U.S. Dept. of Ag report: Climate change is damaging America . . . now

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

My boldings:

I believe your reading comprehension needs work. A lot of work. What about “addressing emissions” and “Kyoto Protocol” in the same statement “says nothing” about CO[sub]2[/sub] to you? And what about “acting swiftly” to avert “economic, social and environmental risk” isn’t an acceptance of “CAGW”?

Sorry, but it’s your reading comprehension which needs work. The Australian engineers could have easily said “We are confident that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to amplified warming, which will have significant negative effects on humankind.” However, they chose not to do so.

From your quote, it’s possible that the Australian Engineers believe that CO2 emissions will not cause warming but will instead cause a new ice age. It’s also possible that the Australian Engineers believe that CO2 emissions have a one in a million chance of causing modest negative consequences, but still think it’s worth reducing CO2 emissions to reduce that risk. It’s possible that they believe that CO2 carries no risk at all and that it’s other emissions which pose risk, but they support the Kyoto Protocol because it will benefit Australia in some way.

All of these interpretations are consistent with your quote and none of them means an acceptance of the CAGW hypothesis.

If these “scientific organizations” really want people to believe that they have accepted the CAGW hypothesis, they could easily say so explicitly. Instead, they use ambiguous language. Thus allowing alarmists to jump up and down screaming “consensus!” (whatever that means) without actually putting their credibility on the line.

an implicit acceptance of AGCC as fact

We aren’t talking about AGCC. We’re talking about CAGW. They are two very different things. Although many alarmists like to blur the distinction.

The word “consensus” may not appear there, but that makes no difference.

I’m not asking you to define the term consensus, I’m asking you what percentage of dissent you’d allow climate scientists to have, and still agree that they have a “consensus”, or “accept” CAGW, or whatever phrase you find most accpetable that carries the same meaning.

Then ask me about the words I actually used, instead of the words you wish I had used.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Sorry, but it’s your reading comprehension which needs work. The Australian engineers could have easily said “We are confident that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to amplified warming, which will have significant negative effects on humankind.” However, they chose not to do so.

So because they didn’t use the exact same wording you would have used, they’re not actually saying they believe in climate change? That’s got to be the stupidest counterargument I’ve read in a while.

@brazil84

From your quote, it’s possible that the Australian Engineers believe that CO2 emissions will not cause warming but will instead cause a new ice age.

Kyoto is not about stopping ice ages, and their full policy document (linked below) explicitly mentions warming.

@brazil84

It’s also possible that the Australian Engineers believe that CO2 emissions have a one in a million chance of causing modest negative consequences, but still think it’s worth reducing CO2 emissions to reduce that risk.

Anything’s possible. But read their full policy document (pdf) yourself. It’s fairly short, but note the “adequate evidence to support current scientific theories on climate change”, “significant warming is already occurring and will continue” and “the precautionary principle should prevail”

@brazil84

It’s possible that they believe that CO2 carries no risk at all and that it’s other emissions which pose risk, but they support the Kyoto Protocol because it will benefit Australia in some way.

You’re the one who’s fixated on CO[sub]2[/sub], but it is the primary target of Kyoto, so to suggest that it’s the other emissions that worry the IEA is disingenuous.

@brazil84

All of these interpretations are consistent with your quote and none of them means an acceptance of the CAGW hypothesis.

I submit that these are disingenuous readings of the quote, and that a nonpartisan rational observer would not make the interpretation you have, which requires you to twist the plain wording and dodge the implications of all the bits I bolded in that quote, read together.

@brazil84

If these “scientific organizations”

:rolleyes:

@brazil84

really want people to believe that they have accepted the CAGW hypothesis, they could easily say so explicitly.

I contend they have.

@brazil84

Instead, they use ambiguous language.

I contend that you have to twist the clear meaning to create an ambiguity that isn’t there.

@brazil84

Thus allowing alarmists to jump up and down screaming “consensus!” (whatever that means)

:rolleyes:

@brazil84

without actually putting their credibility on the line.

Ad hominem attack

@brazil84

We aren’t talking about AGCC. We’re talking about CAGW.

