"Dan" wrote:


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?

We do. Note the graph of atmospheric CO2 ppmv:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...d_Flux_Rev_png

Compare it again to the instrumental temperature record:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com:80/i...ure_Record.png


-- 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"?

Again, what climate scientists are predicting is a global *average*
temperature increase, not nice, balmy weather everywhere. Furthermore, this
global temperature increase is very unevenly distributed:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...arming_Map_jpg

Snowstorms and frigid Januarys are not going to cease because the global
average temperature is up 1 deg. C in the last hundred years.

[snip]

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.

The consensus is there; nations and bureaucracies are dragging their feet.
My confidence is small that the world's governments can achieve effective
agreements and policies to abate emissions. A lot of arm waving and pocket
lining is more likely, alas.


-- 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.

I fear it could never be as conclusive as you demand. What, in detail,
would you regard as convincing?



[snip]

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.

The consensus didn't make the science. It was the other way around.