One has to notice that nowhere I assumed that you were a conservative, only that you ignored a lot of past research, some even done by skeptics. And then one should remember that there are more conservative scientists that are proponents of this issue than there are skeptical of it.
Of course, but then one should not reinvent the wheel, but then in this case we even have skeptics at Berkeley Earth that did so and confirmed what other scientists found before. Bottom line: this issue in reality should not had been politicized, but just like evolution some groups have made an effort to make it so.
The fact that it has been is very suspicious. Nobody, no matter what his political beliefs, doubts that the internal combustion engine works, or the science behind it. Nobody doubts that penicillin works or why. Nobody doubts that the Earth revolves about the Sun. The science is clear and unequivocal. ‘Climate change’ science is neither, and in fact is not even remotely close to being convincing.
In college I wrote a paper about Tycho Brahe and how he claimed that the comet he was watching was getting bigger and brighter, when in fact in was receding and growing dimmer.
I have no confidence whatsoever in pronouncements supporting the existence of ‘anthropogenic global climate change’ and do not regard them as scientific in any possible form.
And as shown, it does not matter what evidence is presented, no biggie as you are not going to make any impression with scientists, academics, and even people that deal with pseudoscience for a living.
And let the record show that even Scientific American is thrown under the bus by you with no regrets.
Oh, well then of course. What can be shown to be factual is the physics of different gases, but you are correct in that at present there is no “proof” that mankind has altered the climate of the world in any way.
That being said, I consider regional climate changes, influenced by human activities, to be not only possible, but that it is happening now.
Certainly we have fine evidence to support the view that changes to land and waterways, as well as pollutants we release into the atmosphere cause changes. This doesn’t mean we changed the climate of the planet, and most are short term. But the physics of CfCs and the amounts measured in the stratosphere certainly has changed the balance of the system there.
By damning up and using up the Colorado river, so that it no longer even reaches the ocean, man caused drastic climate changes to the former Colorado delta region.
It changed the riparian forests and wetlands to desert scrub and dry arid conditions, over an area of 7,810 km
No small change to a regions climate.
The same is true for other areas, like the Nile Delta and the Indus River, and of course the Amazon is the largest example of human beings actually changing the amount of rain that falls, as well as daily temperatures, amounts and frequency of fog and cloud cover, albedo and cascading effects actually have changed the climate of a region.
It’s not global, but it can’t be handwaved away as no change. And this was done with careless abandon and no intent. Of course some people will deny these facts, they always do.
Just as the deforestation of the Pacific Northwest proceeds with out stopping, and tropical jungles worldwide are turned to grasslands, deserts or palm farms.
It is up to those who make claims to offer support for them.* I ***am the skeptic, remember? Burden of proof is upon you to show how the data were gathered and that they are relevant.
What you have shown me so far – and this is why debates with you are such effortless fun – is that you don’t seem to have the first clue about even the most elementary concepts in climate science, let alone any of the more substantive aspects of the subject. When you don’t even understand the basic difference between a climate forcing and a feedback, there’s not much hope for understanding anything else. And when you post a link, it’s usually to a random blog that isn’t even relevant to the conversation, like the one below. And you’ve never tried to defend your egregious errors, because you can’t – you just plow on, making more of them. It’s all very amusing.
Yes, a 5th grade level astronomy blog about variable stars and the sunspot cycle is really relevant to a quantified scientific understanding of post-industrial climate change. There’s another one you might like: “Dick and Jane Visit an Observatory”.
I’ve already discussed the role and limitations of very small TSI variations over time. Then you threw in a digression about UV. I discussed some of the relevant science here. You tried to refute it with a paper that you obviously didn’t read because it confirmed what I had just finished saying. But yeah, we really appreciate your guidance on climate science.
The first statement and the second are mutually contradictory given the quantifiable effect of GHGs. The basic facts are not in dispute. There are legitimate arguments about climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity, and there will always be unknowns and uncertainties as in any science, but saying that there’s no proof that mankind has altered the climate is just manifestly ridiculous. Unless one defines “proof” as an absolute that no empirical science can ever meet, but that’s just playing semantic games in a bid to ignore the preponderance of evidence.
I am asking how do you know whether the data are meaningful, that is, collected in a way that makes other interpretations impossible.
A ‘temperature’ taken in 1899 in a locale which was at that time a small weather station in a rural area is not the same as a ‘temperature’ taken at the same location 100 years later when that same location is *now *a shopping center in the middle of a cosmopolitan area. Is that clear enough? The data may be ‘collected appropriately’ by one criterion, but the problem with such data should be obvious. Comparisons between the temperatures are not valid.
I don’t think you understand what a “skeptic” is in a scientific context. It’s someone who has a rational evidence-based position disputing a scientific claim. The position you seem to hold is more like that of a contrarian dogmatist who rejects all evidence out of hand. A dogmatist will never be convinced of anything contrary to dogma, no matter what evidence is presented. Conversely, he will accept on faith any claims that conform to dogma without any objective evidence at all. Since that’s not how science works, such an individual is not engaged in a scientific discussion at all.
There’s another one you might like: “Dick and Jane Visit an Observatory”.