You may be, I’m talking about both, and I’ll continue to use the terms interchangeably despite your attempt to dictate the discourse by fiat.

@brazil84

They are two very different things.

No, they’re not. CAGW is a subset of AGCC, which covers other possible kinds of climate change too. In talking about CAGW, you are necessarily talking about AGCC, but not vice versa, and the report in the OP uses both “climate change” and “warming”.

@brazil84

Although many alarmists like to blur the distinction.

Ad hominem attack

@brazil84

Then ask me about the words I actually used, instead of the words you wish I had used.

Worry about that when I quote you rather than paraphrase. As it is, “consensus” and “agreement” are synonymous. Asking you about one is asking you about the other, and I wasn’t asking you about your statement, I asked a straightforward question. Stop dodging. You’re avoiding the question. Is it that you don’t want to admit that there’s no percentage you’ll accept as consensus? What do we call people who won’t accept any amount of evidence, again, remind me?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

So because they didn’t use the exact same wording you would have used, they’re not actually saying they believe in

:rolleyes: No, it’s because they didn’t actually say what you claim they say.

There are many ways they could have said it, but they didn’t. Instead, you rely on guesswork.

climate change

:rolleyes:

This constant shifting of the goal posts is getting old.

their full policy document (linked below) explicitly mentions warming.

I asked you for a quote. It’s not my responsibility to do your research for you.

and I’ll continue to use the terms interchangeably despite your attempt to dictate the discourse by fiat.

Let’s see if I have this straight: If I make a statement re: CAGW, you will insist on the right to interpret it as if I have said AGCC instead? Sorry, but I’m not going to waste time debating with people who intentionally misinterpret what I say.

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

Stop dodging. You’re avoiding the question.

Of course I’m avoiding the question, since you are yet again trying to put words into my mouth.

Here’s the question that would have been somewhat reasonable:

What percentage of scientists would have to accept a hypothesis for you to consider it as having been “accepted by the scientific community”

And my answer is this: For purposes deciding that dissenting arguments should be ignored, as long as at least 2 or 3 credentialled scientists dissagree, dissenting arguments deserve serious attention, in my opinion. For purposes of deciding whether something is settled enough to commit large amounts of societal resources, it would depend on the stakes.

[brazil84]

And for any lurkers that are still around, I think it’s worth explaining the difference between “CAGW” (as I have defined it) and “AGCC” (as I understand it).

CAGW is the hypothesis that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming which is then amplified and produces significant negative consequences.

If mankind’s activities cause warming, but not through CO2 emissions, then CAGW is not correct.

If mankind’s CO2 emissions cause warming, but only a small amount of warming, then CAGW is not correct.

AGCC is the hypothesis that mankind’s activities will affect the climate in some way. Possibly a little, possibly a lot. Possibly warming, and possibly cooling. Possibly through CO2 emissions, and possibly through some other mechanism.

What are the important differences?

First, if CAGW is correct, a strong case can be made that mankind should take immediate and significant action to get CO2 levels under control. On the other hand, if AGCC is correct, it does not necessarily follow that such action is appropriate.

Second, AGCC is non-controversial. Even skeptics such as myself concede that mankind’s activities are likely to have some effect, however small, on the climate. On the other hand, CAGW is controversial – as far as I can tell.

If you watch carefully, you will see that many alarmists like to pull a bait and switch by confusing CAGW and AGCC. Or by using ambiguous phrases like “climate change.” Or by pretending that their opponents are arguing against AGCC when in fact those opponents are arguing against CAGW.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

No, it’s because they didn’t actually say what you claim they say.

Says you. I highlighted the parts that support my interpretation. What support is there for your alternates?

@brazil84

There are many ways they could have said it, but they didn’t. Instead, you rely on guesswork.

You…do realise other people can read what’s there as easily as I did, right?

@brazil84

This constant shifting of the goal posts is getting old.

Yeah, shifting them from the…OP. Sure. This is the same tack you tried in the “31 000” thread, and it didn’t work then, either.

@brazil84

I asked you for a quote. It’s not my responsibility to do your research for you.

