2. The important part about the ice age is not that it happened long ago, but that other conditions were very different.
3. Scientists only make claims that global warming is a factor behind a drought, a flood, a snowstorm or even a heat wave if they have evidence to back up such a claim.
1. a. Volcanoes don't affect climate (Not true)
vs
b. Volcanic activity does not explain current climate trends (True but that may be due to lack of knowledge rather than as a scientific conclusion)
2. a. That ice age happened a long time ago, so it doesn't count (Not true)
vs
b. That ice age happened a long time ago when other conditions were very different, so it doesn't necessarily say anything informative about current conditions (Not true. Any knowledge gained from past climate would sure allow us to better understand current climate)
3. a. "Alarmist" scientists will treat any weather condition or oddity as proof of AGW (Not strictly true although alarmist scientists can word their statements using terms like "loaded dice" or "consistent with AGW" or "the new norm" which allows other non-scientific type (e.g. journalists, blogger and other pundits) to make more certain statements regarding AGW and weather)
vs
b. Scientists know that AGW will affect different areas differently, and that AGW can have some seemingly contradictory effects, such as causing both droughts and floods (Sound like climate scientists know the climate system is complex and we don't understand enough about it)
In my opinion, the egregious actions in the above is 3a., scientists who make up terms like "the new norm". Very clever and very misleading and ripe for abuse by other alarmists.
1 Volcanoes do affect climate but I will allow your answer B
2 The last ice age ended 12000yrs ago average interglacial is 10000yrs so I wouldn't count them out.
3 both are true, some alarmist scientists treat any weather conditions as caused by AGW, others are more reasonable, the IPCC says there is so far no evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.
This Climate Change theory very simply explained.
Step one CO2 increases
Step two there is a rise in heat and temperature
Step three there is a rise in water vapor causing more warming and problems.
However step two is missing so nothing is happening.
No one thing controls the climate, the effect volcanoes has on earth is complex and enormous, while we have learned much the is still a lot more to learn.
It is clear the reason for ice ages and the time between them is our distance from the sun.
The problem is science isn't a generalization, more bad weather of all different sorts will be the result is a generalization.
I just wanted to applaud Ottawa. He took the time and answered concisely and nicely and I won't bother answering because his answer would be better anyway.
Answer yes but a strange question. Can anyone not see a difference?
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
b, b and b once again.
Another round of "spot the incorrect generalization"
Can you explain or describe the differences between these pairs of statements?
1. a. Volcanoes don't affect climate
vs
b. Volcanic activity does not explain current climate trends
2. a. That ice age happened a long time ago, so it doesn't count
vs
b. That ice age happened a long time ago when other conditions were very different, so it doesn't necessarily say anything informative about current conditions
3. a. "Alarmist" scientists will treat any weather condition or oddity as proof of AGW
vs
b. Scientists know that AGW will affect different areas differently, and that AGW can have some seemingly contradictory effects, such as causing both droughts and floods
