No Argument on Global Warming?

The person who the letter, named Brent, is, like all misguided zealots and idealogues, so certain. So sure.

So smugly ignorant.

The letter concerned a local event that was reported on which caused Brent to assert the infallibility of the AGW or man-made global warming assertions.

I'm sure that Brent means well. He intends good. But what's that saying about the pavement material for the highway to hell?

I have commented on excerpts from his letter. Brent's words are italicized.

You cannot argue whether global warming has been significantly affected by the human race.

Speak for yourself, Brent. Brant does argue with it, for a wide array of reasons. But one of the most important is the very simple and demonstrable fact that not only does carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere not drive, but follow, temperature, it follows it with an 800-year lag.

So. The amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere right now is responding to the temperature--that's right, responding to, not driving--as it was 800 years ago on the Earth.

Care to divulge to us, Brent, just what it was that mankind was capable of doing 800 years ago that caused the warming trend?

In the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Science Academies of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia and many other countries, "it is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere."

Brent, haven't you learned by this time that the IPCC and the government diplomats that follow it are idiots?

The IPCC, which has an agenda and is a political body first and a scientific body a far distant second, cannot be looked to for scientific information. And sure enough, the IPCC, in its multi-decadel climate computer modeling, repeatedly and consistently refers to its creation of "projections" and "scenarios".

Scientists and those of us who are scientifically literate observe first, and model second. And if the models don't fit the observations, then we know that its the models, and not the observations, that need to be changed.

The IPCC thus admits to cutting the person to fit the coat--as politicians do all the time.

Any scientifically minded person knows that a scenario is not and cannot be, by definition, a forecast. The IPCC models are sensitivity studies because all they use are "forcings", pre-selected variables of the data that will fit with what they want to find. This is well-documented, and it's a far cry from science.

The IPCC single-handedly proves that statistics can be more deceiving than "damned lies".

This is the accepted scientific consensus.

There's no such thing as consensus in science, Brent.

Every major scientific group...

That's just a "damned lie", Brent. Among numerous other things, I guess you've never heard of the 19,000 signature strong Petition Project. Those 19,000 signatures belong to 19,000 credentialed scientists who find AGW to be a fraud.

God, no wonder I feel that, sometimes, too much to drink just isn't enough.