The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Ignoring the facts only shows that you are willfully ignorant.

You cannot change what the IPCC says - by misrepresenting it. You cannot reinterpret what it says.

Interesting you should say that. You make it sound like what the ipcc says and their data is written in stone.
But had you bothered to read any 2 reports you would know the data and predictions are always changing.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Another data point:

Climate change has finally caught up to this Alaska village

Link isn't working.
Last year I sad something about snow being on the ground in 36 states about this time last year and you said it was an isolated incident and called it weather.
I say the same applies to your "data point".
What goes around comes around.

Also the ipcc would never say in a report something to the effect of "look at this one town, it's clear proof the world is ending". Why?
Because that's not science, it's hyperbole.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your doing it again; thirteen consecutive posts. Permalinks, pleez.

???

'Splain me, Lucy.

Are you just trying to bury Permalink #7584? I led with a complement.

Thanks for the TIA explanation!'
I was out of town for two weeks,and have been scrambling to catch up to posts.
As soon as I was back,I transitioned into a yard sale with a friend to liquidate as much Earth Day exhibits as I could to help underwrite the A2 trip.
You guys posted a bunch in the intervening days,and I'm still attempting to close in.
Apologize for not commenting on Suspicious Observer.Having seen some falsehoods posted there,I'm reluctant to spend what precious time I get there,when I can get to the computer.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you read the ipcc reports you would know that they don't contain language anything like that.

So,you haven't seen the material on self-reinforcing,non-linear,accelerating feedback loops,and runaway global warming? This is the major concern of global warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I most definitely have the high ground.
It's not obsolete, it's junk science.
I think their reports would be better and less objectionable if they weren't so full of freshly picked cherries.

I'm unsure how a person of your credentials would be in a position to discern a corruption of the science.It implies a broad command of the literature,of which you've yet to demonstrate a command.You never actually say anything in a cogent,coherent,linear narrative,as would be found in a peer-reviewed argument.
I always sense confirmation bias in all your posts.Just an observation.If you desire to convince your audience to introspect their attitude towards the science,and win them over to a different way of thought,I'd recommend a scientific approach and supporting evidence.The ad hominem attacks are the domain of the coward.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not my fault you won't talk about the obvious cherry picking.
And you just dodge dodge dodge.
So far it looks like the ipcc cherry picking is so blatant, pervasive and obvious its undefendable by even the most hard core believers.

What something looks like,when viewed through filter-bias may appear as 'cherry-picking,' however, may not appear that way to an emotionally-divorced clinician,who's intimately acquainted with the state-of-the-art.
I'd have to 'experience' the existence of cherry-picking in order to throw out a caution flag on the play and join you in your conspiracy theory .Since this is NOT my experience,and I'm telling you,flat-out that it isn't my experience,why would you be under any illusion that I'd behave in any other way other than as I have?
Again,if you have something specific to argue,I'm all eyes.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That should be easy to prove.
Show me in a report where it says the world is going to end?
I bet you're really good at control F searching reports for the most dire bits.
Off to it now.

The intended audience for the reports are hoped to possess some degree of perspicacity,and the ability to connect dots.
If your genetics left you with a DNA deficit in this department,then you're perpetually locked into a world you're unlikely to ever understand.A structural impediment.
Just because you cannot hear the 105mm supersonic projectile heading for your fox hole,doesn't mean it isn't approaching.
A reasonable person might come to appreciate the radar man who issues the level-4 threat and red parachute flares,enabling a trip to the reinforced bunker.
Battlefields are littered with those who presumed.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I can tell you have never read an ipcc report either.

One shouldn't confuse reading with comprehension.They're not mutually inclusive.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It's been proven but you can't show where. Yeahhhhh.
So the answer is no.

The association of petroleum geologists are the only group of 'scientists' beyond consensus on global warming.
And as Gore repeated,'It's hard to get a man to understand something,when the condition of his employment is that he not understand it.' (Sinclair Lewis)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have what the ipcc puts in their reports.

It is a fact that that use 1850 to 1900 as their base line for "pre industrial climate".
That is a fact and that is the data the ipcc uses.

My counter argument is why use 1850 to 1900?
Why not run the clock back as far as the data will allow?
I don't think you can have a rational discussion about climate change with out getting emotional.

The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been constant,from 11,000 years ago,at the beginning of the 'Holocene',to around 1880,when anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions grew to significant levels.It's a perfect reference datum.