Aardvark wrote:-
Quote:
|
For anybody to make proper comment on MMGW they need proper science - that's for both sides. This requires recording weather conditions and atmospheric conditions in thousands of locations across the planet and for a sustained period. There has to be extensive computer modelling.
|
Precisely what the World Meteorological Association (WMO) and the IPCC were set up to do, and have been doing for ~60 years & 19 years respectively.
Also, their conclusions are that the world is unequivacally warming, and mankind's activities are primarily the cause.
Unfortunately, there is a small, very small, group of people who cannot accept these findings because they, presumably will lose face or lose Exxon income or their conspiracy fanasies will be exposed as shams or they are anti-science religious extremists. They are determined NOT to believe it.
They won't say what is faulty about the data collected so far & they won't even try to define what sort of data would convince them.
The scientific evidence, collected by the appropriate scientists, by rigorous scientific methods has no ambiguity - the results are reliable at the >90% probability level.
Put it another way, if a group of bookies said that they were 90-95% confident a particular horse would win a certain race, wouldn't you think they knew something that you didn't ?
Sceptics are fond of the quote like the world has always warmed & cooled. In fact Britannist has implied the fact in two posts in this thread alone. Perhaps they should study what is known about the geological fluctuations of climate temperature.
At the risk of repeating myself, the last two major extinctions occured when the AVERAGE temperature of the atmosphere increased to 5-6 deg C above the estimated pre-industrial temperature or 4-5 Deg C over the current.
I call that cause for worry.