Oh (North) Carolina!

[CountDeMoney]

This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.

Meh, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, you don't want to listen to humans, fine.  The animal and plant kingdoms have recognized climate change and are adjusting accordingly, migrating to higher elevations and northern climes.
But New England maples have always demonstrated more sense than Hansy anyway.

[grumbler]

Agree. We don't have much experience and knowledge of climate change events so we cannot make any kind of categorical statements about what the effect of climate change is going to be. We know what kind of things will happen but we cannot specifically say what will happen at each specific place and time. That is why all attempts at prediction include tons of qualifiers and caveats.

Untrue.  The NC law has no qualifiers or caveats.  That's why it is such a terrible law.

[Viking]

This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.

Meh, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, you don't want to listen to humans, fine.  The animal and plant kingdoms have recognized climate change and are adjusting accordingly, migrating to higher elevations and northern climes.
But New England maples have always demonstrated more sense than Hansy anyway.

The other Magic Negro!

This is why Tyson won't run for president; if New England Maples could vote he might; but Alabama Rooinekke do.

[Razgovory]

I've been seeing goddamn armadillos here.  They didn't live here when I was a boy.  I'll be really pissed when I start seeing alligators.

[Hansmeister]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

What scientific process?  Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.

The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all.  They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.

They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.

So, who would you have us trust in climate studies?  Are there any other parts of accepted science you don't like?

It's called the scietific method.  Real scientists use it in conducting real science experiments.  Hence, the global warming crowd disdains it.

Under the scientific method you develop a theory and then you set out to disprove it.  If you cannot disprove it then you have established a scientific proof.  Since the global warming religious nuts can't proof anything they simply refuse to use the scientific method.  That is why it isn't "accepted science" but political-religious bullshit masquerading as science through fear, intimidation, and ignorance.  Just like intelligent design, or eugenics. Pseudo-scientific nonsense.

This is why you have debates about "scientific consensus" instead of scientific proof, in the absence of proof you either bribe or browbeat people into accepting your position, or simply pretend that the thousands of climatologists who reject your political agenda either don't exist or are ethically challenged.  it is a fucking gigantic joke for the unintelligent modern left.

I guess environmentalism is a substitude for religion for the post-modern left.  The whole artifice of the modern environmetalist movement is a bunch of bizarre religious claptrap: organic farming, opposition to GM food, peak oil, population bomb, vegan/vegetarianism, global warming, noble savages (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Avatar), sustainable development.

A bunch of retarded fundies.

[The Brain]

The population bomb is inferior to the fusion bomb.

[Syt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.

Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.

In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.

[The Brain]

I remember in school we calculated in how much time humanity will become a ball expanding by the speed of light, if you extrapolate current figures.

[Viking]

It's called the scietific method.  Real scientists use it in conducting real science experiments.  Hence, the global warming crowd disdains it.

Unfortunately the "global warming crowd" includes all the real scientists doing the real science experiments.

Under the scientific method you develop a theory and then you set out to disprove it.  If you cannot disprove it then you have established a scientific proof.  Since the global warming religious nuts can't proof anything they simply refuse to use the scientific method.  That is why it isn't "accepted science" but political-religious bullshit masquerading as science through fear, intimidation, and ignorance.  Just like intelligent design, or eugenics. Pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Consensus happens when all the alternative hypothesis are shot down and only one hypothesis remains and nobody is thinks that it is worth their while to look for a new one. You seem to have read one sentence of Popper and stopped there. You missed the entire falsifiability of an assertion bit.

You not only don't understand Popper you don't know much about what has been done in Climate Science.

We have an example of global warming run amock (the Planet Venus)
We have tested every step in the physical process and used that data to build climate models (e.g. measuring the change in reflective properties of air with increasing CO2 concentrations)
We then test those models backwards in time (as Syt posted above) to test their viability

The reason all the scientists agree is because this is the most parsimonious hypothesis which explains all the facts and is contradicted by none.

This is why you have debates about "scientific consensus" instead of scientific proof, in the absence of proof you either bribe or browbeat people into accepting your position, or simply pretend that the thousands of climatologists who reject your political agenda either don't exist or are ethically challenged.  it is a fucking gigantic joke for the unintelligent modern left.

As above, scientific consensus is what happens when proof as been given and everybody is convinced.
The proof is in and it is available from those notorious america hating business hating loony lefty lunatics at NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).

I guess environmentalism is a substitude for religion for the post-modern left.  The whole artifice of the modern environmetalist movement is a bunch of bizarre religious claptrap: organic farming, opposition to GM food, peak oil, population bomb, vegan/vegetarianism, global warming, noble savages (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Avatar), sustainable development.

A bunch of retarded fundies.

I'll agree with that. Environmentalism has become a religion for many people. I think that is actually worse than many of the God religions out there simply on the grounds that Religions lose many of their more stupid ideas over time when they get proven wrong the hard way (massacres, torture, death etc.).

The thing about the issues you bring up as examples is that they are real issues but when presented as a black and white conflict you get silly solutions. E.G. what makes the Peak Oil hypothesis silly is not the obviously true assertion that there is a finite ammount and that in each field production peaks at some time during it's lifetime, but the chicken little style assertion that we are about to run out today or this week or this year or this decade (or this century to be honest).

Global warming is real, it is happening we still don't know precisely what will happen and how quickly but we know the kinds of things that will happen. Just because there is a loony left on this issue doesn't give you licence to be on the loony right. There is a real discussion to be had about how much prevention; how much mitigation and how much compensation we should have. At the moment I'm on the level of cutting emissions to prevent Shanghai and Calcutta being swallowed by the sea, mitigating the effects in Bangladesh by building leveés and just paying the people of Mauritius, Tuvalu and other minor islands money and give them citizenship elsewhere to compensate them for the sinking of their countries. These are political and econmic issues that are still open for discussion and are subject to human values and judgement; however Global Warming is happening; Global Climate Change is a fact.

[Syt]

I agree with Viking. 

[The Brain]

 

[Hansmeister]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.

Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.

In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.

I note that this graph stops 20 years ago, I wonder why. 

Just more fake science.  If you only look at a very narrow time in history you can see a correlation, expand the horizon and it disappears.  A snapshot in time ain't shit.

[Hansmeister]

Global Climate Change is a fact.

Of course global climate change is a fact, and why is it suddenly called "climate change" instead of "global warming"?

The global climate has always changed and will always change, it is absolutely silly to try to do something about that.  And of course it is silly to think that there is a certain climate norm from which we are somehow deviating.  There is nothing in the current climate record that is out of the ordinary, heck, it is still cooler than it was during the medieval warming period.  There is nothing unusual going on with the see level, and to think that you can do something to change that his the height of delusion.

Somebody who is a progressive would adapt to changing environments instead of tilting at windmills.  But then again the environmentalist movement is insane.

[The Brain]

Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.

[CountDeMoney]

Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.

Tell that to the energy sector.  Oh wait, they don't really want to build any.