The question isn't whether our planet is warming due to our emissions of greenhouse gases (it has to, unless something is cooling the planet but that source of cooling has not been identified) but by how much. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in that. But a lack of absolute certainty about the future has never previously prevented us from making decisions about the future. The real issue here is that skeptics are demanding a level of predictive power that is unreasonable and unachieveable before they'll believe the base - which is adding a gas we know traps heat will, in fact, trap heat!
Well I wasn't sure what base science was so I went to Dr. Google. Dr. Google explained that it was:
<<
I sometimes find alarmists arguments left me with a bitter taste so I guess I understand what it is. It is settled like my stomach but it is being researched just in case of ...... well hmmm. Maybe my stomach isn't that settled after all. It may becoming less base.
"if the science is settled, why do predictions keep changing"
The answer is, only some of the science is well-understood. Most of it is not.
This also highlights one of the differences between the "sides". One concentrates on the well-understood science and believes it must affect the climate one day. The other believes that the undiscovered or poorly understood science may actually have the larger effect and in any case nothing unusual is happening to the climate at the moment.
Just like the greenies. Give you lie a name and only you can understand it. Base science, wow that is something. You can't even define Climate Change beyond second grade level. What would you know about Science?
If the science is settled then prove it. Don't just say it and give it another name. Prove it.
Peggy, are you still computing with your fingers? At least the Dorkster takes off his sock when he does, as it doubles your capacity. Ha! Ha! You still don't know the difference between 3 and 4. Even with all that calculus from What-sa-matter U. Ha! Ha! Tell us truthfully, are you out of high school yet?
They don't know the basic science to begin with.
Look at Zippi62's answer: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 40%, but he's claiming "1.2 in 10,000 molecules"--what is he talking about?
CO2 makes up about 10% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
EDIT for Kano: I am feeling fine, how are you? You might want to re-read what I said.
EDIT for Sagebrush: Kano already tried to tell me I was wrong and just made a fool of himself--now you want to try? If you think I've said something that is incorrect, please tell everybody what you think it is, and I'll show you and everyone else that you're wrong.
Apparently not.
They confuse local changes with global changes.
They confuse short term weather changes with long term climate change.
They seem to be ignorant of the difference between normal statistical variation and statistically significant variations.
They seem to think science is a tyranny of a select elite instead of a way to organize thinking.
The base science is that CO2 is a GHG. The details say that a 1.2 in 10,000 molecules of CO2 increase in 150 years, does not effect temperatures or the climate catastrophically. I would say that 2/3rds of the 97% consensus (with a 99% certainty) agrees with that analogy and settles the whole argument.
Any science is not settled, it remains a theory until it is either proven false, or replaced with a better theory.
Pegminer, are you feeling allright, "CO2 makes up about 10%" it is 0.04% at the most.
Ah okay 10% of GHG but thats not right either http://www.climatism.net/wp-content/uplo...
The basic answer is below, but a key part of the full answer is revealed by looking at misframings in the question. It would make more sense to first clear up your own formulation, then address the non-thinking echo chamber deception of anti-scientists:
1. The only skeptics of any substance are the scientists who question many aspects of hotly debated details. Realclimate.org has good examples. See also http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
2. There are posters here who express skepticism about the very solidly based fundamental 25 year old scientific consensus that AGW is real, serious, long-lasting and mostly negative for humanity BECAUSE they are uninformed or have been misled. But this is quite different than informed skepticism, and even the "skeptical sounding based on lack of knowledge" posts are a relatively small minority here.
3. Questions from science deniers here are actually rare. What one very often sees are the rotating denialist "deceptions of the week" from anti-science blogs, recycled here as "questions." This is the dominant mode of behavior of the deniers here, whether or not they include within their deception the false claim of being skeptical.
4. The scope for "explaining" science to deniers here is very limited. Their fundamental reason for being here at all is to sabotage honest explanations and propagate their mindlessly accepted cult-like anti-science. Genuine scientific xplanations are nearly always received by deniers with "Fingers in ears, saying 'blah, blah, I don't hear you' " The one exception is that most of the frequently posting deniers ARE interested, and will even learn from, aspects of explanations that can occasionally be used by them to deceive less obviously and more convincingly.
The basic science is summarized here. For the still-debated details, see for example realclimate.org.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming...
kano --
>>Any science is not settled, it remains a theory until it is either proven false, or replaced with a better theory.<<
That statement "proves" that you are scientifically illiterate because there is not such thing as "proof" in science.
Nevertheless, many scientific theories are sufficiently settled that scientists commonly refer to them as facts - for example, theories that the earth orbits the sun, evolution, and plate tectonics, among others are supported by such overwhelming evidence that they cannot be wrong without all of science being wrong.
Similarly, AGW cannot be wrong unless their are also things fundamentally wrong with our knowledge of physics and the scientific method, itself.
I often see questions from skeptics and denialists on the general order of "if the science is settled, why do predictions keep changing", or "if the science is settled, why are we still spending money on climate change research".
So, can the realists in the audience explain to them the difference between what is "settled" and what scientists are still researching, and still making different predictions about? Can you give examples of other "settled" science that's still being researched? Any other thoughts?
We understand, it's like that guy at the party that's right about everything until you prove he is wrong then he spends the rest of the night trying to use semantics to prove how he was really right.
The predictions never happen
They sure spend a lot of time talking about the details as if the details nullify the basic science.
The denialists are those that deny the sun is the cause of the weather
