Man-made Climate Change is real

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

Know

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: "The long-term prediction of future climate states IS NOT POSSIBLE".

Blatant misquote. Full quote:

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. "

One of the main issues should be obvious - if climate change is effected by manmade factors then how can they predict what it will be when the human input could change and in fact they are actively trying to get the human input to change? 

That's one of the key reasons why the IPCC releases multiple scenarios based on different inputs, because there is no one guaranteed level of future emissions.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

The exact weather is not predictable due to the butterfly effect. This does not take away from the substantial evidence I have provided. Weather and climate are different. Weather is short-term and climate is long-term. Why do you just say, for example, what will the weather be in the future or should be now and provide no evidence to say it is not real?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/weather

If it helps further climate alarmists claims its climate if it hurts climate alarmists claims its weather.  If a hurricane hits the US, it's all because of climate change, as we saw this past summer.  Climate is incredibly complex.  We can't answer what the temperature or weather will be in five years because we simply don't understand the system well enough yet.  Since we can't tell what the temperature will be in five years, why would ANYONE believe people who say they know what the temperature and weather will be like in 100 years?

We can predict the GMST within a range based around an average. We can do that in five years time and in a hundred. So under certain high emission scenarios we don't know if there will be a 5 degree increase or a 2.5 increase but either one screws over all of humanity so let's cut carbon emissions.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

But they have. There are legitimate reasons why but you seem to just deny it. This debate is now uninteresting. Bye. 

They have???  Well then, don't be shy, feel free to share.  Let me demonstrate;

Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases


It's entirely wrong, but its a prediction, anyway.

I live in New York, and it goes from 30F to 50F in a few days and by your logical this is evidence for climate change. Overall, winters are getting warmer though. The 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
these show climate predictions and they closely match observations. 
"The study found that unusually cold temperatures in northern North America and lower precipitation in the south central U.S. all coincided with periods of warmer Arctic weather." https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/

We can accurately predict the climate not weather (different things). https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/weather-prediction-climate-prediction-what’s-diff  https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/winters-are-getting-warmer

Ugh, you don't really want to get into a battle of the graphs, do you?



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/

I live just below you in PA.  I've never lived thru colder winters than I've been thru the last few years, but I guess a few years is "weather" if it doesn't support the global warming theory.

You realise that even though you have chosen a not that relevant graph which shows temperature in the atmosphere rather than on the surface, there is still a clear upward trend.

Also a your unsupported claims are totally wrong with the last couple of years including the warmest winter since records began in Pennsylvania: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ydr.com/amp/78178858

Guess your anecdotal comments aren't even accurate.

CYDdharta

Nope said:

CYDdharta
"I live just below you in PA.  I've never lived thru colder winters than I've been thru the last few years, but I guess a few years is "weather" if it doesn't support the global warming theory."
First global warming means through the globe as a hole not one place. Second while a few years is not weather it is also not a large trend. 

A few years isn't a large trend.  Looking at Pogue's graphs, global warming is based on roughly the last 30 years.  That isn't a large trend in the Earth's history either.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

We can predict the GMST within a range based around an average. We can do that in five years time and in a hundred. So under certain high emission scenarios we don't know if there will be a 5 degree increase or a 2.5 increase but either one screws over all of humanity so let's cut carbon emissions.

I never said a prediction couldn't be made, what I said was that an ACCURATE prediction cannot, as yet, be made. 

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

You realise that even though you have chosen a not that relevant graph which shows temperature in the atmosphere rather than on the surface, there is still a clear upward trend.

Also a your unsupported claims are totally wrong with the last couple of years including the warmest winter since records began in Pennsylvania: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ydr.com/amp/78178858

Guess your anecdotal comments aren't even accurate.

I said WINTER.  Winter didn't start until the end of December.

Nope

Fredsnephew 
"Therefore anything"man made" is natural."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural

Vaulk

@Ampersand

As per your request for references, the following references are to the combined misunderstandings in Science that were accompanied by Scientific Consensus.  Coincidentally, a vast majority of these misunderstandings were defeated by a singular person or group who's research went against the consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

I'm inclined to side with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) who states: "The long-term prediction of future climate states IS NOT POSSIBLE".  

Now I'm waiting to hear about how these references to the centuries of Scientific consensus' that were wrong are somehow irrelevant even though you asked for them specifically.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

CYDdharta
"I live just below you in PA.  I've never lived thru colder winters than I've been thru the last few years, but I guess a few years is "weather" if it doesn't support the global warming theory."
First global warming means through the globe as a hole not one place. Second while a few years is not weather it is also not a large trend. 

