# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 88
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1741 "2014-02-03T21:30:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Bitching about people bitching is so meta That sounds kind of evasive. If you really believe that the vast majority of the world’s climate science researchers are fundamentally wrong in their hypothesis, exactly where do you think they’ve made their mistake? And exactly what alternative hypothesis are you proposing that you claim does a better job accounting for the observed data in accordance with the laws of physics? It’s definitely true that the climate effects of anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere are very complex and hard to predict with precision over short timescales. I don’t think anybody’s disputing that. But it doesn’t mean that the underlying science is unsound. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1742 "2014-02-03T22:00:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That sounds kind of evasive. Nah, it’s an old internet thing, been around for a long time. Complaining that other people are complaining, leads to complaining about people complaining about people complaining. If you then complain about that, the recursive loop never ends until a Mod steps in and spanks everybody. It’s Meta. > [@Kimstu](#): > > If you really believe that the vast majority of the world’s climate science researchers are fundamentally wrong in their hypothesis, exactly where do you think they’ve made their mistake? And exactly what alternative hypothesis are you proposing that you claim Let’s not get the horse ahead of the cart, shall we? If somebody claims the water supply of two billion people will most likely be gone in 25 years, and it’s due to global warming, nobody has to put forth any hypothesis or theory about glaciers and water supplies to call them on that stupid bullshit claim. If some idiot claims the arctic will be ice free by 2013, or that billions will die from global warming, there is no need for an alternative hypothesis to simply say that is a load of horseshit. If the vast majority of the worlds scientist actually believe any of that complete crap, then they are wrong. I don’t have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they are right. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s definitely true that the climate effects of anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere are very complex and hard to predict with precision over short timescales. I don’t think anybody’s disputing that. But it doesn’t mean that the underlying science is unsound. Oh hell yeah some fuckheads are disputing, in fact they are doing goddamn victory dances that warming hasn’t even slowed, there has been no pause, and the disaster is still going forward with record speed. I point out that colder winters in the NH boreal winter is the exact opposite of what is predicted by theory, and the stupid fuckheads don’t even know what that means, much less the actual theoretical basis of CO2 forced climate change. Then they want to say it means something else, or deny it’s happening. I don’t have to put forth anything to know when somebody is being stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1743 "2014-02-03T22:33:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Let’s not get the horse ahead of the cart, shall we? If somebody claims the water supply of two billion people will most likely be gone in 25 years, and it’s due to global warming, nobody has to put forth any hypothesis or theory about glaciers and water supplies to call them on that stupid bullshit claim. > > If some idiot claims the arctic will be ice free by 2013, or that billions will die from global warming, there is no need for an alternative hypothesis to simply say that is a load of horseshit. > > If the vast majority of the worlds scientist actually believe any of that complete crap, then they are wrong. I don’t have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they are right. > > Oh hell yeah some fuckheads are disputing, in fact they are doing goddamn victory dances that warming hasn’t even slowed, there has been no pause, and the disaster is still going forward with record speed. > > I point out that colder winters in the NH boreal winter is the exact opposite of what is predicted by theory, and the stupid fuckheads don’t even know what that means, much less the actual theoretical basis of CO2 forced climate change. > > Then they want to say it means something else, or deny it’s happening. I don’t have to put forth anything to know when somebody is being stupid. Your objections seem to boil down to _“If somebody is making a claim that I naively find implausible, or if somebody modifies an existing hypothesis to better account for recent observations, then I can dismiss their work as bullshit even if I can’t actually understand or refute the scientific basis of their position.”_ I don’t think that’s an attitude that somebody who genuinely liked science would take. I also don’t think that somebody who genuinely liked science and was reasonably well informed about climate science would believe that the existence of climate phenomena that aren’t yet well understood somehow means that the basic science of climate change is wrong. Climate science researchers have been pretty emphatic all along that we can’t be very confident in predicting short-term or regional effects. What we do know with high confidence is that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions have been significantly altering the content of the atmosphere, and that the total heat content of the planet has been rising, and that basic physics predicts the latter as a result of the former. And AFAIK, nothing in recently observed climate data contradicts or undermines that in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1744 "2014-02-03T23:22:27Z")