It’s not my responsibility to read the cites for you. I cited it, you read it. I picked out the relevant phrases, anyway, in case you needed spoonfeeding.

@brazil84

Let’s see if I have this straight: If I make a statement re: CAGW, you will insist on the right to interpret it as if I have said AGCC instead?

No, that’s not what I said.

@brazil84

Sorry, but I’m not going to waste time debating with people who intentionally misinterpret what I say.

:rolleyes: yep, still trying that same debate tactic. How’s that working for you?

Of course I’m avoiding the question, since you are yet again trying to put words into my mouth.

How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth? It’s not like I made it a yes/no question.

and finally you answer…and your answer is “2 or 3” dissenters? Are you serious? Do you have any clue what a minuscule, infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of climate scientists 2 or 3 would represent? And for that you’d avoid saying that something’s been “accepted by the scientific community”?

Well, that’s as close to saying you’ll never buy the evidence that there’s scientific consensus, since you can always find dissenters in any scientific arena. Which is at least honest, even if it does kind of make any discussion of consensus with you quite useless, since you just admitted, by your own standards, to being in denial.

Reinforced by your continued use of the “alarmist” ad hominem and this tedious hijack you’re attempting with the CAGW/AGCC terminology quibble. But if you can’t attack the actual point (that there’s a clear scientific consensus) with facts, I suppose semantic nitpicking is all you have left.

Let me tell you what evidence will convince me that there is no consensus, just to level the playing field: Find me a reputable major scientific organisation that makes a clear statement that its membership does not support the idea of CAGW at all. I mean, since you’re so convinced that “alarmists” use ambiguous language intentionally, I’m sure the bodies that dissent must do so in clear language, and since you’re convinced there’s no acceptance “by the scientific community”, such a body should be easyto find, no?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

You…do realise other people can read what’s there as easily as I did, right?

Absolutely, and if any lurkers are reading this, ask yourself the following question:

If it turns out that the CAGW hypothesis is incorrect, does that mean that the Australian Engineers statement was wrong? And the answer is “no,” because the statement contains plenty of wiggle room.

Yeah, shifting them from the…OP.

I will recap the exchange:

Me: In any event, I am skeptical that CAGW has been “accepted” by the scientific community

MrDibble:If every major scientific organization doesn’t represent the scientific community, who does? Lindzen?

[In other words, MrDibble was disputing (or pretending to dispute) my statement about CAGW.]

Me: Please quote and cite the EXACT language of these “scientific organizations” which shows that they accept the CAGW hypothesis.

MrDibble then supplies a quote, and argues

It contains an implicit acceptance of AGCC as fact

---

Did you catch that folks? MrDibble was challenged to supply a quote regarding CAGW, and, when it turned out that he could not do so, he pretended that the challenge was to supply a quote regarding AGCC.

Classic alarmist rhetorical game.

yep, still trying that same debate tactic.

:rolleyes:

and finally you answer…and your answer is “2 or 3” dissenters? Are you serious? Do you have any clue what a minuscule, infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of climate scientists 2 or 3 would represent? And for that you’d avoid saying that something’s been “accepted by the scientific community”?

Absolutely, for the purposes I described. If you believe that the arguments of 2 or 3 dissenters should be ignored, you’re entitled to your opinion. In the case of CAGW, I don’t think it really matters, since these scientific organizations have left themselves so much wiggle room.

The only way to support some kind of claim of widespread (near universal?) acceptance would appear to be the rhetorical games you have been playing.

Quibble, indeed.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

If it turns out that the CAGW hypothesis is incorrect, does that mean that the Australian Engineers statement was wrong? And the answer is “no,” because the statement contains plenty of wiggle room.

Just because you assert someone can back out of a statement does not mean that they did not, in fact, make the statement. Subjective “wiggle room” doesn’t speak to the veracity of a statement in any meaningful way, Dear Lurkers. It’s just another rhetorical attack that doesn’t address the bits I already highlighted.

@brazil84

Did you catch that folks? MrDibble was challenged to supply a quote regarding CAGW, and, when it turned out that he could not do so, he pretended that the challenge was to supply a quote regarding AGCC.

