Anthropomorphic Global Warming is done.
The science is unsettling, not settled. Even Phil 'hockey stick' Jones is saying that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
None.
The sad thing is, while I'm not a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination, this revelation has nothing new in it from my perspective. Ever since AGW has been a buzzword, I've realized we didn't have the right data, that there were too many stations near parking lots and air conditioners, and that it was hubris to consider we insects were having an impact of that magnitude on this mud ball we're all riding.
I'd enjoy the schadenfreude more if I didn't believe the tin ears in Washington will still be pushing Cap and Trade, mandatory carpooling, and any other hair brained scheme they think will give them more control over the details of your life. And the ignorati will vote them into office again and again, facts be damned.
Isn't it equally hubristic to assume we don't have an impact?
"And the rest of his quote is for everyone to read in the link, I'm not hiding jack shit. He's playing ass covering to the nth degree."
"This of course is coming from they same types who were claiming the ice age was coming, that acid rain would wash away cities, peak oil, ozone hole, yadda yadda yadda."
"Looking back at the historical records, ice core samples as far back as we can find, what we're experiencing now is no different that what has happened over millions of years. "
"That big ass fusion reactor we wake up to every morning has a hell of a lot more to do with changes in the temperature that we do as humans."
I think Alan is projecting.
"1 - Consensus != Science. Doesn't matter how many people believe that the tooth fairy is real."
2 - What are the degrees you hold that grant you the ability to come in here and claim authority on this subject?
Actually, no.
As usual, you're talking out of your butt.
AGW is highly arguable,
and as more and more of the facade over the data falls away,
you're going to find "the great majority" of people you're citing are quoting back to falsified data.
Only in your imagination.
They didn't "concede" it, they're going for the trillions of dollars in REDISTRIBUTED TAX MONIES.
It's a reply to your appeal to authority. You're really bad at this "debating" stuff, you know.
AGW has yet to ever make any prediction, or be able to even predict with known historical data without massive massaging. That's not settled science, that's not a valid hypothesis.
As I said, you're a lousy debater. (Wheras I am known as a a master debater.)
Guess what? IPCC data was falsified. Period.
They may have signed onto it, but we know that the IPCC data has lots of fraudulent data in it now. The question will be, how many of those will retract their "endorsement" (which as usual you overstate). Many are already distancing themselves.
We'll revisit this list in a year, shall we? And we'll see who on it is still citing IPCC as canonical..
More like I've got a scientific background and understand both that and the science behind both of those. You appear not to have that background or understanding.
Then why are you trying to shut down this debate and call people "deniers"?
You contradict yourself if you admit that anything is open to argument and debate, and then insist that there's no argument and debate to be had on this "scientific subject."
Or, if you'd been paying attention, for the very least, the "glacier claim" which was originally supposed to be a "math error" (2305 to 2035) ... then admitted to be a "guess" and finally back to someone's prose with no scientific backing. Just for starters. More is coming out as people are looking at those specific claims with scrutiny.
Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.
The "hacked emails" (which almost certainly weren't)
totally destroyed every shred of scientific credibility anybody directly involved with them.
Your attempt to discredit the leaker misses the point that it exposed scientific fraud and criminal behavior. Either of which are problematic for your view, and this illustrates the depth of your - yes - denial.
As to your "models predict" - the IPCC models did none of those things, and those were "fudges" to deal with the observed behavior that was not predicted.
More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.