a. Average global temperatures are expected to increase over the next several decades
2.
a. We can expect to see more record high temperatures, and fewer record low temperatures
3.
a. AGW likely contributed to this abnormal weather event (eg heat wave, storm)
b. We can expect to see an unusual number of weather events like this with AGW
4.
a. This data point (eg weather event, temperature record) is consistent with AGW
b. This data point supports AGW
c. This data point would be unlikely without AGW
Comments - the statements that I have excluded are either just plain silly or denialist straw man arguments, or both.
I noticed in the ClimateGate e-mails, one from an Alan K saying I bet there will be more evidence of a cooling in the next 5 years, dated Oct 2008. Somehow this was not the talking points at the time. Wonder if he has collected his 100 pounds.
We have seen the actual claims about how children will not know what snow is. Hurricanes being blamed on global warming. Even denial of the IPCC SREX report that shows no trend in various extremes.
Latest IPCC report also finds tipping points and major scare scenarios like thermohaline circulation to be very unlikely.
If a sceintist used the word "denialist" without defining the people of whom s/he spoke, then I would disregard everything else they say. Thus, since you seem to NOT want to talk about science, the rest of your question is disregarded.
Climate realist,
If I am one of the people she is talking about as many have claimed I am, then please tell me what I am denying. I doubt you can do it without refering to an ill-defined "catastrophic" and you certainly cannot talk about me denying science, unless you have no concept of what the word science actually means.
Pegminer,
Given your standard for calling me a liar, you are lying once again in your implication that "deniers" are the only ones that avoid critiquing their own. With your inability to define "denier" in such a way that it would include me, I will also say you are lying for calling me a denier. Two lies in one post. Way to go, that is as many as you were able to CLAIM I made.
Chemflunky, I am asking you to define denialist for a reason. You seem to think only a certain group distort what "scientists" say. The distortion of taking a range of say 2 to 6 degrees and making a headline about 6 degrees is being done on a consistent basis.
Do you want to talk about the distortion that would have someone claim that the food prices are increasing because of global warming CAUSING droughts in Cali??? Nearly every way you have listed has been stated.
I am not here to fight against science. I am here to support it. If climate scientists are not going to yell about the exaggeration, I will. If climate scientists are not going to acknowledge the uncertainty, I will proclaim their reasons for uncertainty. And I will certainly never accept a consensus in place of evidence.
As far as your questions:
1.) none of the above.
Our models on average predict x (+-SD) amount of increase over the next y amount of time.
2.) Neither, predicting rank data is just not smart. Further, having highs does not necessarily make the average high, it could be lower, and vice versa.
3.) B works if you add that according to our models we expect.
4.) A and C may be stated with proper supporting analysis.
Single data points generally do not support anything as they may just be anamolies
"A lot of denialist arguments rely, in large part, on distorting things scientists say, often in ways that remove or reverse critical elements of meaning."
Yup, not touching this biased question with a ten foot pole.
This is what they actually say:
"Last year was a standout year in the US for climate related issues because there was a major drought, and major heat waves and wild fires. There was also superstorm Sandy...[And] the reporting was extremely poor and as a result the general public doesn't tie the climate and wildfires together very well: it is a major problem."
"And ensuring that these kinds of events [flooding in Europe] have a climate change tag attached to them would be very helpful in many cases. "
"There are prospects for a more vigorous hurricane season this year [2013]."
"[I would love to see] a national policy relating to putting a cost on carbon, which then has to propagate throughout the economy and throughout foreign trade and foreign policy related matters."
=======================================...
Basically, scaremongering, confusing weather with climate, making claims not backed up by the IPCC assessment reports and trying to play politics.
Science.
Here are some things "IPCC scientists" DO say:
> Getting ALMOST as warm as the time of the Roman expansion would be catastrophic
> Cause FOLLOWS effect
> You have to look at two DIFFERENT things "before and after" to measure change
> Making CORRECT predictions crushes your credibility
> Making WRONG predictions proves your theory.
YOU believe ALL FIVE of those things or YOU are a "denier."
Your answers, not according to things a real scientist would say but according to just about every "AGW supporter," are:
1 - We can find a point in history that was cooler - thus proving MAN-CAUSED global warming
2 - This day's record temperature proves MAN-CAUSED global warming
3 - The CONSISTENT distribution of weather events - impacting more people due to population changes - is "more severe - proving MAN-CAUSED global warming
4 - This data-point predicted by the "deniers" and which SURPRISED the "warmers" proves MAN-CAUSED global warming.
A competent scientist would never say any of those things.
AGW or ACC is a big scam. You left that out. Here is what real scientists actually say.
Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”
Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."
Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof....There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”
If you want more about what they have to say I got a lot more. Just ask.
1a
2a
3a
4a
A lot of denialist arguments rely, in large part, on distorting things scientists say, often in ways that remove or reverse critical elements of meaning. So, for the following sets, which ones actually sound like what real scientists would say, rather than denialist distortions of same?
1.
a. Average global temperatures are expected to increase over the next several decades
b. Temperatures are going to go up every year, everywhere
2.
a. We can expect to see more record high temperatures, and fewer record low temperatures
b. We can expect to see record high temperatures every year, and no more record low temperatures ever
3.
a. AGW likely contributed to this abnormal weather event (eg heat wave, storm)
b. We can expect to see an unusual number of weather events like this with AGW
c. AGW caused this abnormal weather event
d. We have never had weather events like this before AGW
4.
a. This data point (eg weather event, temperature record) is consistent with AGW
b. This data point supports AGW
c. This data point would be unlikely without AGW
d. This data point proves AGW
e. This data point would be impossible without AGW
Also, any other thoughts?
I knew this stupid question was yours Chem before I even read your details.
3 c,d They were acting like a Hurricane never hit NYC or Vermont before and there is a History of it
that depends of the scientist
there are dentists who are also creationists
All "a"s but 3b is also a possibility
a for all four
a,a,b,a
a,a,b,a
a,a,b,a
