We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Much of environmental law is governed by a logical fallacy called the "Precautionary Principle," which is closely related to the climate change debate. Basically, unless someone seeking to do something can demonstrate conclusively that the action will not have a negative environmental effect, it must be assumed it will and they cannot be permitted to do it. This puts the actor seeking to do something in an impossible position, because he must prove a negative which is logically impossible. The formal name for the Precautionary Principle fallacy is "Argument from Ignorance."
In the area of "Climate Science," that means you must assume that Climate Change is occurring and that it's harmful unless you can conclusively prove it's not.
Exactly, they haven't ignored the null hypothesis, they've reversed it, which is the worst mistake you can make in statistical inference.
The other big problem I have is that their measurements don't make sense. Firstly, the effect they claim to be measuring is lower than the resolution of their measurement system over time scales where they can't assume steady-state. Their thermometers are rated to 0.1C, with other added uncertainties due to how the data is and has been recorded adding about an additional 0.2 to 0.3C of uncertainty (temperature changes on a less than hourly basis, yet at best they record hourly measurements. I won't even get into the process of grid smoothing, where they (exaggeration follows) think that by averaging the temperature in New York and LA into the St. Louis reading you get a more precise value for the temperature in St. Louis than the thermometer there is reading.
Secondly there's all the data manipulation. It appears to me they have a system established by which their models assume that temperatures should be increasing, so they alter the data according to that model . they then feed that data back into other models, and lo and behold, the new models show that the temperatures are increasing. This continues over iterations in a positive feedback loop until they get whatever value for the temperature increase they want to generate.
another guy named Dan
Climate Change is a computer simulation game. Game winners are awarded grant money. This makes climate change an economic game not Science. "trusting" scientists assumes that scientists are moral and virtuous about how they do their experiments and analysis and conclusions. Honesty, and integrity, and loyalty to the rational and logical Scientific Method, and acting as a cooperating member of the Scientific Community are what makes Science "believable"; not consensus, not politics, not the emotion of fear.
Trump isn't a debater. Better at it than many politicians but not nearly as good as a real debater. The result of a debate or often either that one of the debaters convinced us with good data and facts OR that they were the more interesting or photogenic debaters. JFK didn't win the debate with Nixon but he did win the hearts and minds of all the women voters.
IMHO everyone (well almost everyone) knows that the AGW theory is a scam, a ploy to gain power and money, period. Everyone older than 60-65 remembers even warmer temps than we have today; worse hurricane and tornado seasons AND they remember that the temperatures and other weather extremes were cyclical. Some of the younger people may well believe this AGW theory but strangely 90% of those in the group who believe it also lean towards Socialism and a world government so you have to wonder if they believe the theory or believe that the theory will get them what they want politically.
I do not think that any of the scientists who profess to believe in AGW actually believe it. Yes! I think they are actually lying and part of a greater conspiracy. One simple truth I will offer to prove this: All scientists believe in debating any theory and to the extent they really believe in that theory they welcome debate with those who disagree. But strangely all of those scientists who profess to believe in AGW demand that no debate is acceptable and in fact go one step further and actively destroy the reputation of any scientist who does not toe the mark.