It is not “the radical environmentalist mentality” that acknowledges the facts that July was the hottest month on record, June was the hottest June on record, the last 5 Julys were the 5 hottest Julys on record, and the 10 hottest Julys on record were all in the last 15 years.
Why do you conclude that rapidly elevating greenhouse gas levels do not warm the globe?
@Dino claimed that the observed climate change was an artifact of selection bias in measurement, citing a self-published study by a hack known for making whatever elementary boners necessary to reach the desired conclusion.
Of course. Are you pretending there's no inconclusive or contradictory evidence?
No. Are you pretending that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn’t about as strong as the evidence for, say, plate tectonics?
No, theres's not remotely as strong evidence for AGW.
So you can't quote the post, you have to spin it.
Disagreed. Consider again the evidence:
How much based on modeling , how much based on inconsistent and unreliable temperature acquisition data? How much fudged numbers and determined environmental activism? How much based on removing temperature monitoring from colder and more elevated areas? How much based on a differing standard from decades earlier?
Nope. It’s all very straightforward, transparent, and simple. But there has been a multi-billion-dollar PR campaign to convince a gullible public otherwise.
No. No it’s not.
Except they didn't.
If you ignore what the surveys of scientists and of the published literature say and invent a controversy which exists only BETWEEN scientists and their politically motivated critics ... not AMONG scientists.
I didn’t say that either. I said that the theory that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reliably lead to warming (as basic physics and chemistry say it will and as simple experiments as well as the natural experiment we are conducting with our children’s future can confirm) was straightforward, transparent, and simple. The climatic effects of adding the energy equivalent of about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second to the Earth’s energy balance are of course complex.
You’re just babbling.
“Theory” is the ultimate goal of science ... the hypothesis that withstands every challenge thrown at it. The measured temperature rise has been about 1 degree Celsius, and it has been demonstrated by statistical methods that the probability that the temperature would have risen to such an extent in the absence of anthropogenic forcings is less than 5%. The theory of greenhouse warming that is the proposed mechanism for the temperature rise that was first predicted, then observed to occur to within hundredths of a degree of the predicted likely amount, is uncontroversial and based on basic physics and chemistry. Storm frequencies have changed precisely as the models incorporating accelerated greenhouse warming have predicted. On the other hand, models that did not take into account humans’ effects have performed abysmally.
From the graduate of “Because I said so” University.
The findings are in virtually every article in every volume of Nature, Nature Climate Change, Journal of Climate, Climate Research, International Journal of Climatology, etc. ... as you might expect for a theory that is completely uncontroversial within the community of experts.