Is that what you were fussing about? Fine, I take it back - consider that a list of scientific organisations that accept CAGW, then. I just wasn’t into using your pet term (which doesn’t seem very current anywhere else except as some sort of denialist shibboleth), but hey, like I already said, there’s certainly references to warming and Kyoto in my cites, and if the IPCC 4th isn’t about your beloved CAGW, I don’t know what is.

@brazil84

Classic alarmist rhetorical game.

Classic denialist ad hominem

@brazil84

:rolleyes:

I’m not hearing a “No”…:dubious:

@brazil84

Absolutely, for the purposes I described. If you believe that the arguments of 2 or 3 dissenters should be ignored, you’re entitled to your opinion.

It’s not just my opinion. It’s the opinion of the scientific community. Especially given the lack of actual countering scientific literature.

@brazil84

In the case of CAGW, I don’t think it really matters, since these scientific organizations have left themselves so much wiggle room.

Sure, all those organisations flat-out endorsing the IPCC have soooo much wiggle room. BTW, I find it … interesting …that the one organisation you “randomly” picked to focus on, was one that just happened to not mention the IPCC directly. Funny, that, given how many (a bit more than half, by my count) did. Better than even odds and you struck a winner. Nice dice.

@brazil84

The only way to support some kind of claim of widespread (near universal?) acceptance would appear to be the rhetorical games you have been playing.

Or, you know, one could do the scientific research (pdfs) denialists are so allergic to.

@brazil84

Quibble, indeed.

Well, since you fail to provide answers to questions until shamed into it, and also fail to take up the challenge of providing counter-cites, I guess it’s fair to call your harping on which term to use, a quibble. One that you can’t hide behind any more, since I’ll be sticking to your term from now on (under protest).

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

It’s the opinion of the scientific community.

The opinion of the scientific community is that the arguments of 2 or 3 dissenters should be ignored?

Sure, all those organisations flat-out endorsing the IPCC have soooo much wiggle room.

Absolutely. The trick is to look at what they actually say, as opposed to what you wish they had said.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

The opinion of the scientific community is that the arguments of 2 or 3 dissenters should be ignored?

Well, clearly - since the community thinks there’s a scientific consensus, they must be ignoring at least that many.

@brazil84

Absolutely. The trick is to look at what they actually say, as opposed to what you wish they had said.

[sarcasm]Yeah, dear Lurker, remember, statements like:
“The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” and
“it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. The IPCC is one of many examples of the importance of providing scientific understanding as a basis for sound policy making.” and
“CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and
“[referring to the IPCC]The world’s best climate scientists” and
"the IPCC assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice needed to inform the UNFCCC.” are just so…full of “wiggle room”. No ringing endorsements there, no sirree. I’m just reading my own misguided interpretation into things. You definitely won’t see the same things if you go to that cite, Dear Lurker. especially don’t follow the links to the individual statements, because I’m sure those were cherry-picked quotes and the rest of the statements are just unending slams of the IPCC and the CAGW hypothesis, which they mention constantly by that name.[/sarcasm]
:rolleyes:
And from you, still no cites or counter-statements by dissenters. I’m not surprised - I mean, you haven’t claimed to be a scientist or anything AFAICT, so I don’t expect any rigour from you.

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

Well, clearly - since the community thinks there’s a scientific consensus, they must be ignoring at least that many.

Funny that peer-reviewed papers which challenge aspects of CAGW are still being published. Nice to know you think those papers should be ignored.

“The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

It does not follow from this statement that increased levels of CO2 will cause warming that will be amplified and cause significant negative effects.

“it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity.

It does not follow from this statement that increased levels of CO2 will cause warming that will be amplified and cause significant negative effects.

etc. etc.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Funny that peer-reviewed papers which challenge aspects of CAGW are still being published. Nice to know you think those papers should be ignored.

Care to cite one? And there’s a difference between ignoring dissenting arguments and ignoring dissenting scientific work. I was referring to the former, as you well knew, what with you having used the word “argument” yourself.