A few years isn't a large trend.  Looking at Pogue's graphs, global warming is based on roughly the last 30 years.  That isn't a large trend in the Earth's history either.

Which chart and graphs are you referring to? The one I recently posted has about 160 years of data. 


Here have some more graphs

Pogue

Vaulk said:

@Ampersand

As per your request for references, the following references are to the combined misunderstandings in Science that were accompanied by Scientific Consensus.  Coincidentally, a vast majority of these misunderstandings were defeated by a singular person or group who's research went against the consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

I'm inclined to side with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) who states: "The long-term prediction of future climate states IS NOT POSSIBLE".  

Now I'm waiting to hear about how these references to the centuries of Scientific consensus' that were wrong are somehow irrelevant even though you asked for them specifically.

I am also inclined to side with them because they said: "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The scientific consensus is the easiest and weakest argument for climate change. All the evidence sides with the consensus. It is not the scientist that give it value, it is the evidence. 

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Which chart and graphs are you referring to? The one I recently posted has about 160 years of data. 


Here have some more graphs

Right; even if those graphs are correct, that's not long enough to show a real trend for a planet that's 4.5 billion years old.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Which chart and graphs are you referring to? The one I recently posted has about 160 years of data. 


Here have some more graphs

Right; even if those graphs are correct, that's not long enough to show a real trend for a planet that's 4.5 billion years old.

Carbon + sun = hot
400,000 years is a good amount of time to track the carbon cycle. Also, basic physics on why carbon traps heat. 
Really all these

1. Simple chemistry that when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s)
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is indeed increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years  (measurements beginning in the 1950s)
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s)
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s)
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in the 1930s)
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the Sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s)
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural vs. human-influenced “simulated Earths” (research beginning in the 1960s)
9. Consensus among scientists that consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s)

https://sciencing.com/sun-carbon-cycle-12028231.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WnpZI6OZMdU
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/03/23/how-do-we-know-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-these-nine-lines-of-evidence/
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change ;

Pogue

@Vaulk and @CYDdharta
This is bad because a few degrees or even a half a degree C can have a dramatic effect on the globe. Especially if it is in a span of a few decades. 
"But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.

With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

Here are other sources: 
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/what-big-deal-planet-few-degrees-warmer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article157685989.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_big_of_a_difference_could_a_few_degrees_make
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-degrees-melting-ice-2015-10
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-celsius-increase-matters.html

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@Vaulk and @CYDdharta
This is bad because a few degrees or even a half a degree C can have a dramatic effect on the globe. Especially if it is in a span of a few decades. 
"But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.

With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

Here are other sources: 
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/what-big-deal-planet-few-degrees-warmer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article157685989.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_big_of_a_difference_could_a_few_degrees_make
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-degrees-melting-ice-2015-10
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-celsius-increase-matters.html

...and there it is.  They can't tell us accurately what will happen in 5 years, but they know what will happen in a hundred years, conveniently long after anyone old enough to be paying attention will be deceased.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

@Vaulk and @CYDdharta
This is bad because a few degrees or even a half a degree C can have a dramatic effect on the globe. Especially if it is in a span of a few decades. 
"But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.

With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

Here are other sources: 
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/what-big-deal-planet-few-degrees-warmer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article157685989.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_big_of_a_difference_could_a_few_degrees_make
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-degrees-melting-ice-2015-10
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-celsius-increase-matters.html

...and there it is.  They can't tell us accurately what will happen in 5 years, but they know what will happen in a hundred years, conveniently long after anyone old enough to be paying attention will be deceased.

Climate and weather are different. How many times does this have to be repeated? 
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/weather

Climate would be based on the overall and is more accurate. Weather is different because of things like the butterfly effect, certain areas will get different weather. However, the butterfly effect does not effect the globe all at once and the impact is not on the climate. Weather forecast are getting more reliable though. 


http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/
https://www.popsci.com/weather-forecasts-are-getting-better

"It's the butterfly effect in action - one small change tomorrow can ultimately lead to a massive difference after 90 days." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-many-days-can-you-trust-the-weather-forecast-for

"Ultimately, the forecasts are quite accurate." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html

"It’s frustrating how many times we have to repeat this, but climate change is measured by examining long-term trends in weather statistics over large areas, like hemispheres, or the entire planet, not events happening over a few days or even a few months in a small region. A fleeting cold wave or snowstorm over the eastern United States, for example, should never be used as evidence for or against climate change. For the past several decades, Earth’s average winter temperature has warmed markedly, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. In fact, 2014 is on track to be Earth’s warmest year on record, according to NOAA." and "Weather forecasters are usually wrong." was put has a myth by https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-weather-forecasting/2015/01/02/e49e8950-8b86-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html?utm_term=.fb668fdf7cf0

