserve any scorn from FOX News. I mean, just relish the following:

On scales [smaller than 50 years], natural climate variability is relatively larger [than human influences], making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external [e.g.man-made] forcings.

Although the press might expect for us to set a new temperature record every year, the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record.

Let’s see . . . start in '98, carry the one . . . it’s 2010 now, and warmists are saying that, in theory, the cooling-off from '98 could be replaced by something different come 2015. That’s a bold little prediction, and come 2015 we’ll see whether it pans out. I have no objection to watching any such prediction get falsified in the fullness of time – just so long as, in the here and now, we all agree that people were saying that things had cooled off since '98 in '99, and kept saying it in '00, and kept saying it in '01, and kept up a decade-plus drumbeat that was only almost interrupted by a year that “was almost as warm as 1998”.

No lambasting is deserved for descriptions granting that.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Let’s see . . . start in '98, carry the one . . . it’s 2010 now, and warmists are saying that, in theory, the cooling-off from '98 could be replaced by something different come 2015. That’s a bold little prediction, and come 2015 we’ll see whether it pans out. I have no objection to watching any such prediction get falsified in the fullness of time – just so long as, in the here and now, we all agree that people were saying that things had cooled off since '98 in '99, and kept saying it in '00, and kept saying it in '01, and kept up a decade-plus drumbeat that was only almost interrupted by a year that “was almost as warm as 1998”.

No lambasting is deserved for descriptions granting that.

Nope, that is still stubbornly claiming that scientists said that we should expect continuous warming, that is not the case; this is ignoring that scientists concentrate on decades to avoid being mislead by yearly variations.

Deniers tell people that scientists are silly for ignoring the year by year changes, but that would be the same as demanding that they ignore all other forcings that last more than a year like the El nino and La nina cycles.

greenman3610

[GIGObuster]

@xtisme

Science is not a popularity contest. And there have been times when ‘the vast majority of scientists’ have been wrong. Also, your use of ‘believe’ here is significant, since not all the scientists who ‘believe’ in GW are climatologists, and in some cases have only marginally more understanding of the deeper dynamics than our own board specialists here.

Yes, but not all consensus are the same, as you should know, there is educated consensus and then there is ignorant consensus. A perfect and related example is the rank and file belief of many conservatives in America that evolution is a crock.

@xtisme

That is true in SOME cases, but it’s not true in ALL of the cases, and there are respected scientists out there that question parts of the theory. Trying to paint with a broad brush like this really doesn’t help any. But then it’s you, so I doubt anyone was paying attention.

I have to say here that after investigating this issue there are indeed respected scientists that question parts of the theory, but I have seen their work rebutted with good replies and research.

@xtisme

Off the top of my head, I’d say: Tenure. Funding and research grant money. Prestige.

You are fooling yourself if you think that everyone on the AGW/GW side is in it purely for the science, and is selflessly toiling away in the face of all those evil folks on the other side who are motivated solely by money and greed.

-XT

Unfortunately this goes against the history of how we reached the current consensus, back in the 1940’s guys like Calendar that proposed that global warming gases would be a problem were rebutted by most scientists; after the 50’s evidence then began to change the opinion of most researchers. Can you say that the scientists of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s sacrificed their prestige by changing their tune? Were they in the 50’s affected by tenure? Why would then change their tune then when it was clear that the funding from industry would be affected?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Nope, that is still stubbornly claiming that scientists said that we should expect continuous warming,

I made no such claim. What an extraordinary claim you’re now making.

that is not the case; this is ignoring that scientists concentrate on decades to avoid being mislead by yearly variations.

Oh, I agree. That’s precisely why I’m concentrating on what happened over a full decade, and what happened before that, in discussing what’s going to happen in the next decade. I mean, sure, I kept track year after year after year for this past decade and then some, but I could hardly do otherwise.