So FX just cited Freeman Dyson in the GD thread. … Just thought I should say that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1745 "2014-02-03T23:33:04Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > So FX just cited Freeman Dyson in the GD thread. > > … > > Just thought I should say that. Ah, [Freeman Dyson!](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson) > [@](#): > > **Crankery** > > Dyson considers himself a non-denominational Christian and believes in non-overlapping magisteria. Some of the material he has written on metaphysics, though, is much less Christian than it is reminiscent of various theories of quantum consciousness, panentheism, panpsychism, and other sorts of New Agey science woo. > > Dyson has succumbed to old age crank syndrome as well, becoming a global warming denier. However, he hasn’t done any actual criticizing of climate science besides dismissing the models as flawed and saying that if it is a real problem, we can easily cook up some super-tree to suck the carbon dioxide out of the air. Dyson’s support for deniers seems to be the result of wanting to stick it to the scientific man: > > > [@](#): > > > > My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.[1] > > So… yeah, thanks for that. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1746 "2014-02-04T02:15:10Z")
From another topic > [@Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/369): > > You are so completely missing the point. That could be the hashtag for all climate debates online. > [@MrDibble](#): > > The term “radiative forcing” has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system. Repeating something that was already on the table doesn’t help. Really, it doesn’t. The IPCC didn’t actually make up the definition, they just adopted it. And then changed it. > **[Radiative forcing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#IPCC_usage)** > > Radiative forcing (or climate forcing) is a concept used to quantify a change to the balance of energy flowing through a planetary atmosphere. Various factors contribute to this change in energy balance, such as concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and changes in surface albedo and solar irradiance. In more technical terms, it is defined as "the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change.": A pla... In essence it’s about **The Radiation Balance**. Which is constantly altered by radiative forcings like the intensity of solar energy, reflectivity of clouds or gases, absorption by various greenhouse gases or surfaces, emission of heat by various materials. **Any such alteration is a radiative forcing** , and causes a new balance to be reached. This happens continuously as sunlight hits the surface, clouds and aerosols form, the concentrations of atmospheric gases vary, and seasons alter the ground cover. Covering a continent (or the north polar region) with [contrails](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JD000426/abstract) (visible or not) is a forcing. A blanket of ice or water vapor in the stratosphere is a forcing, and like most things it can be calculated what the effect is. Hell, if anybody cared it could actually be measured each day. Wait, what the fuck are we arguing about today? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1747 "2014-02-04T02:18:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Fair Warning: If you insult me again, I’ll set you to _Ignore_ and see only posts by you that others found amusing enough to quote. Man still cracks me up. That’s a real threat man, if he is insulted again he will ignore his opponent. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1748 "2014-02-04T02:31:28Z")
From around the boards > [@ITT: FXMastermind presents his evidence that climategate was scientifically meaningful](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/46): > > BTW, wolves have cubs, not pups. Man that is a real burn. Can you just not contain yourself? Just because we disagree, it’s no reason to resort to a goddamn fourth grade mentality. > [@Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/386): > > Dude! \*\*psikeyhackr \*\*is to JAQs about 911 “mysteries” as you are on the just asking questions department of climate change… I mean, I admit I would be curious to see a fight of the unmovable object vs the irresistible force of ignorant points but I had to warn you. 🙂 OK that cracks me up. People are so damn funny. Now back to SCIENCE!! > [@Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/369): > > Y That 100 ppm differential that you like to refer to as “a mere 4%” has been responsible for the difference between ice ages and interglacials – for the difference between mile-thick ice-sheets over North America vs. temperate climates, palm trees and swimming pools. Would you just stop. Repeating an unfounded hypothesis, that it pretty much at the core of a lot of scientific dispute, doesn’t make it true. It’s like you are in a debate over pit bulls, and instead of arguing, you keep repeating “pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog”. Which is what the fucking DEBATE IS ABOUT, so just repeating your claim doesn’t actually do anything except make you look like a fuckhead. Seriously. If I (or anyone else) just kept repeating “there is no global warming”, it would be just as stupid. See? Think about it. Do it for the science. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1749 "2014-02-04T02:37:19Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s a real threat man, if he is insulted again he will ignore his opponent. Um, though I can’t speak for **septimus** personally, I’ve been on the sidelines of enough acrimonious debates around here to be pretty sure that an ignore warning is not intended as a “threat”. It’s just a courtesy to an adversary who thinks they’re having an ongoing discussion with you to warn them that under certain circumstances you might no longer be able to hear them because you’ve tuned them out. