Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Wayward Son]

I remember the science community suggesting that we should not be arguing about global warming but climate change.

That is going to require a link.

It seems global warming was proven over the century and was the source of climate change. Temperatures rose about 1.5 degrees fahrenheit. Then, even though GHG emissions had accumulated and were increasing there was a 10 year lull in warming, something that should not have happened if the theory of global warming were correct.

It is unbelieveable that people still attempt to pass off the 10 year lull horse crap. No one should take you seriously. I am not going to bother responding to it, as undoubtedly people have shown you that this was a lie countless times and you ignored reality each time.

And you can check back on earlier threads the advocates of global warming were arguing about global warming not climate change.

What the hell are you even talking about? You are the person who is spreading the completely incorrect meme that it changed from global warming to climate change. I would perfectly expect that informed posters would have been using both terms in earlier threads as both terms applied in the past and both terms apply now.

Are you arguing about global warming? We should be arguing climate change. Ummm...was it the oil companies? Ok it was Bill Gates and Charles Koch a sort of bipartisan deal I guess.

Anyway here is what Muller said, "Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," said Muller. "While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations."

No we should not be arguing for one over the other. Just because you fall for the stupidity of the claims that Limbaugh and Beck spout doesn't meant that the rest of us are as gullible. The BEST study by Muller specifically looked at surface temperature. It was a study that looked only at the global warming part of climate change.

Get that? It is the best explanation we have found. Does this open the door to the fact there could some other explanation? Of course it does. Your statement that he found humans were responsible for almost 100% of it is not a fact. It is his best explanation.

Muller worded his statement that way for two reasons. 1) scientists always accept that all explanations are provisional. All results no matter how solid can always be overturned by a stronger explanation. Every finding is only the best we have found, and is always open to a better explanation. Evolution, gravity, the earth going round the sun.

However, just like for gravity and evolution, the bar is set extremely high. Not only would an alternative explanation have to fit better than the current explanation, but it would also need to explain how exactly it is that human released ghg emissions are not following known basic physical laws. So any alternative explanation would have to prove two things: first that an as of now unknown force or group of forces, is causing global warming at almost the exact rate that human ghg emissions should be and second that human ghg emissions are not affecting the climatic system even though well established basic science says that it must. If you want to side with that pile of stupidity that is fine, but at least be honest about the ridiculousness of such a position. 2) Muller was also trying to save face in arguing that his past skepticism was justified, when in reality the the data was already there but he had been duped by denier scams and misinformation.

Muller: "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

It seems that when a theory is decided upon in science these days all data that disagrees with the theory is tossed out.

What data has been tossed out?

The theory and its predictions are consequently taken up by true believers in science and politicians and presented as fact. It may be true that, all things remaining equal in the present course of events regarding climate means we will experience some dire consequences of climate change but I seriously doubt things will continue along as usual.

I base my positions on the best available evidence. Not on whether or not the evidence agrees with a political ideology. It is hardly a prediction to accept that ghg emissions released 10 years from now will behave in the same manner that ghg emissions always do. You on the other hand doubt things will continue along as usual. Bravo. Solid evidence based argument.

The government will save us with carbon taxes or something like that. Right?

This is completely irrelevant. There is the discussion of science, which is completely different from the discussion of policy decisions. Government policy decisions do not change scientific reality.

What you are saying is that we will continue along not making changes, not developing alternative energies, not decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels which will result in ice caps melting and seas rising and we won't be able to deal with that at all and people will die and there will be famines and just general disaster. That sky is falling mentality.

I have said absolutely no such thing. I have made no statement as to whether or not society will or will not develop alternative energies or alter fossil fuel use. Nor have I made any statement as to whether or not disaster, famines or die-offs will occur. None, nadda, zilch. You should be ashamed that your position is so devoid of evidence that you have to completely make up positions about your opponents to attack. My posts have been about the science - the thing that you completely ignore.

