Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[wufwugy]

The assumption your argument makes is that given our current abilities to observe and understand, we wouldn't have understood the causes of these past blips if they were contemporary. .

That is an astute assessment of the way I worded it. Allow me to clarify what I meant.

The data over the millennia appears analogous to the following: if a town has a rate of cancer at 20% and the town next to it drinks lead every night and has a rate of cancer at 5%, the current claim that the climate is warming due to human activity appears to be similar to a claim that the town with the 5% cancer rate is causing their cancer via their lead consumption.

Given the blip in temperature over the small quantities of years claimed, it appears that the blip could be a sampling error instead of an actual trend.

[Poopadoop]

Given the blip in temperature over the small quantities of years claimed, it appears that the blip could be a sampling error instead of an actual trend.

If that were the only argument for AGW, you'd be right. It's not.

[wufwugy]

If that were the only argument for AGW, you'd be right. It's not.

Well, what are the other ones that provide researchers with more certainty?

[Poopadoop]

Well, what are the other ones that provide researchers with more certainty?

You quoted the video coccobill posted and u didn't watch it?

[CoccoBill]

You quoted the video coccobill posted and u didn't watch it?

*shocked*

[wufwugy]

You quoted the video coccobill posted and u didn't watch it?

*shocked*

I watch everything I respond to. Often multiple times. I've seen all this stuff before too and used to be pretty big into it.

It appears that my question is different than what you guys are addressing. Have scientists determined that the contemporary changes in climate are statistically unique? It appears to me that they have not. The magnitude of the increase in temperatures and the scope of years are very small. Back when I was a big time AGW proponent, part of my belief was because I thought the hockey stick graph was an extreme aberration that could only be explained by human activity. Now I am asking if that is actually true because an expansion of scope strongly suggests it may not be distinguishable from random given the knowledge we have.

Don't get me wrong. If I had to put money it, I would say AGW is a thing. My issue (and I could be wrong) is that it appears to me that there is a great deal of unwarranted certainty on this belief in the climate science community.

[Poopadoop]

Have scientists determined that the contemporary changes in climate are statistically unique?

Answer is the same as before.

You can't prove global warming is not just random fluctuation.

Edit: to qualify this, I mean you can't prove it statistically based on changes in global temperature alone.

Note that my quote also isn't evidence against AGW. It's simply saying a change in temperature is a lack of sufficient information on its own to count as solid proof.

[CoccoBill]

Have scientists determined that the contemporary changes in climate are statistically unique? It appears to me that they have not. The magnitude of the increase in temperatures and the scope of years are very small.

They have, with enough credibility that 98% of them agree. What's happening isn't within the boundaries of normal variations that can be expected, the change is in the "wrong" direction, nothing else we know about stuff that changes the climate can explain it (sunspots, volcanoes etc) and the empirical evidence we have fit the theories of AGW perfectly. It's as much of a smoking gun as there can be. Surely it can also just be martians farting, but that isn't science.

[wufwugy]

What's happening isn't within the boundaries of normal variations that can be expected

I'd like to see the data on that. As far as from what I've seen, the variation today is much less than from the medieval, roman, and minoan periods.