Posted on 07/23/2017 4:25:25 PM PDT by Libloather
In the first part of your sentence, you admit to not knowing the cause of the warming - nor whether it is a natural cycle that is playing out. In the second part of the sentence, you state unequivocally that human activity is exacerbating the "problem", which cannot even truthfully be identified as a problem.
All things considered, the warming so far has been enormously beneficial. But, we should consider the risks of the warming turning into an unstoppable spiral.
Can you point me to any credible evidence of any such "unstoppable spiral"? The crux of the matter is that the alarmists are trying to steal a ton of money from US taxpayers with theoretical models that cannot conform to historical data (until the historical data is "corrected"), and does not account for all variables in the equation - not even water vapor, as I understand the current state of things. Water vapor is a huge contributor to the warming/cooling processes of the Earth.
Bluntly, any time I see blanket statements that attribute significant warming effects to 0.04% of the atmosphere's composition (i.e.: CO2), and further attribute significant effects to human-injected carbon dioxide, I know that the science being peddled is highly unscientific.
“Whatever has been causing, and may continue to cause the warming of the past two hundred years, we are adding to it.”
>This is my paraphrase of the alarmist position following the debunking of the Michael Mann position that there is no natural variation and all recent variation is therefore due to our activities (the Hockey Stick theory). You will have to get an alarmist to defend this statement (or whatever is their model for the interplay of natural variation and anthropomorphic global warming).
As I understand their models, volcanic eruptions temporally lower global temperature (because of the ordinary pollution emitted), and then temporality raise global temperature (because of the one-time release of CO2). This allows some flux in modeling the (recent) history of climate change, but - looking forward - it’s a straight line of increase (because they can’t predict when volcanos will erupt).
More recently, they’ve been putting historical temperature readings into their model, with projections from the surface areas for which we have measurements, to the oceans and elsewhere where we don’t have measurements. As we only have temperature readings from a small percentage of the Earth’s surface, most of the temperatures in their model are “psuedo-data” generated by their model. (And, don’t even get me started with how they adjust from the urban heat island effect, which is simply wrong.) As a consequence, their process of re-creating the past is transforming the recent history of global temperature into something consistent with their model.
I’m not a climatologist, but I can say from outside the discipline that the data generated by this process is incapable of testing the model. This point has been made in a recent paper.
I'm an engineer, and not a climatologist, either. But I can definitively say that any hypothesis which cannot be verified by empirical data, and cannot be falsified by empirical data, cannot be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory, and never a scientific law used to steal massive amounts of money.
If the climate alarmists want to be credible, they need to construct a model using their understanding of the scientific principles in play, construct an experiment to confirm or deny the veracity of their model, and use uncorrected data to show their model is accurate. They will also have to show that the model does not ignore some unknown trigger for natural processes which alleviate the warming they project, but that is a different issue.
Until they create such evidence supporting their position, they have no scientific position at all.
Under the scientific method, every hypothesis and theory is assumed false until proven true, and even then a single counter-example can invalidate all of the supportive data, if the hypothesis cannot be amended to include the counter-example.
For the climate alarmists, they seem to be determined to alter empirical data to fit the hypothesis that will most richly line their own pockets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.