Plus, I can tell you’re going to be harping on the word “ignoring”, so let me say right now that by “ignoring” I do not mean “not even addressing”, I mean “dismissing as mistaken or irrelevant”. Not that that’s going to stop your semantic hijack, I’m sure, but at least the Dear Lurker can tell I tried.

@brazil84

It does not follow from this statement that increased levels of CO2 will cause warming that will be amplified and cause significant negative effects.

Why should it? It’s already referenced the IPCC. If you expect every statement everyone issues on GW to contain a full restatement of the CA global warming hypothesis, you’re being unreasonable. Willfully contrarian, in fact. It’s already been shown that the winners in a scientific debate don’t have to keep restating the status quo.

@brazil84

It does not follow from this statement that increased levels of CO2 will cause warming that will be amplified and cause significant negative effects.

You left out the bit where they cited the IPCC as a basis for sound policy, and the IPCC is all about the CO[sub]2[/sub]-induced warming and the negative effects, so that takes care of that. etc., etc.

If that’s all you’ve got, perhaps you can get around to answering my request for cites?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

And there’s a difference between ignoring dissenting arguments and ignoring dissenting scientific work.

Lol. Another Dibble-distinction. Sorry, but I’m not going to waste my time going down that road.

Plus, I can tell you’re going to be harping on the word “ignoring”

Of course I am. Because you are challenging my standard for general acceptance for purposes of deciding whether dissenting arguments should be ignored.

I realize that you wish I had taken a different position – one that would be easier for you to challenge. Too bad, so sad.

so let me say right now that by “ignoring” I do not mean

Sorry, but I get to define the word not you (for purposes of this issue). Because you are challenging MY standard.

i.e. respond to the point I actually made, rather than the point you wish I had made.

perhaps you can get around to answering my request for cites?

Cites for what? All I did was express justifiable skepticism on the issue.

[brazil84]

By the way, this is a good example of the sort of ambiguity I have been discussing:

it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. The IPCC is one of many examples of the importance of providing scientific understanding as a basis for sound policy making

The first sentence capitalizes on the AGCC/CAGW confusion that alarmists love to sow. Look at it carefully – it’s addressed just to AGCC, not to CAGW.

The second sentence is just a vague statement about the IPCC.

Essentially the entire quote is carefully crafted to be – as intention would say – content free. To snow people like jshore and MrDibble into thinking that something of significance is being said, without actually saying anything at all.

[MrDibble]

Can I call them or what?

Lol. Another Dibble-distinction. Sorry, but I’m not going to waste my time going down that road.

Be careful. Stop going down all those roads (how many is it so far?) and pretty soon there’s no road to take at all.

Or, in other words - :rolleyes:

Of course I am. Because you are challenging my standard for general acceptance for purposes of deciding whether dissenting arguments should be ignored.

No, because arguing semantics is all you have left when the scientific facts have an inconvenient anti-denialist bias. And you’re just that predictable.

Sorry, but I get to define the word not you (for purposes of this issue).

I disagree, since I clearly expanded on what I meant when I used it. Like I said, the discourse isn’t yours to dictate. Welcome to the wonderful world of Internet Debate.

i.e. respond to the point I actually made, rather than the point you wish I had made.

I answered your question. What you don’t like is that I didn’t answer it in a way that fell into your carefully laid out rhetorical trap (that I could see coming a mile away). Sorry, not playing semantics with you.

The fact of the matter is, you’ve defined what an acceptable amount of dissent would be, to be so small that nothing will ever meet your standards for consensus. You’ve therefore basically admitted being in denial on global warming, using your own standards of what makes for denial. And now you think playing word games and “he said/she said” gotchas is what it’s all about? No, it’s about the facts. Facts you’re rather loath to provide, I might add. ME, I’ve provided all kinds of links to statements that you then fail to tear apart. Where are your cites? Where is the “justification” for your “skepticism” that there’s a consensus?

Cites for what?

“peer-reviewed papers which challenge aspects of CAGW are still being published” for one, “Find me a reputable major scientific organisation that makes a clear statement that its membership does not support the idea of CAGW at all.” for another.

All I did was express justifiable skepticism on the issue.

