Could you clarify your question. Ordinarily, people don't refer to a scientific phenomenon's telling the truth.
Yes of course, hence the arguments below. For a science that has direct implications for the way humans live, there will always be veracity.
The fact is that 97% of climate scientists support the theory of man made climate change, so there is actually very little veracity within the scientific community despite what is portrayed by the media (I am a climate scientist). So why would one discount the overwhelming and compelling evidence? They do because of the media's warped portrayal of the issue (it does of course make good TV), an attempt to be contrary to popular belief, or simply they want to bury their head in the sand and reject all personal responsibility.
Either way the veracity does not lie in the theory of man made global warming, but in its extent and potential affects.
BTW Kano, of course climate science is politically funded as is the vast majority of science programs that are not used for corporate purposes. I and none of my colleagues have ever felt this sways research! In fact I would quite like to have opposing findings as I will more likely be published! Graphic Conception if you were my student I would give you a D- for those answers.
There is argument over global warming veracity among the media and politicians, but not among scientists. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Graphics
<1. Does it mean that the whole globe is warming?
<2. Or does it mean that the average surface temperature of the globe is increasing?
<3. Or does it mean that the amount of energy in the earth's atmosphere and oceans is increasing?
<4. Or does it imply some involvement by man?
<5. Is there an implication of it being harmful, catastrophic or even beneficial?
<1. Not many would say that this is true. There has never been a day (calendar date) when everywhere was warmer than it was on another day (in recorded history).>
If we had records back to the Roman Warm period, I'm sure that statement would still be true. But the temperature of the whole globe is the global average temperature.
<2. Is not true if you look at the temperature graphs for the last 16 or so years.>
Actually, is is true if you look at the temperature graphs for the last 16 or so years.
Other factors influence climate. The well known mechanism of CO2 absorbing infrared works all the time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
<3. Could be true but that does not seem to imply a temperature increase, necessarily.>
Yeah! Sure! Graphics knows everything. Climatologists know nothing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-...
<4. Man is probably involved but how much? 100%, 50%, 5%, .5% Less than 0.1%?>
More like 150%
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
<5. The catastrophic aspect is reduced every time the climate sensitivity to CO2 is reduced by further research. Some research has shown that more CO2 is beneficial. It could even be easier to fix after any possible harm has happened than trying to prevent it - the prevention/mitigation argument. Example: One day I am going to die. This is well known. My survivors will find it easier to work round that fact than they will to invent something that would keep me alive indefinitely.>
Yeah! Sure! Draining millions of square miles of land flooded by rising sea levels sounds so much simpler than clean energy.
Kano
Ad hominem argument.
Yes, not least because definitions of Global Warming seem to be quite fluid.
1. Does it mean that the whole globe is warming?
2. Or does it mean that the average surface temperature of the globe is increasing?
3. Or does it mean that the amount of energy in the earth's atmosphere and oceans is increasing?
4. Or does it imply some involvement by man?
5. Is there an implication of it being harmful, catastrophic or even beneficial?
1. Not many would say that this is true. There has never been a day (calendar date) when everywhere was warmer than it was on another day (in recorded history).
2. Is not true if you look at the temperature graphs for the last 16 or so years. The proposed mechanism of CO2 absorbing infra red radiation has to work all the time. It can't opt to have a few years off.
3. Could be true but that does not seem to imply a temperature increase, necessarily.
4. Man is probably involved but how much? 100%, 50%, 5%, .5% Less than 0.1%?
5. The catastrophic aspect is reduced every time the climate sensitivity to CO2 is reduced by further research. Some research has shown that more CO2 is beneficial. It could even be easier to fix after any possible harm has happened than trying to prevent it - the prevention/mitigation argument. Example: One day I am going to die. This is well known. My survivors will find it easier to work round that fact than they will to invent something that would keep me alive indefinitely.
EDIT: Maybe I should ask CF if she can tell the difference between the ideas proposed in the five points!
Yes, but not among scientists. Or, at least, mostly not among scientists.
Generally, among scientists, the only ones arguing that global warming is false either don't have any credentials particularly relevant to climate science (for example, theoretical physicists), or are extremely old and haven't kept up with the field, or possibly both.
Virtually all climate scientists (at least, in the high 90% range) would agree that global warming is happening, and is primarily or entirely anthropogenic.
No argument. Vostock ice cores ended that. Then the dodgy emails ended the argument. Then no warming for umpteen years ended it but it still goes on. How can there be veracity in the face of these goings on. The very name of science has been brought into disrepute by the warming gang.
In the casual use of the term yes, but it's simply denialists against those that understand and accept the fact so it's not really an argument, the denialists are wrong, end of story
Veracity "adherence to the truth" well seeing as the IPCC is political organization and most climate science is politically funded, I should say there are grave doubts about the veracity of global warming.
Climate Realist. It is not ad hom, I answered the question which was about veracity, I didn't waffle on about global warming.
It's over whether it's man-made or not. And it's NOT.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
as the title says