Deniers tell people that scientists are silly for ignoring the year by year changes,

I’m not sure it rises to the level of silliness, but, yeah, none of it should be ignored; it should be noted, and addressed. You did so perfectly: I said it cooled off from '98 in '99, and I kept saying it in '00, and I kept saying it in '01, and I kept saying it in '02, and I kept saying it in '03, and I kept saying it in '04, and I kept saying it in '05, and I kept saying it in '06, and I kept saying it in '07, and I kept saying it in '08, and I kept saying it in '09, and you didn’t ignore any of that; you don’t ignore any year, but instead preface your remarks with the following:

“First, 2005 was almost as warm as 1998.”

That’s outstanding. Far from ignoring individual years, you can aptly rattle off their stats with regard to how it almost warmed back up that one time but of course didn’t actually do so. I respect the heck out of that approach in general and the quote in particular.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I made no such claim. What an extraordinary claim you’re now making.

Oh, I agree. That’s precisely why I’m concentrating on what happened over a full decade, and what happened before that, in discussing what’s going to happen in the next decade. I mean, sure, I kept track year after year after year for this past decade and then some, but I could hardly do otherwise.

I’m not sure it rises to the level of silliness, but, yeah, none of it should be ignored; it should be noted, and addressed. You did so perfectly: I said it cooled off from '98 in '99, and I kept saying it in '00, and I kept saying it in '01, and I kept saying it in '02, and I kept saying it in '03, and I kept saying it in '04, and I kept saying it in '05, and I kept saying it in '06, and I kept saying it in '07, and I kept saying it in '08, and I kept saying it in '09, and you didn’t ignore any of that; you don’t ignore any year, but instead preface your remarks with the following:

“First, 2005 was almost as warm as 1998.”

That’s outstanding. Far from ignoring individual years, you can aptly rattle off their stats with regard to how it almost warmed back up that one time but of course didn’t actually do so. I respect the heck out of that approach in general and the quote in particular.

Meh, seems that you are once again in the nitpicking mode of debating, it clearly shows to me that you will not deal with the science. It is clear that you will not deal with the citations. Deal with the science. The temperature is rising when the last decades are taken into account:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124

Time and time again, denialists try to suggest that the last 10 years, or 9 years, or 8 years, or 7 years, or 6 years, or three and a half days of temperature data establish that the earth is cooling, in contradiction to mainstream climate science. Time and time again, they’re refuted — shown to be either utterly foolish or downright dishonest or both. Logic seems to have no effect on them.

The simple fact is that short time spans don’t give enough data to establish what the trend is, they just exhibit the behavior of the noise. Of course that raises an interesting question: how long a time span do we need to establish a trend in global temperature data? It’s sometimes stated that the required time is 30 years, because that’s the time span used most often to distinguish climate from weather. Although that’s a useful guide, it’s not strictly correct. The time required to establish a trend in data depends on many things, including how big the trend is (the size of the signal) and how big, and what type, the noise is. Let’s look at GISS data for global temperature and test how much data we need to establish the most recent trend.

That does not mean that there’s been no warming trend in those 15 years — or in the last 10, or 9, or 8, or 7, or 6 years, or three and a half days. It only means that the trend cannot be established with statistical signficance. Of course, it’s another common denialist theme that “there’s been no warming.” This too is a fool’s argument; any such claims are only statements about the noise, not about the trend. It’s the trend that matters, and is cause for great concern, and there’s no evidence at all that the trend has reversed, or even slowed.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

[Ale]

@GIGObuster

Meh, seems that you are once again in the nitpicking mode of debating, it clearly shows to me that you will not deal with the science. It is clear that you will not deal with the citations. Deal with the science. The temperature is rising when the last decades are taken into account:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/#more-2124

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

I think of that sort of denial as someone on the beach measuring the rising tide by looking how far up the shore the waves lap. Some go up further up and some less, by starting from an exceptionally big wave the denier would say that the tide is not rising since no wave since then has reached further inland.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Meh, seems that you are once again in the nitpicking mode of debating

And it seems to me that you were flatly wrong. Whether that counts as nitpicking is debatable; that you were incorrect apparently isn’t up for debate.

