@Jeb:
“Once again weather is not climate.”
But this distinction is not essential to the argument.
“Climate, conditions of the atmosphere at a particular location over a long period of time.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106248/climate
“Weather, state of the atmosphere at a particular place during a short period of time.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076362/weather
It surely is harder to predict something over a long period of time, than over a short period. If someone cannot reliably predict something over a short period, do you think he is more able to do it over a long period? Surely not!
Jeb: “Depends on your definition of many I guess.”
In any case more than 50%.
Jeb: “Gallileo was not persecuted by other scientists”
Its not about persecution. Its about opinion and truth. Most people of his time, and many learned men among them, considered him wrong. But to take another example, just consider the aether theory or the caloric theory, which were quite in vogue among reputable scientist for some time. My point is, a majority consensus about any thing means nothing, if no one has the ability to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Jeb: “Anthropomorphizing nature leads to muddied thinking.”
Lets put it another way. That humanity is able to severely harm itself is against the most basic laws of living nature: The Law of Self Preservation, and the Law of Preservation of the Species. These laws were established beyond reasonable doubt a long time ago, and are true in more than 99,9% of the cases. I do not think that the feeble evidence and the even more feeble conclusions of climatologist are enough to establish a contradiction to these laws.