[wyly]

However, just like for gravity and evolution, the bar is set extremely high. Not only would an alternative explanation have to fit better than the current explanation, but it would also need to explain how exactly it is that human released ghg emissions are not following known basic physical laws. So any alternative explanation would have to prove two things: first that an as of now unknown force or group of forces, is causing global warming at almost the exact rate that human ghg emissions should be and second that human ghg emissions are not affecting the climatic system even though well established basic science says that it must. If you want to side with that pile of stupidity that is fine, but at least be honest about the ridiculousness of such a position. 2) Muller was also trying to save face in arguing that his past skepticism was justified, when in reality the the data was already there but he had been duped by denier scams and misinformation.

oh! good one...I tried to explain a number of times GHG's must have an effect due to known physical laws they can do nothing else but the deniers here just ignore it, it's something they're incapable of explaining away...

it never occurred to me that any denier explanation for the warming must have the identical effect plus neutralize the effects of GHGs ...science gone mad!...they're shown a scientifically sound explanation which they reject as implausible then they proceed to come up with an even more implausible explanation...

What the hell are you even talking about? You are the person who is spreading the completely incorrect meme that it changed from global warming to climate change. I would perfectly expect that informed posters would have been using both terms in earlier threads as both terms applied in the past and both terms apply now.

maybe they're deniers with alzheimer's Edited September 20, 2012 by wyly

[jbg]

which is what we've been telling pliny, shady,simple and all the members of the deniers club for a number of years...but they keep going back to old talking points as if nothing has changed...accurate facts have no relevance to their mindset...

I am in that club but object to the term "denier". To put us in the same category as Mel Gibson's dad is horrific.

[Keepitsimple]

which is what we've been telling pliny, shady,simple and all the members of the deniers club for a number of years...but they keep going back to old talking points as if nothing has changed...accurate facts have no relevance to their mindset...

Wyly - the facts - as you choose to believe - are based on theories and computer models. These are not facts. I've always had trouble with the overall theory that we are on our way to Armegeddon due to real-life observations. If someone ever gets around to explaining some of these observational facts, then I could start to change my opinion.

1) Possibly the most intense CO2 build-up occurred after World War Two as industry skyrocketed with Oil and Coal use......yet temperatures actually cooled for a 30 year period until if memory serves correctly, the early 80's. Does this not demonstrate that natural variability can overwhelm the influence of CO2?

2) The Mideival Warming period was as warm, if not warmer than today - in spite of less CO2. There is some argument that this was a regional anomole but recent findings seem to indicate it was more than that. Does it not hold water that once again, natural variability has overwhelmed any human influence? Nonetheless, one would have just as strong an argument that the Arctic "warming" is a regional anomole - there is no place on the planet that has been similarly affected.

3) In spite of the bombast of the alarmists, the fact is that Global temperatures have barely moved up or down over the past 10 years - in spite of CO2 increasing steadily. One could make a strong argument that if you remove the Arctic anonole, Global temperatures have cooled.

Yes, it's warmer now than it was 15 years ago - or 40 years ago - or 100 years ago....but that's because natural climate variation has the planet in a warming cycle. As I've said more than once, the true deniers are those who will not admit that there COULD be natural causes that have more of an impact on climate than the tunnel-visin approach of looking through a carbon-colored lens.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, it's warmer now than it was 15 years ago - or 40 years ago - or 100 years ago....but that's because natural climate variation has the planet in a warming cycle. As I've said more than once, the true deniers are those who will not admit that there COULD be natural causes that have more of an impact on climate than the tunnel-visin approach of looking through a carbon-colored lens.

Of course there could be causes, but the impact of CO2 has been known for years and the increase parallels a general increase in temperature. There are few if any climate scientists who dispute that.

What happens if you're wrong ?

[wyly]

Of course there could be causes, but the impact of CO2 has been known for years and the increase parallels a general increase in temperature. There are few if any climate scientists who dispute that.

there you go, another denier spins more lies, that the no one is aware of natural cause of climate change but the denier/conspiracy world...imagine that, climatologists are unaware of natural causes and never studied those previous periods or bothered to look at their causes to determine what is going on now...and still no acknowledgement that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, absolute denial of an established scientific fact...