It is clear that you will not deal with the citations. Deal with the science. The temperature is rising when the last decades are taken into account

To deal with the science, I need falsifiable predictions. Sure, one cooling-off year after '98 doesn’t falsify the claim; it’s maybe the start of a cooling trend, but it’s maybe just like unto the tide going back out. And one cooling-off decade after '98 doesn’t falsify the claim either; it’s harder to analogize that to a mere tide, but it can still be done. But we’re now in a second cooling-off decade – and if that trend continues, you soon won’t be able to refer to “the last decades” to insist the tide is going to surpass the last high-water mark any year now, really, honest, no fooling, and, hey, remember that one year when it sure looked like the tide came back in but it of course fell short? Good times. Good times.

If the alleged tide hypothetically comes back in, we’ll talk. If temperatures keep falling short for another decade, I can but hope that science will win out in the end by way of falsifiable predictions: sometimes it’s an ebb tide, and sometimes it just ain’t coming back, and only time will tell.

[Zephyurs]

The global warming debate annoys me to no end. In one sense I’m the perfect mark for a “conservative” argument against taking action on Climate Change; it’s expensive, and that money could be used directly to help people more effectively. It’s a plausible argument that science won’t say anything for or against (except to estimate the physical changes in the world that would occur given a 5 degree increase in global mean temperature), and the only real question is trying to establish the trade offs between certain regulations and not having them.

Instead, I’m treated to endless tripe about how it’s a cold outside today and a single Newsweek article from the 1970’s and how Nature is part of a giant socialist scientist conspiracy and stupid quips from people about how every year since 1998 has been colder. At this point, the actions of denialists have pretty much poisoned their own well too much for me to ever treat what they say seriously, even when they inevitably move on to the Bjorn Lomberg style arguments once they get pinned down on the science (if they even allow that to happen before they run away from the debate).

[Zephyurs]

The Other Waldo Pepper, you do realize that the last decade was on average the hottest on record, right? Temperatures haven’t been “falling short” this decade.

[XT]

@GIGObuster

Yes, but not all consensus are the same, as you should know, there is educated consensus and then there is ignorant consensus. A perfect and related example is the rank and file belief of many conservatives in America that evolution is a crock.

The point though is that science is not a popularity contest. I agree, there is a consensus on GW among most scientists.

I have to say here that after investigating this issue there are indeed respected scientists that question parts of the theory, but I have seen their work rebutted with good replies and research.

Sure…that’s how science works. But read the quote from gonzo that I was responding too.

Unfortunately this goes against the history of how we reached the current consensus, back in the 1940’s guys like Calendar that proposed that global warming gases would be a problem were rebutted by most scientists; after the 50’s evidence then began to change the opinion of most researchers. Can you say that the scientists of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s sacrificed their prestige by changing their tune? Were they in the 50’s affected by tenure? Why would then change their tune then when it was clear that the funding from industry would be affected?

I’m unsure how this relates to what you quoted from me or the response from The Gonz I was responding too. It doesn’t SEEM to have anything to do with what I was saying or what gonzo was stating.

-XT

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

To deal with the science, I need falsifiable predictions. Sure, one cooling-off year after '98 doesn’t falsify the claim; it’s maybe the start of a cooling trend, but it’s maybe just like unto the tide going back out. And one cooling-off decade after '98 doesn’t falsify the claim either; it’s harder to analogize that to a mere tide, but it can still be done. But we’re now in a second cooling-off decade – and if that trend continues, you soon won’t be able to refer to “the last decades” to insist the tide is going to surpass the last high-water mark any year now, really, honest, no fooling, and, hey, remember that one year when it sure looked like the tide came back in but it of course fell short? Good times. Good times.

:rolleyes:

Thank you for demonstrating to all that you did not check the citations on the explanation of the decadal variations.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

If the alleged tide hypothetically comes back in, we’ll talk. If temperatures keep falling short for another decade, I can but hope that science will win out in the end by way of falsifiable predictions: sometimes it’s an ebb tide, and sometimes it just ain’t coming back, and only time will tell.

As the video I last linked show, scientists are expecting more warming in the next decade. You are here also ignoring that the current theories on global warming were and are tested.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

And speaking of falsifiable predictions, one of the most likely theories that could had discredited the current global warming gas theories continues to fall short in its predictions.

RealClimate: Ozone holes and cosmic rays

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/its-2010-and-cosmic-rays-still-arent-driving-climate-change/