There’s nothing justifiable in a “skepticism” (and I allow that use of the word very reluctantly) that goes entirely contrary to established scientific consensus without providing any scientific backing to its arguments. I’d call such a “skepticism” completely unjustified. Better yet, I’d call it being in denial.

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

soon there’s no road to take at all.

Exactly. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner, and now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

“peer-reviewed papers which challenge aspects of CAGW are still being published” for one

The problem is that you will claim these are “scientific work” and not “arguments.” So it would seem futile.

Let me ask you this: Do you deny that there exist recently published, peer-reviewed papers, which challenge aspects of the CAGW hypothesis?

, “Find me a reputable major scientific organisation that makes a clear statement that its membership does not support the idea of CAGW at all.”

I’ve never claimed that such a statement exists.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

The first sentence capitalizes on the AGCC/CAGW confusion that alarmists love to sow. Look at it carefully – it’s addressed just to AGCC, not to CAGW.

Because CAGW is a denialist shibboleth. Nobody else uses it. So yippee - you’ve invented a term you can castigate others for not using. :rolleyes:

@brazil84

The second sentence is just a vague statement about the IPCC.

“Vague” out of context. In context, works for me.

@brazil84

Essentially the entire quote is carefully crafted to be – as intention would say – content free.

Only if you insist each sentence must be read as an individual unit, free of context. Which is not how papers usually work. This is just a rehashed ‘Position statements hide debate’ argument.

I will note, for the benefit of Johnny Lurker, that you haven’t even attempted to counter the actual scientific research by Oreskes I linked to, that irrefutably shows consensus. You certainly must have read it, because you quoted and paraphrased bits on either side of it. But you didn’t address the citations I gave you. Not at home to Mr. Fact, are we? All the semantics in the blogosphere won’t help against the truth.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Exactly. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner, and now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

I’m not the one who keeps declaring anything I don’t like a closed road. I still have all those avenues to wander down, myself.

@brazil84

The problem is that you will claim these are “scientific work” and not “arguments.” So it would seem futile.

I asked you for them, didn’t I. Citing scientific work is never futile. Cite away.

@brazil84

Let me ask you this: Do you deny that there exist recently published, peer-reviewed papers, which challenge aspects of the CAGW hypothesis?

No, I don’t deny it - I haven’t seen any evidence either way, so I’m in no position to deny anything in this regard. I don’t acknowledge that they do exist, either. I am a cite-agnostic when it comes to the issue. I would deny that there are any in the period covered by the research I mentioned, though.

@brazil84

I’ve never claimed that such a statement exists.

Then it’s hardly fair to insist on levels of unambiguous language from the other side in a debate when your own side doesn’t provide them either, is it?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

I’m not the one who keeps declaring anything I don’t like a closed road.

Right. You’re the one who invents pointless roads to weasel out of your corner.

No, I don’t deny it

Then I’m not going to bother. If you are curious, feel free to do some internet searches.

Then it’s hardly fair to insist on levels of unambiguous language from the other side in a debate when your own side doesn’t provide them either, is it?

Sure it’s fair. You have the burden of proof, not me.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Right. You’re the one who invents pointless roads to weasel out of your corner.

ad hominem

@brazil84

Then I’m not going to bother.

Very forthright of you.

You clearly don’t read sarcasm very well. By mentioning Oreskes, I really thought I gave it away. Really, since she’s updated her research to 2007, that really doesn’t give much ground to cover to scramble for a cite.

@brazil84

If you are curious, feel free to do some internet searches.

I tried that. Guess what - I couldn’t find any. What do you think that means

@brazil84

Sure it’s fair. You have the burden of proof, not me.

Ummm, no, see, that’s where you’re wrong. “Burden of proof” has nothing to do with the level of discourse you require in your debate (and you’ve been asking for quite a high one) - so show us how major, reputable scientific community organisations phrase their rejections of the CAGW theories.

What, you can’t? Why’s that? Because there are none, you say? Well, fancy that :dubious:
Wait, doesn’t that help prove my case? Stop helping me! It’s not a good Fisking if you won’t play along…