What happens if you're wrong ?

really? now you're asking a question that requires much more critical thinking of people who are stumped by some basic science...

but I'll answer the question-if climatologists are wrong we end up with a cleaner planet and healthy environment...if they're right and nothing is done to reduce emissions worst case scenario, the oceans die and us along with them...

Edited September 18, 2012 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

there you go, another denier spins more lies, that the no one is aware of natural cause of climate change but the denier/conspiracy world...imagine that, climatologists are unaware of natural causes and never studied those previous periods or bothered to look at their causes to determine what is going on now...and still no acknowledgement that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, absolute denial of an established scientific fact...

I don't know what you're going on about. Is it sarcasm ? Sarcasm doesn't come across very well in print in a context like this.

The earth was warmer in the past. The arctic was subtropical in the past. It doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't cause warming. I'm at a loss to respond because I don't get the point.

[Keepitsimple]

there you go, another denier spins more lies, that the no one is aware of natural cause of climate change but the denier/conspiracy world...imagine that, climatologists are unaware of natural causes and never studied those previous periods or bothered to look at their causes to determine what is going on now...and still no acknowledgement that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, absolute denial of an established scientific fact...

Excuse me - but what lies did I spin? And for the record, of course it's a proven fact that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and of course a Greenhouse effect is in play. Thank God - or we'd freeze to death! The question has always been to what extent the buildup of CO2 contributes to any warming that may occur. The examples I put forward demonstrate that natural variability overwhelms CO2....making it fairly obvious that Natural causes are the prime driver of the Climate. That's the humorous part of this dialogue - "deniers" as you call them - actually acknowledge much of the theory - but we're not convinced that humans and CO2 are the prime drivers of the warming that has stopped occurring . Your side - the true deniers - simply refuse to temper their arguments with any possibility that natural causes could be more in play than was originally thought back in the 90's - when temperatures had an unusual spike. And around and around we go.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[gunrutz]

there you go, another denier spins more lies, that the no one is aware of natural cause of climate change but the denier/conspiracy world...imagine that, climatologists are unaware of natural causes and never studied those previous periods or bothered to look at their causes to determine what is going on now...and still no acknowledgement that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, absolute denial of an established scientific fact...

really? now you're asking a question that requires much more critical thinking of people who are stumped by some basic science...

but I'll answer the question-if climatologists are wrong we end up with a cleaner planet and healthy environment...if they're right and nothing is done to reduce emissions worst case scenario, the oceans die and us along with them...

So climate change has basically become your religion, further study is not required because we know Al Gore came down from the mount with the AGW tablets in his hands, end of story. But yet studies like this one from last year http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html seem to indicate there could still be some large factors at play that we don't completely understand. I am all for reducing pollution, i certainly believe that we could be warming the planet, but there is no evidence that proves it is us alone, or that this isn't natural as it has happened before, nor will any of this minor warming prevent the inevitable ice age that will at some point devastate man kind when it comes, if we are still around. Climate changes, with or without our assistance, the small changes we might be forcing are nothing compared to those that have and will happen naturally. It is you who are the denier, the denier of possibilities beyond our control or understanding, i accept the possibility of any outcome with the knowledge that if it is solely our doing we won't accept it until it is already too late, that is our nature. We will then have to adapt, just like we always have, we survived much, much worse, like the last ice age, and times when the planet was warmer than it is now. You really believe that scientists have all the answers? There are numerous examples from history where they had all the answers, and then didn't, for you it is dogma, for some it is a consideration.

[bleeding heart]

Your side - the true deniers - simply refuse to temper their arguments with any possibility that natural causes could be more in play than was originally thought back in the 90's - when temperatures had an unusual spike. And around and around we go.

That's flatly untrue.

Read it to yourself and try to keep a straight face.

[bleeding heart]

There are numerous examples from history where they had all the answers, and then didn't, for you it is dogma, for some it is a consideration.

And this is precisely the view to which you should be adhering--recognizing the distinct (actually, likely) possibility that your view is beset by dogma and foolishness...and you should be open-minded enough to try to look at things from another perspective.