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1750 "2014-02-04T05:12:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s just a courtesy to an adversary who thinks they’re having an ongoing discussion with you to warn them that under certain circumstances you might no longer be able to hear them because you’ve tuned them out. It’s pretty clear you don’t need to use the ignore function to “not hear” somebody, or to tune them out. Jesus McFuckchrist that happens all the time. It happens so often, with certain people, you have to wonder what their mental state actually is. The ignorance of basic scientific principles, the ignoring of sources, the failure to respond to actual scientific sources, in the midst of a scientific discussion, it’s a nightmare of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1751 "2014-02-04T05:34:19Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The ignorance of basic scientific principles, the ignoring of sources, the failure to respond to actual scientific sources, in the midst of a scientific discussion, it’s a nightmare of ignorance. You don’t seem to have any real interest in an actual scientific discussion, though. You’re just blustering around incoherently throwing a few random cites and facts into the mix, but sheering away from any sustained technical discussion or disputes starting from common ground. The more insultingly superior and dismissive you try to sound, the less you come across as actually well-informed or knowledgeable about the subject. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1752 "2014-02-04T07:01:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Covering a continent (or the north polar region) with [contrails](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JD000426/abstract) (visible or not) is a forcing. A blanket of ice or water vapor in the stratosphere is a forcing, and like most things it can be calculated what the effect is. And both are accounted for by the IPCC…just not under the general heading of “water vapour”, though. Because that’d be stupid. A general measure of “water vapour” is going to tell you squat about the physical disposition of that WV. So _stratospheric_ H[sub]2[/sub]O _is_ dealt with by the IPCC as a forcing, as are aerosol and albedo effects. That does _not_ make “water vapour” a forcing. It makes particular microphysical states of H[sub]2[/sub]O to be forcings - and one of the major one of those, stratospheric H[sub]2[/sub]O, is better understood with as a **CH[sub]4[/sub] forcing** - since that’s where it originates. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1753 "2014-02-04T12:04:24Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It happens so often, with certain people, you have to wonder what their mental state actually is. > > The ignorance of basic scientific principles, the ignoring of sources, the failure to respond to actual scientific sources, in the midst of a scientific discussion, it’s a nightmare of ignorance. Yes. This is absolutely applicable to both the global warming debate thread in GD and this one. I mean, there are some crackpots citing _Freeman Dyson_! The dude who said “Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils”! ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1754 "2014-02-04T15:19:46Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And BTW, while the absorption spectrum _peak_ is in the visible, it’s a looong tail into the infrared. More energy in that region than the visible, by a chunk. Okay, Mr Sciency-person, let’s see your calculations … I’d love to see how you solve that integral to come up with this. You’ve been called on your assumption that water vapor’s roll in the Greenhouse Effect is “safely ignored”, please explain in detail. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The IPCC report is the work of scientists. What is your point? From the IPCC [Organiztion Page](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_secretariat.shtml#.UvD7MfZp4jU), we see lawyers, travel agents, IT personnel … looks like they’re answerable to, not scientists, but rather diplomats of the United Nations. “It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.” No doubt there [wolfish grin]. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Oddly for someone who claims to like science, you seem to be under the impression that actual scientists (including “top climate experts” and the vast majority of all other climate scientists) can’t do science. [raises hand] That’s me, I said that, sort of … What I said was that climatology is a “soft”, or non-empirical, science … and that people become climatologists because dynamics require yet another year of calculus. So what you have in the field are people who really aren’t the smartest, those who struggle with what is actually rather straight forward concrete mathematics. C’mon, third year calculus is easy compared to LinAlgebra. > [@Kimstu](#): > > That sounds kind of evasive. If you really believe that the vast majority of the world’s climate science researchers are fundamentally wrong in their hypothesis, exactly where do you think they’ve made their mistake? And exactly what alternative hypothesis are you proposing that you claim does a better job accounting for the observed data in accordance with the laws of physics? (uh oh … I think my bluff has been called … dammit.) Researchers are NOT wrong with their hypotheses … but hypotheses it is. These long winded arguments are all about one side saying these hypotheses are _scientific facts_ simply because climatologists say they are. My specific form of denialism is pointing out that hypotheses is always stated _as fact_, but otherwise are _ **not fact** _. We can lay bets on how many column-feet **Gigo** will post if I were to state that on any of the other climate threads. I’ll take 2-1/2 feet. Alternates: [list=I][li]Orbital Mechanics[_]Cosmic Rays[_]Water doesn’t provide feedback[_]Lack of plant sinking[_]Reduced albedo[_]Unpredictable solar output[_]Whale populations recovering[\*]Contrails[/li][/list] All the above a valid hypotheses, just as valid as Mr Sciency-person’s. Now watch the little girls cry and scream … ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1755 "2014-02-04T23:20:26Z")
