Indeed, "an alchemy of computer models to guess an outcome in a system with so many variables" one of the best descriptors I have heard in a while!

Human beings for sure warm the planet. How much? Somewhere between something and next to nothing. I don't really care to bother with the topic that uses an alchemy of computer models to guess an outcome in a system with so many variables.

Thanks for the detailed answer. I agree with parts about "fault" and increased taxes. I think the rest of it is anti-scientific. The two "sides" arguing and trying to shift the burden for "incontrovertible proof" to other "side" and "lay blame" is for talking heads and politicians whose job it is to sell a narrative. The current evidence overwhelmingly shows human activities are changing the climate in costly ways. I admire Al Gore for packaging that information in a way that's easy to understand and pushing for action.

If you just don't accept the science, it's a dead-end for me. Science is open to new evidence, so maybe it will turn to be like the scientific knowledge that margarine is more healthful than butter. New evidence disproved it. I hope by some miracle it turns out homeopathy is real, Taco Bell is healthful, and seven billion people living industrial lives on earth has no effect on the climate. Unfortunately I see them all as very unlikely.

Is your use of the words "fault" and "blame" intentional? "Laying blame" is some combination of childish, misanthropic, and manipulative. I'm not saying you're doing that. I think you're just accidentally adopting politicians' language.

CG, I was thinking of the use of the guilt syndrome the Climate Change peddlers use. It is always "mans" fault", it can't be just cosmic progression, solar changes, environmental changes of a cosmic timescale, it is always "man made climate change". There are thoeries, there are conjectures, and there are chains of logic that have been put forth blaming man (which then seems to always trickle down to what THEY want me to pay for in increased taxes, fees, and licenses) without ever showing me incontrovertible proof with data, that I am to blame. One side produces their data to prove it, then the other produces their data to say no. It cannot go both ways, and I have some question as to whether 200 years would be enough to cause such an impact, and if really true, then a lot more could be done from a technological perspective (of which some things are actually in progress), to address it aggressively. "We have to accept the evidence we have today" indeed, but whose evidence? I have seen scientific discussions that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that CO2 is the ultimate weapon, and then other discussions, just as scientific, that say it's all BS and is physically and mathematically impossible for it to happen. I have seen it used as political leverage to advance others agendas, usually with dollar signs attached to them. That is why I do not subscribe to either side, beyond the fact that it does seem some form of climate change may be in motion, and I really think we do not have the power or tools to control it, especially when there is no defined root cause.
" The current mass-extinction and a large percentage of global warming are "our fault" in the sense human activities causes them,", I must respectfully disagree here, I do noit believe there is sufficient evidence to lay blame anywhere yet. Al Gore started this train, and no one has ever been able to stop it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-g...

http://www.naturalnews.com/053992_Inc...

This one is a supporter of the theory, however, if you look at the Hurricane data there is an set of peaks dating back to 1880 that sort of belie the idea of having been able to effect climate back then. In addition, they pull out the ocean conveyor belt idea, that, when it occurs, will throw us right back into a deep Ice Age. That was proposed as a trigger cause for all Ice Ages about 20 years ago by a Japanese Oceanographer, whose work was poo-pooed as "just theory".:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/c...

Bottom line for me is I just do not have enough reliable data to buy into either side of the story beyond "Yep it does look like things are changing".

"definitive proof that it is all my (man's) fault."
There are two problems in this phrase.
1. Humans influencing the environment is not intrinsically a fault. The environment only has value, in human terms, as a place for us to live and make/do things we like. As soon as hunter gather bands started spreading, it started changing the environment and started the current mass extinction event. Even hunter-gather bands sometimes understood the effects of their actions and knew things like hunting young animals decreases the population and reduces value for people next year. Now that there are 7 billion of us, there's even more value at stake. The current mass-extinction and a large percentage of global warming are "our fault" in the sense human activities causes them, but they word fault wrongly implies there's something immoral about it.
2. Science doesn't operate on definitive proof. We have to accept the evidence we have today, always being open to knew evidence. It's the opposite from law where attorneys pick one theory of the case and look for evidence to support it, leaving the responsibility of other theories of the case to the opposing side.

"not inject their politics into it."
This unfortunately happens to a lot of things, even to a project to make an electronic product or something. It's very easy for someone to look at how our actions broadly affect other people and say, "see, we should think of humans all as one big family." The problem is the logic that human actions having broad effects --> collective.

I agree, and not inject their politics into it. Gore set them down the road of commitment to it, and they have never wavered or examined the data (all the data, not just the stuff that fits their view) and produced any definitive proof that it is all my (man's) fault.

I think it's reasonable expect a president to at least acknowledge he accepts science, esp about things that make some people reject science based on their own desires: global warming, vaccines, UFOs, GMOs, evolution, homeopathy. Of course part of science is we're always open to new evidence. I expect someone at that level to be able to articulate what the science shows, how that's different from our desires of what it should be, and that science is a process of figuring things out.

Actually, I would rather see facts and then conjecture based on them, and have it presented as either a theory or a fact based statement of condition. No guesses, not interpretation, just what is really happening. Too much pontificating on both sides, but the CC gang took over the bus and that was all she wrote.

Thanks for the tip.

You have to believe in what you do. When we teach the Scientific Method - my essay here http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... - we do not admit that a previous Step Zero had to exist. Scientists investigate whatever they know to be interesting. How they know is not taught - and perhaps cannot be taught. Similarly, you can teach artistic technique, but you cannot teach talent.

The value in the scientific method is that it is an objective test. If you cannot present your discovery in that format, then it is not science.

