even the global warming fanatics have admitted there is no global warming and are no calling it climate change but even the most ignorant among us can see from history that the weather we are having id no different from 110 years ago , 400 years ago and earlier , even the floods are always described as the worst floods SINCE...... not the worst floods ever
Whoever Bob Ward is, it is fairly obvious from the snide tone of this question, the obscurity of the question, and the utter lack of any explanatory reference, that YOU are an anti-science dupe, blindly copy-pasting from an denier blog.
Sure enough, a few minutes on Google exposes your mindless anti-science (confirmed by a brief review of your past answers).
Welcome to the category of YA where you can sound off and get psychic symbolic revenge on the teachers who gave you the poor grades you deserved in school science.
I would say yes he is Why didn't you give a link
No trend exists!
Climate impact studies showing a high anthropogenic cause to any changes are usually conducted by AGW advocate scientists.
There is a bias to AGW science.
The fact that life has been enhanced by the use of fossil fuels always gets buried in the noise of advocacy.
"[GWPF] denies the risks indicated by the scientific evidence in order to justify its ideological opposition to GHG cuts."
Asked to back that up:
"Lawson denies that there is evidence of a change in extreme weather, etc"
Previously written by Bob Ward in The Guardian:
" But it is difficult to tell to what extent, if any, climate change has also already affected past disaster losses around the world. Extreme weather events are rare, so identifying small trends is difficult when losses vary so much from year to year, creating a lot of "noise" in the dataset, and many competing factors contribute to the overall pattern.
The absence of a "statistically significant" trend may indicate that no trend exists, or instead that a trend exists but cannot be definitively detected until a longer period of losses is available.
"
