Any good scientific calculation includes error bars. If you know the uncertainties in your inputs (and you should), you can calculate not only your results, but the uncertainties in your results. Climate scientists know the uncertainties in their inputs, and have calculated the uncertainties in their outputs, and even at the lower end of their error bars, the conclusion is still clear, that climate change is happening, we’re causing it, and it’s causing and will continue to cause major problems. You can’t just make that go away by saying “But they don’t know everything! There are uncertainties!”, because, like all good scientists, they’ve already taken that into account.
Tell it to the dictionary makers, you lost that battle in the middle ages.
As for politics, it is clear that you can not explain why the groups that defend the schools that teach evolution had to add the defense of climate science too should had been a clue about this not being an issue about politics, once again powerful groups from some industries made it so for some politicians.
I’ve actually suggested the basics right here when I talked about the many diverse multiple lines of evidence for both the modern temperature record and the longer term paleoclimate record, which lead to our confidence in the temperature record and our understanding of its relationship to the forcings of greenhouse gases and long-term climate response to those forcings.
All we get from you is claims that thermometers aren’t accurate, tree ring proxies only show rain, climate models don’t work, and assorted other gibberish suggesting that climate science knows nothing, which doesn’t even have anything to do with the topic. A search through SDMB will show that it’s all been discussed before, and I’ve discussed much of it myself extensively here in just the past two years and it’s all there if you look for it.
I’m not going to discuss it here any further because I’m trying to follow moderator instructions to stay on topic and not digress into another completely pointless “debate” in the wrong forum about matters long since resolved.
That is news to the ones that continue to use data from Michael Mann and many others that analyzed the data.
(at 8:19 Jennifer Francis at Rutgers demonstrates that also Polar researchers that predict the weather better than others continue to use the data that Michael Mann and others reported from the Paleo climate record also. The so called inaccuracies you are reporting are not a show stopper as it is your pumped up doubts about the computer modeling that the climate scientists are using)
It is odd that nowhere in this thread you are not willing or able to defend Patrick Moore, and the contrarians have not demonstrated how valid the inaccuracies they claim affect the current understanding. They have been a failure and they are only continue to discredit themselves.
Real Skeptics that check the actual data not only confirmed what Mann and others found, their independently made modeling also confirmed also what many other scientists found before.
(Professor Richard Muller, skeptic funded by the Koch brothers only to find how the other scientists were correct all along)OK not the Patrick Moore.
I was about to launch a spirited defense of the British TV astronomer Sir Patrick Moore. Who was awesome if completely bonkers (and very deceased).