PJ Media

@Stephen

It’s worse than that. The diff equations are small compared to the parameterization!

@David S

Allow me address your claims specifically.

By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud

I didn’t make that claim! I also didn’t make the next two statements you attribute to me.

Is this the rigor you apply to your study of this field?

How about rebutting James Hansen:

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the
Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how
the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount.

Well, if you are going to use the dubious approach of merely quoting authorities making bald assertions,
you made a bad choice. Perhaps you should
read the words of Hansen’s just retired boss!

As for the CO2 = pollutant issue, the issue is not only the CO2 itself.
It is all the associated pollutants that occur in tandem. Think clearly now – where is all the CO2 coming from?
Fossil fuels. This is the problem.
Coal and Oil fuels are very dirty sources of energy.
AGW is only a small part of the negative impact – these resources are finite,
so continued dependence will also lead to ongoing military conflict until we move to other fuels.
Environmental degradation will continue in the interim.

This is rich

First you say CO2 is bad because of global warming…
But since you know that won’t be accepted, you mention it is a pollutant…
And then when challenged you mention pollutants *merely* related to CO2 production

These are the arguments of a zealot.

Then…

1. Observations via satellite are not “lab results”.

Perhaps you can then show us widely accepted research based on satellite observations confirming AGW.
When satellite data started coming online, it created quite a controversy because it didn’t show the
warming that the hockey-stick prankssters were finding in their massaged ground data.

The burden of proof is on those asserting a hypothesis. Nobody is denying this. There is simply more proof for AGW than against.

The burden of proof is raised for those pushing enormous policy changes based on a hypothesis. Dramattically raised.
“More proof” doesn’t cut it!

IPCC, not exactly an uncontroversial organization but which puts out the reports most often cited by
AGW alarmists, gives a 90% probability of their results being correct. No scientific paper would pass pure review with a .10 score!
.05 is the minimum.

What is the downside of taking action? Why should we wait?

I should leave that as a homework problem, but perhaps you need a little help. How about massive economic disruption,
failure of the action to actually work due to political resistance in countries like China, millions of deaths of
people living on the margin who would be killed by the consequences of the multi-decade economic depression required
to actually meet Hansen’s recommendations.

As to “why should we wait” – how about.. because
we will know more in the future, our technologies will be further developed, so we are more likely to pick the right choices if needed, because doing global harm to humanity based on a scientific hypothesis so corrupted by failures in the scientific process is beyond dumb.

There’s more where that came from.