You may or may not have noticed, but the denier side is demonstrably less well-read on the subject than is the other camp. That alone is not proof, but it should give one a bit of pause, at least.

Edited September 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[wyly]

I don't know what you're going on about. Is it sarcasm ? Sarcasm doesn't come across very well in print in a context like this.

The earth was warmer in the past. The arctic was subtropical in the past. It doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't cause warming. I'm at a loss to respond because I don't get the point.

apologies if I confused the issue it wasn't directed at you but simple's logic...

the denier world believes they are they only ones who are aware of previous climate fluctuations, and climatologists never used those periods that as baseline to compare with...no one has claimed that there haven't been climate fluctuations in the past, no one... and no one has ever claimed all previous warmings are caused by CO2, no one...deniers are attributing an argument to climatologists that they have never claimed...

then simple still denies CO2 is a GHG, even though it clearly is and therefore must have an influence on climate, it can do nothing else but follow the physical laws of science...

Edited September 18, 2012 by wyly

[Moonbox]

the denier world believes they are they only ones who are aware of previous climate fluctuations, and climatologists never used those periods that as baseline to compare with

I think the belief is that this information is mostly being ignored and climate science is focusing merely on computer models. The philosophy is that it's in the best interest of climate scientists to make things seem as horrible as possible so as to get people more interested in their work and encourage more funding.

The other problem is how unpleasant people like you are when talking about this sort of thing. If anyone has a question or concern or shows uncertaintity, or God forbid a problem with the suggested course of action, they receive heaps of ridicule and gets lumped into the 'crazy denier' pile. The movement does share a lot in common with religious dogma and for a lot of people, like myself, that's scary.

[wyly]

The other problem is how unpleasant people like you are when talking about this sort of thing. If anyone has a question or concern or shows uncertaintity, or God forbid a problem with the suggested course of action, they receive heaps of ridicule and gets lumped into the 'crazy denier' pile. The movement does share a lot in common with religious dogma and for a lot of people, like myself, that's scary.

having a respectable debate with legitimate skeptics who weigh the facts honestly no longer exists, objective critical thinking skeptics have accepted AGW...but these aren't skeptics, all that are left are deniers like shady, simple and jerry, who repeat the same mantra over and over..."it was warm before", "it used to be called global warming then they changed it to climate change"...the latter has been corrected, verified here repeatedly for a number of years on the forum to those same deniers, yet they keep repeating the same BS...when it's been definitively demonstrated repeatedly 2+2=4 and they still insist it's 1.5 then they deserve the ridicule, they are crazy...if deniers aren't interested in having an honest debate I'm not concerned with hurting their feelings when they behave in a dishonest manner...

deniers are typical of religious dogma absolute blind faith despite zero evidence to support their beliefs in spite mountains of hard data to the contrary...this creationism vs evolution all over again...

[Wayward Son]

I am in that club but object to the term "denier". To put us in the same category as Mel Gibson's dad is horrific.

Denier is the proper term. Whether you object to being placed in the same category as others who deserve the term is irrelevant.

The term skeptic/sceptic that is often used is completely incorrect for those who deny climate science. Skeptic magazine (produced by the skeptics society) made this point starting in about 2007 with a multi-day conference in which they invited prominent proponents and prominent "skeptics" of climate change. Those who were proponents brought the science and evidence and showed why denier claims were baseless and pseudo-science. Those who called themselves skeptics brought forth no evidence or science to support their position, but complained that science has been wrong before and being skeptical about things is good. They could not use their normal ridiculous claims that they use to dupe the general public because those easily debunked claims would have been shot down instantly by people who actually knew what they were talking about. The position of the skeptics society is that until those who doubt the scientific consensus can come up with something that is not complete nonsense the proper skeptical position is to favour the evidence and science. I am sure that this was not an easy position for them to take. The head of the organization, Michael Shermer, is a Libertarian who doubted the scientific consensus for many years, but had the integrity to accept the science despite the difficulty that meant for his libertarian political philosophy. Skeptic Magazine has published 3 editions on climate change (vol 14-1; 15-4 and 17-2) showing what the science is, why denier claims are wrong, and why deniers are not skeptics.