Goddamn it, you got science all over the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1756 "2014-02-05T00:38:51Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > From the IPCC [Organiztion Page](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_secretariat.shtml#.UvD7MfZp4jU), we see lawyers, travel agents, IT personnel … looks like they’re answerable to, not scientists, but rather diplomats of the United Nations. “It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.” No doubt there [wolfish grin]. The page you linked to is the webpage of the IPCC _Secretariat_, i.e., the administrative personnel who provide administrative and technical support. The IPCC reports on the physical science basis of climate change, as **BrainGlutton** correctly pointed out, are in fact written by the research scientists who make up IPCC Working Group I. Do you really believe that those IPCC Working Group reports are written by lawyers and travel agents, or do you just hope that other people might be deceived into believing that if you suggest it? > [@watchwolf49](#): > > What I said was that climatology is a “soft”, or non-empirical, science … and that people become climatologists because dynamics require yet another year of calculus. You seem to be confusing climate science with “climatology” in the sense of primarily taxonomic study of weather data records to describe climate patterns for particular regions. This is what US State Climatologist Offices do, for example. Some climatologists do research on climate models and other aspects of climate science, but not all climate science researchers are climatologists. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > My specific form of denialism is pointing out that hypotheses is always stated _as fact_, but otherwise are _ **not fact** _. Hypotheses about climate change are not always stated as fact. On the contrary, there are very few aspects of current climate-change science that research scientists declare to be securely established fact. What they are is the best available hypotheses based on known science. Despite all their undoubted flaws and inconsistencies, they are incomparably superior as working science to any alternatives that have been proposed by the anti-science “denialist” ideologues attacking them. Until and unless denialists who carp about mainstream climate science actually produce some detailed, quantitative, comprehensive explanatory hypotheses that do at least as good a job of accounting for observed data as mainstream climate science does, there’s no reason why anybody should take them seriously. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Alternates: > [list=I][li]Orbital Mechanics[_]Cosmic Rays[_]Water doesn’t provide feedback[_]Lack of plant sinking[_]Reduced albedo[_]Unpredictable solar output[_]Whale populations recovering[\*]Contrails[/li][/list] > > All the above a valid hypotheses, just as valid as Mr Sciency-person’s. They’re not scientific hypotheses at all. They’re just a few isolated buzzwords with no specific explanatory power whatsoever. Unless you can describe in detail the physical mechanisms through which you’re proposing that one or more of these factors is impacting climate systems, your claim to have “valid hypotheses” is just anti-science blather. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1757 "2014-02-05T00:41:17Z")
Unless you can describe in detail the physical mechanisms through which you’re proposing that CO2 is impacting climate systems, your claim to have “valid hypotheses” is just anti-science blather. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1758 "2014-02-05T00:54:05Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Unless you can describe in detail the physical mechanisms through which you’re proposing that CO2 is impacting climate systems, your claim to have “valid hypotheses” is just anti-science blather. Glad you asked. There are literally thousands of such detailed descriptions throughout published specialist research and elsewhere, produced by _real_ climate scientists whose hypotheses are specific, comprehensive and explanatory. See, for starters on a layperson-accessible level, [this IPCC report on the physical science basis of climate change](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UvGJyyhS6QY). The references cited there contain far more detail on the various mechanisms of climate science models. Describing in detail the physical mechanisms that produce climate change is what actual climate science research _does_. It definitely still has a long way to go in producing complete and decisively corroborated theories, but at least that’s the direction it’s heading. Climate-science “skepticism” that consists of merely throwing ignorant nitpicks at actual research without producing any technically detailed hypotheses of its own is not science, it’s just getting in the way of science. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1759 "2014-02-05T00:56:14Z")
I just knew you wouldn’t describe the mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1760 "2014-02-05T01:06:37Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I just knew you wouldn’t describe the mechanism. Oh, if by “describe the mechanism” you mean “give a complete technical explanation of it right here and now”, I certainly can’t do that, and I wouldn’t expect you or **watchwolf49** or anybody else to be able to do so either. But I can point you to tons of actual science research that can and does describe the aforesaid mechanisms of specific, quantitative, comprehensive explanatory hypotheses on climate change in full technical detail. You and **watchwolf49** and all the other anti-science “denialists” who reject mainstream climate science hypotheses can’t do that. None of your lot has come up with **any** research-quality competing hypotheses you can point to for similar descriptions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=87) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=89)