Again, by close analogy, the Babylonians had tables of Pythagorean Triples, but had no proof, no conceptual formulation of why this must be true.

So, I have no problem with a scientist arguing for his theory, even long after everyone else has taken a different path. Edward Morely of Michelson-Morely spent the rest of his life trying to work out the "problems" in the experiment in order to get back to "ether." On the other hand, Georg Ohm was ridiculed in his own time. Now, Ohm's Law is unquestioned.

What I see here is that anti-Climate Change is the mainstream. And to me it sounds like an expression of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics that was identified by Richard Hofstadter in the previous century.

Exactly. and that is why I thought what I thought about mass.

Maybe, it illustrates the argument. Sounds good, kinda like why black holes do their thing...

I would not say anyone has labeled scientists as common whores, I would say that you must question their veracity, especially when a lot of them have made a cottage industry of one issue or another, and their jobs depend on government funding for that issue. There are a lot of people who have made Climate Change into their money machine, selling power, influence or data that favors one position or another (both sides do it). No argument about some ae objective, but a lot seem to be conviently in line with the majority when it comes to their area and "the big issue" of the moment. A few years ago it was energy, and oil exploration, then renewables, now Climate Change. This is not the only arena where it happens, look at where government throws money, and you will know where the data is suspect (remember Solyandra?) Electric cars were another one. I don';t know how or if Tesla ever took any money, but Elon Musk seems to be doing ok.

Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong on climate change. Meanwhile they tell me that the Arctic ocean is navigable for the first time in recorded history. I haven't gone up there to see for myself. For all I now it could be the product of a Hollywood sound stage like that moon walk thing.

I resent that a lot of gulchers seem to label scientists who accept grants as common whores. I've known quite a few over the course of my career who are pretty objective. Most of them had a lot of integrity irrespective of who paid them--same for engineers. Who would you be more likely to trust to build a bridge, a politician or an engineer? A politician may have his name on it, but he didn't design it.

As for climate change it appears to be a mixed blessing. Like as ice disappears there will be more
arable land, but less--or too much rain fall. Some eskimos will be homeless. Polar bears will devolve to be just plain old brown bears. I'd advise that that if you own land on the coast, you should pray for the best but prepare for the worst.

I think your statement might be more correct in "mass has gravity" Because the atoms attract each other. The more there are the more gravity there is?

Really, that illustrates how little is understood of "settled science". I have heard Mass HAS gravity, causes gravity, etc, yet I have seen forces created by some materials scientists that seemingly repel gravity, but actually is using magnetic repulsion. You Tube has a bunch of good videos on some of the stuff being done...

Actually you heard it here first, MASS IS gravity

That has been said to be true....

Dob, I agree that there are many other factors ignored by the CC believers. I also believe most of them have a direct connection to money involved in it. If Al Gore was a true believer, he wouldn't be flying around in one of the worst "man made climate change" polluting aircraft. But then, it's all about money, and his importance to himself...

CG, accepting reality is a key to a lot of issues today. I agree your own actions may be worth more than a petition, but I do not sign petitions that conflict with my beliefs, and I do not believe we need to "Publicly acknowledge CC is real and man made" since I have yet to see any proof it is man made. Just their own beliefs they want to be fact. Again, I am betting there is grant money for each of those names involved.

It is accepting a fraudulent reality , one that cheats lies and ignores data to push their bogus theory.
Estimate for -27 for low tomorrow night -60 with wind chill and it's not winter yet. Man made pollution is a reality , that we have any effect on the weather is arrogance! the sun and its cycles can be studied and that will show the climate change is a constant . Solar flares , or lack there of ,CME , planetary alignment these effect the weather. Just checkout Adapt2030 .

There is no gravity the Earth just sucks

"I am not sure if these guys really have a belief,"
It's just accepting reality. I would sign their petition if I thought it mattered. What I personally do, though, matters more than petitioning others. I would probably get more return by giving up Taco Bell, although signing the petition is far easier. This is part of accepting reality, regardless of what we wish were true.

I can go with the clean energy thing, only because a real producer will no doubt find a way to do it cheaply, and still make it work right, and do a good thing at the same time. But these guys are still hanging on to the "drink the damn koolaid" theory.

So, I got a petition from Change.org, that shows just how rabid these "scientists" are to stick to their story:

President-elect Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, vowed to dismantle America's climate and clean energy policies, and appointed climate deniers with ties to the fossil fuel industry to his transition team and Cabinet.

There is too much at stake for us to stay silent. Human-caused climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety. That's why we and over 800 of our colleagues, all of whom work on climate, energy, or Earth science, have written an open letter (read here) urging Donald Trump to take 6 key steps to address climate change:

1) Make America a clean energy leader.
2) Reduce carbon pollution and America's dependence on fossil fuels.
3) Enhance America's climate preparedness and resilience.
4) Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.
5) Protect scientific integrity in policymaking.
6) Uphold America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Please join us in urging President-elect Trump to #ActOnClimate by signing this petition.

Thank you,

Dr. Suzanne P. Anderson, Professor of Geography, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder

Dr. Catherine Gautier, Professor Emerita, Department of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara

Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University

Dr. Dan Kammen, Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Science Envoy, US State Department

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. R. Pamela Reid, Professor of Marine Geosciences, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami

Dr. Cindy Shellito, Professor of Meteorology, University of Northern Colorado

Dr. Richard C. J. Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego

Dr. Sarah Ann Woodin, Carolina Distinguished Professor Emerita, Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina

I am not sure if these guys really have a belief, or if it just fits their funding requests...