CSI's magazine Skeptical Inquirer has also had several issues on climate change (31.3 and 34.2) coming to the same conclusion: skeptics accept the best science and evidence, and skepticism does not mean falling for baseless, conspiracy mongering nonsense. At this point it is on basically par with creationism.

[Keepitsimple]

apologies if I confused the issue it wasn't directed at you but simple's logic...

the denier world believes they are they only ones who are aware of previous climate fluctuations, and climatologists never used those periods that as baseline to compare with...no one has claimed that there haven't been climate fluctuations in the past, no one... and no one has ever claimed all previous warmings are caused by CO2, no one...deniers are attributing an argument to climatologists that they have never claimed...

then simple still denies CO2 is a GHG, even though it clearly is and therefore must have an influence on climate, it can do nothing else but follow the physical laws of science...

Whoa Wyly - don't blow a gasket!.....but please don't misrepresent my simple positions. I have never argued against CO2 being a Greenhouse Gas. I have simply argued that the effect caused by CO2 has not been proven to be the major driver of Climate Change.....and I personally believe that CO2's effect on Climate is minimal. What is minimal - less than 25%, less than 15%? I don't have a clue - but neither it seems, does anyone else.....and therein lies the crux of the argument.

Wyly - is there a concise explanation for why temperatures went down during the 30 years following WWII - and why CO2 went up? Is there really an explanation for the Medeival Warming period - a huge uptick in temperature with little CO2 contribution. And how about the flat temperatures of the past 10 or 12 years - in spite of the regional anomole of Arctic warming - a warming not seen anywhere else on the planet?

Truth is, there are no good answers - yet....because we still don't know enough.....but go ahead and take a stab at it Wyly. But remember - observation is the best test of Science.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Moonbox]

deniers are typical of religious dogma absolute blind faith despite zero evidence to support their beliefs in spite mountains of hard data to the contrary...this creationism vs evolution all over again...

Understood, but at the same time you have to understand that the other side is guilty of the same sort of blind zeal. Most people can't hope to understand a scientific climate model nor the findings of a climate scientist, yet they're more than happy to pile on and lynch someone who's raising questions.

To the average person, what's the difference between a clergyman from the Middle Ages telling his flock the way nature worked and a climate scientist telling us what the computer models show us? The average person just accepts what he's told and comes to believe it as fact, unable to verify it himself.

A climate change 'denier' is one thing. A climate change 'skeptic' is something altogether. Some skepticisim is healthy. The possibility that climate scientists haven't been accurate or that some of them are dishonest should always be entertained.

[Wayward Son]

Wyly - the facts - as you choose to believe - are based on theories and computer models. These are not facts.

You do understand what a scientific theory is? The theory consists of countless facts.

I've always had trouble with the overall theory that we are on our way to Armegeddon due to real-life observations. If someone ever gets around to explaining some of these observational facts, then I could start to change my opinion.

Of course you would. You have a couple questions that if only someone would ever get around to explaining them - although they have been explained long ago - then you may start to change your mind. Conspiracy theorists don't change their mind when one of their straw dummies is knocked down, they just build another one and commit the same argument from incredulity logical fallacy.

1) Possibly the most intense CO2 build-up occurred after World War Two as industry skyrocketed with Oil and Coal use......yet temperatures actually cooled for a 30 year period until if memory serves correctly, the early 80's. Does this not demonstrate that natural variability can overwhelm the influence of CO2?

I guess you will have to see why Muller's BEST results found such a great match between surface temperature and CO2 concentration going back in 1750 - and that match gets stronger and stronger as time goes by and the ever greater concentration of CO2 overwhelms other factors that had previously contributed to natural variability. From 1750 to 1950 the correlation is very strong. From 1950 until 1990 it is very very strong. From 1990 to present it is probably the strongest correlation I have ever seen in nature. And this is what one would expect as the CO2 concentration increased the correlation grew stronger and stronger. Maybe you will find him wrong and then publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you can come back here and I will personally congratulate you on proving me wrong. On the other hand, it could be you that is wrong.

