Good afternoon, estesbob,
You can discount Mann and Hansen and any ten other researchers if you want to. It is not as if they are the only ones claiming MMGW is true. You also have the majority of climate scientists independent of these saying the same thing.
Once again we must keep in mind one does not get a degree in “climate science”. the definition of “climate scientist” is any scientist who believes in man made global warming
Most of them are relying on Mann’s and Hansen’s data points.
Once again you are wrong. I’ve posted this twice before, so I’ll just give you a link to one of those postings. (posting #444)
That is incorrect speculation. There is plenty of original research being done on the subject.
“One can assume…”???
Yes, one can. Assuming a baseline without specifying much about it is not really assuming much anyway.
An organization that puts dictatorships like Cuba on its human rights commission, and Iran on a commission for the rights of women, cannot be trusted to be honest in any other way.
Cuba is just one of the 53 countries on the UN Human Rights Council with representatives allocated from each region of the world. It is hard to fill out a roster with such wide representation without including at least some dictatorships. If we followed your advice, the Human Rights Council would have only the US and its best friends. That would just feed into the accusation by our adversaries that the UN is just a tool of the US. If we want to have a credible Human Rights Council that much of the world will listen to, then it must represent much of the world, not just the parts of it that we like.
What you’re saying is that international politics drives the UN into subjectivism. Possibly that’s inevitable in an international organization that admits the worst along with the best. But it also requires any thinking person to realize that subjectivism drives the organization, and that therefore it cannot be taken seriously in most of its actions and pronouncements.
No, I’m not saying that. But it is the nature of debate that you must listen to ideas you believe are objectively wrong. Listening to them does not make you a subjectivist. But to decide you will only listen to those who agree with you is to cut off all debate.
That is a strawman argument for me since I don’t support cap and trade.
12 missiles were found “hidden” in a classroom in a UN school in the Gaza Strip. I wouldn’t trust the UN as far as I could throw them.
Before you start making more claims, I think you should acknowledge your mistake in posting 1251.
First point. Since we know what the “ideas” of the likes of Cuba on human rights and of Iran on womens’ rights already, why should we feel any obligation to listen to them? I did not say listening to them makes one a subjectivist; only that the “moral” declarations of the UN are untrustworthy because they are based on subjectivism. The truth is objective.
That is certainly debatable.
You do not have to rely solely on the IPCC. Much of the research they present was gathered by scientists with no financial ties to the IPCC. The IPCC is not paying the salaries of all those doing research in climate science.
Did any of these scientists predict a 17 year “pause” in global warming?
The pause is only a problem if you don’t understand what global warming is.
No, it is much easier than that to falsify global warming, and you can do it right away. No need to wait another minute. All you have to do is find an alternate explanation for where all the heat from the sun goes that is still compatible with conservation of energy and other well-established principles of science. Or, if you are feeling really brave, try to find evidence that one of those well-established principles of science is actually false. But don’t be too discouraged. It has happened before. The Einsteinian revolution in science did unseat some principles that people, even scientists, thought were well established, such as the universal nature of time and distance measurements.
Science is not based on trust. Implicit in every scientific claim is the invitation to look for yourself and prove it wrong if you can. The claims and research methods are, in principle, accessible to all. But I suppose if you don’t have the time to travel to Greenland yourself to make a temperature measurement, or measure the thickness of the ice sheet, then I guess you have to trust. But in principle you could check these things for yourself.
In short not none of them predicted a 17 year pause but we have to believe in global warming anyway until someone can explain why the earth is warming other than from an increase in Co2 even though the earth is not warming. Makes perfect sense to me:shrug:
Almost anyone’s knowledge about this is derivative, even that of people who write articles about it. Almost nobody goes to Greenland, for instance, to measure the thickness of the ice sheet, or can.