As based on this survery -
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
97% of active publishing climatologists on the subject of climate change seem to agree. The further you get away from the science, the less confidence you get.
Might this be referring to the deviation from scientific methods that AGW supporters have a nasty habit of endorsing such as using erroneous , incomplete or fabricated data to stuff flawed models
This would suggest to me that as some people like to use as an excuse, climate is very complicated. However there's a number of reasons why we can still make predictions regardless.
Predict all you want. When those predictions are based on flawed modeling of non-real data they mean precisely squat.
I'm a little concerned that "conservative" automatically has to mean anti-science, or at least anti-AGW, especially with the conservative mantra of personal responsibility and how we affect the world around us, and thus would like to hope there are at least some who do not follow the stereotype(I know a few lefties who are, perhaps annoyingly to me, deniers).
How is it anti-science to dispute predictions that are demonstrably flawed from the outset ?
Back in the early 90's when I was at JR high - the in vogue thing was the hole in the ozone layer and a new ice age.
I'll just peek my head out of my 16deg latitude igloo and see if I get roasted to a crisp.
Less than 2 years ago - the panty wringing panic merchants were predicting eternal drought - in many places here in Australia. They've all gone suspiciously quiet now that the rains came and the dams filled.
I'm moderately knowledge about the ins and outs on this, so I can answer a lot of questions people might have and clear up some myths. However I'm not a climatologist, so if someone find a particularly new and awkward article I might not be able to.
I'm going to start out by saying it's wrong the forum's rules outright tell you to accept climategate as a valid scandal. Which is kind of ironic since people are concerned about having the AGW agenda pushed on them...
If you don't like the forum rules - then the door is -----> that way. No rule about leaving.
Why does the fairly insignificant release of a naturally occurring and critically required atmospheric gas by humans get so much attention when there are numerous legitimate environmental concerns to be addressed - like the byproducts from the "eco friendly" industries that bring us solar panels and lithium batteries.
Climate is a dynamic system and is in constant flux. To say that we can accurately model it 50 years from now based on only a few hundred years of data - some of which is suspect in its legitimacy- by using models that are patchy at best is just silly.
To assume that we are responsible for the climate's variation based on a few hundred years of quantifiable observations of a system that looks at eons as eyeblinks is plain unscientific.