2) The Mideival Warming period was as warm, if not warmer than today - in spite of less CO2. There is some argument that this was a regional anomole but recent findings seem to indicate it was more than that. Does it not hold water that once again, natural variability has overwhelmed any human influence? Nonetheless, one would have just as strong an argument that the Arctic "warming" is a regional anomole - there is no place on the planet that has been similarly affected.

No one on here has made the claim that only CO2 levels affect climate. People have long understood that there are multiple forces that can and do cause climate change. However, scientists have tested those forcing factors and none of those forces are a factor today. One forcing factor does exist - ghg gases - and we are pumping more and more of it into the atmosphere every year. So your position is that you understand very well that forces can affect climate change, but refuse to accept the ONLY forcing factor that is present today. That makes sense.

And furthermore the Arctic is not the only region that is warming. Have you even bothered to look at the pictures of the globe which show heating (red) and cooling trends (blue)? That regional area you speak of spans the whole globe.

3) In spite of the bombast of the alarmists, the fact is that Global temperatures have barely moved up or down over the past 10 years - in spite of CO2 increasing steadily. One could make a strong argument that if you remove the Arctic anonole, Global temperatures have cooled.

Muller's results which dealt with land surface temperatures have showed that when you remove the fluctuations of El Nino there is no evidence of this so called temperature stagnation. As as Muller states you could use the years 1980 through 1995 to show cooling, just as people falsely use the years 1998 through 2010. But we know that during those 3 decades temperatures increased big time. That shows the dishonesty of cherry picking specific dates.

Yes, it's warmer now than it was 15 years ago - or 40 years ago - or 100 years ago....but that's because natural climate variation has the planet in a warming cycle.

So let me get this straight....you know that the planet is warmer because of natural climate variations due to a warming cycle...yet the scientific community managed to miss that? If that is not the most arrogant thing I have ever read, I don't know is.

As I've said more than once, the true deniers are those who will not admit that there COULD be natural causes that have more of an impact on climate than the tunnel-visin approach of looking through a carbon-colored lens.

No one has ever said that there could not be natural causes. What we have said is that the scientific community has looked into natrual causes and none of them have been impacting this period of warming, at the same time there is an obvious anthropogenic cause - ghg gasses that does fit the data. If you are going to use this line of reasoning, you should at least go for a supernatural cause: astrology, an angry god, something like that.

[Wayward Son]

what's the difference between a clergyman from the Middle Ages telling his flock the way nature worked and a climate scientist telling us what the computer models show us? The average person just accepts what he's told and comes to believe it as fact, unable to verify it himself.

The second is based on peer review, needs to conform with basic scientific laws and principles, is built on evidence, needs to be challenged and replicated by other scientists, and so on.

The sad part is that models themselves play a small role. The basic science was there first. Muller's BEST results for instance have nothing to do with models. The IPCC reports have only a little mention of models. The mast majority of it is about the scientific understanding of climate change without models. Models enhance what we already know. If the models are off one way or the other, the basic science still stands.

Because of the denier concentration on models, some have said that the scientific community would have been better off without them. I disagree, and feel that deniers would have just latched on to something else.

[Wayward Son]

I personally believe that CO2's effect on Climate is minimal.

Based on what? What evidence?

What is minimal - less than 25%, less than 15%? I don't have a clue - but neither it seems, does anyone else

You don't have a clue, but just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone else is equally clueless. Climate scientists didn't just use a hunch, like you did, they started with an understanding of science, and used methods to determine forcing factors. You guessed. They didn't. You are wrong. They are not.

[Keepitsimple]

You do understand what a scientific theory is? The theory consists of countless facts.

