On Mar 20, 12:08 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?

There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
variability.


But what's the overall trend since 1900?

If we're using 1900 as the benchmark, we have to conclude that Climate
change cannot possibly be the result of only man's activities -- the
level of industrialization, proliferation of the IC engine, and other
claimed generators of Co2 et al were minuscule in 1900, 1910, 1920,
1930 -- even 1940 -- compared to today's numbers. Shouldn't we see a
steep curve since, say, 1950 with the mass marketing and mass
industrialization?


-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see
referenced
report)

I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?


-- UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)
-- Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)
-- Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)
-- Call for new taxes
-- Appeal for new bureaucracies
-- It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")
-- Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.

Well, in our system, empirical evidence needs to be sifted, weighed
and then proferred to reach consensus. Only after consensus provides
political will do laws change and bureaucracies move.


-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)

Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.

Thus inconclusive, thus hardly a mandate.

-- Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")
-- Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")
-- "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")

You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.

Oops! You're right -- Fox News .. Let's chuck in NPR as well (where we
can always tune in to learn about some asexual rabbit's habitat being
swept away by some nasty human...)

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.

"Consensus science" is an oxymoron.



Dan Mc.