After my dialogue with EM I share links to information relating to the substance of climate models, then a hard look at some renowned scientists who have become climate science contrarians for hire, Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy.
_____________________________________________________________
EM writes: I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time. I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement.
___________________________________________
What you have proffered is feigned agreement with the obvious. What makes it feel disingenuous is your “we don’t fully understand” - That argument can be applied to anything and everything (except religion with it’s blinding self-certainties, although that’s about the landscape of the human mind and ego rather than physical realities. - Or would you disagree?).
To retain a bit of added truthiness, you toss in “long period of time” - What’s that mean? How long? What uncertainties? EM, can you explain why do those uncertainties concern you more than what’s known for certain? Simply implying that there might be game changing uncertainties out there without offering anything is what could politely be called disingenuous.
_____________________________________________________________
EM writes: Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades.
___________________________________________
Nearly two centuries is not relatively new! I’ve already addressed this misleading Republican meme with a list of climate science milestones:
4. Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History
Beyond that, I don’t think EM appreciates how consistent the long development of climate science has been. I learned about the fundamentals more than forty years ago and nothing has changed radically. Refinements of understand, sure, non-stop, and sometimes startling “why didn’t I think of that” surprises. But, at the end of the day, it’s all been amazingly consistent and new pieces keep fitting into the whole of our understanding with logical consistency and even harmony.
If I’m mistaken, or you think I’m misleading, show me.
_____________________________________________________________