I guess you will have to see why Muller's BEST results found such a great match between surface temperature and CO2 concentration going back in 1750 - and that match gets stronger and stronger as time goes by and the ever greater concentration of CO2 overwhelms other factors that had previously contributed to natural variability. From 1750 to 1950 the correlation is very strong. From 1950 until 1990 it is very very strong. From 1990 to present it is probably the strongest correlation I have ever seen in nature. And this is what one would expect as the CO2 concentration increased the correlation grew stronger and stronger. Maybe you will find him wrong and then publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you can come back here and I will personally congratulate you on proving me wrong. On the other hand, it could be you that is wrong.

Theories are proven by observation.

Muller's BEST project was originally embraced by Sceptics and alarmists alike. It was meant to provide simple explanations to the complex task of measuring land temperatures - but it quickly evolved to a mish-mash of press releases prior to proper peer reviews and to this day has lost much, if not all credibility. Have a read here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/31/best_barnum/

[Wayward Son]

i certainly believe that we could be warming the planet, but there is no evidence that proves it is us alone, or that this isn't natural as it has happened before,

Actually there is a shit load of evidence. Just because you haven't looked for it doesn't mean that it does not exist.

We understand the historical forcing factors. We know that they are non factors at the moment. Could there be other forcing factors that we don't yet know of? Yes, but it is highly likely that any unknown ones would be small.

We also know how ghg's work as forcing factors. To argue that natural causes are a major player would require:

1) human ghg emissions to not work the way we know they work.

2) an unknown forcing factor being strong and yet unknown.

It would make more sense to believe in unicorns and fairies.

Earlier you showed a link to a study showing that we are constantly learning more, and we are, but there is a big difference between the very complicated science of how heat is transferred throughout the oceans (something that we already knew was happening, but need to learn more about), and the most less complicated science of understanding what forcing factors are.

the small changes we might be forcing are nothing compared to those that have and will happen naturally.

You know that changes humans are making are small how?

You know that the significant increase in ghg's into the atmosphere over a very short period of time is nothing compared to natural changes how?

A whole lot of certainty based on no evidence.

[Moonbox]

The second is based on peer review, needs to conform with basic scientific laws and principles, is built on evidence, needs to be challenged and replicated by other scientists, and so on.

but the average person has no idea is what I'm saying. I'm not saying the science and the religion are the same, I'm saying the average Joe's acceptance of whatever conclusions are popular is.

The mast majority of it is about the scientific understanding of climate change without models.

Isn't it true, however, that scientists don't have a perfect understanding of any of this? If this is the case, does it make it crazy to have people at least questioning their findings?

[Wayward Son]

Theories are proven by observation.

Theories are never proven, they can only be disproven.

Muller's BEST project was originally embraced by Sceptics and alarmists alike.

Muller's project was embraced by deniers until the very second that his data confirmed what dozens of other studies had also found. At that point those deniers - including the likes of Watts who said that he would accept the findings whether they agreed or disagreed with his position - went on the attack using their usual crap. That the likes of hardened deniers like Watts, McKitrick and Orlowski reacted in the way they have is not surprising. The deniers can yabber on they want about Muller (someone who I don't care for, but who I have been using because he because he was on the other side, and his results are recent) and his findings, but the reason they are concentrating on him on right now, is because they don't want their dupes to understand that his results simply confirmed what so many others had already found.

[Wayward Son]

but the average person has no idea is what I'm saying. I'm not saying the science and the religion are the same, I'm saying the average Joe's acceptance of whatever conclusions are popular is.

You are probably correct. I don't claim to understand how most people come to the conclusions they do, but I do know that they do not have a tendency to track down the best down the best evidence and evaluate it in an unbiased way.

Isn't it true, however, that scientists don't have a perfect understanding of any of this? If this is the case, does it make it crazy to have people at least questioning their findings?

It is true that scientists do not have a perfect understanding of anything. However, people should question things based on the degree of evidence available and the consensus or lack of consensus of the relevant experts. Scientists do not have a perfect understanding of evolution or gravity. However, people accept these theories unless they have an overwhelming ideology against it. The difference with climate change is that a small number of people with an overwhelming ideology against it have managed to convince a large percentage of people that a controversy exists even though no legitimate controversy exists.