Another quote is "Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles" by https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Climate and weather are different. How many times does this have to be repeated? 
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/weather

Climate would be based on the overall and is more accurate. Weather is different because of things like the butterfly effect, certain areas will get different weather. However, the butterfly effect does not effect the globe all at once and the impact is not on the climate. Weather forecast are getting more reliable though. 


http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/
https://www.popsci.com/weather-forecasts-are-getting-better

"It's the butterfly effect in action - one small change tomorrow can ultimately lead to a massive difference after 90 days." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-many-days-can-you-trust-the-weather-forecast-for

"Ultimately, the forecasts are quite accurate." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html

"It’s frustrating how many times we have to repeat this, but climate change is measured by examining long-term trends in weather statistics over large areas, like hemispheres, or the entire planet, not events happening over a few days or even a few months in a small region. A fleeting cold wave or snowstorm over the eastern United States, for example, should never be used as evidence for or against climate change. For the past several decades, Earth’s average winter temperature has warmed markedly, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. In fact, 2014 is on track to be Earth’s warmest year on record, according to NOAA." and "Weather forecasters are usually wrong." was put has a myth by https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-weather-forecasting/2015/01/02/e49e8950-8b86-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html?utm_term=.fb668fdf7cf0

Another quote is "Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles" by https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

Of course the existence of an unknown butterfly flapping its wings has no direct bearing on weather forecasts, since it will take far too long for such a small perturbation to grow to a significant size, and we have many more immediate uncertainties to worry about. So the direct impact of this phenomenon on weather prediction is often somewhat overstated.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

Oh yeah, climatologists have a great track record of predictions;

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/30/an-inconvenient-commentary-5-times-climate-alarmists-made-horribly-wrong-predictions


I've never said weather forecasters are usually wrong, I said climatologists predictions are usually wrong.  There is a difference between weather and climate, in case you didn't realize it.  For their part, meteorologists are fairly skeptical about global warming posing a calamity. 


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#54fd69bc6d9a

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Climate and weather are different. How many times does this have to be repeated? 
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/weather

Climate would be based on the overall and is more accurate. Weather is different because of things like the butterfly effect, certain areas will get different weather. However, the butterfly effect does not effect the globe all at once and the impact is not on the climate. Weather forecast are getting more reliable though. 


http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/
https://www.popsci.com/weather-forecasts-are-getting-better

"It's the butterfly effect in action - one small change tomorrow can ultimately lead to a massive difference after 90 days." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-many-days-can-you-trust-the-weather-forecast-for

"Ultimately, the forecasts are quite accurate." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html

"It’s frustrating how many times we have to repeat this, but climate change is measured by examining long-term trends in weather statistics over large areas, like hemispheres, or the entire planet, not events happening over a few days or even a few months in a small region. A fleeting cold wave or snowstorm over the eastern United States, for example, should never be used as evidence for or against climate change. For the past several decades, Earth’s average winter temperature has warmed markedly, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. In fact, 2014 is on track to be Earth’s warmest year on record, according to NOAA." and "Weather forecasters are usually wrong." was put has a myth by https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-weather-forecasting/2015/01/02/e49e8950-8b86-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html?utm_term=.fb668fdf7cf0

Another quote is "Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles" by https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

Of course the existence of an unknown butterfly flapping its wings has no direct bearing on weather forecasts, since it will take far too long for such a small perturbation to grow to a significant size, and we have many more immediate uncertainties to worry about. So the direct impact of this phenomenon on weather prediction is often somewhat overstated.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

Oh yeah, climatologists have a great track record of predictions;

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/30/an-inconvenient-commentary-5-times-climate-alarmists-made-horribly-wrong-predictions


I've never said weather forecasters are usually wrong, I said climatologists predictions are usually wrong.  There is a difference between weather and climate, in case you didn't realize it.  For their part, meteorologists are fairly skeptical about global warming posing a calamity. 


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#54fd69bc6d9a

Climatologist have been right about
https://thinkprogress.org/climatologist-who-predicted-california-drought-10-years-ago-says-it-may-soon-be-even-more-dire-7acbb8df218c/
https://medium.com/@qwertie/successful-predictions-of-climatology-4ca6087166cf
" Not only were climate scientists and their models correct to project global warming resulting from the increasing greenhouse effect, but they’ve been quite good at projecting the right amount of warming. Climate scientists don’t take nearly as much credit as they should for these accurate projections." https://www.skepticalscience.com/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-book.html
"A common incarnation of this skeptic argument says, “Even with state-of-the-art computer models, scientists can’t even accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, so how can they possibly tell us what’s going to happen twenty years from now?” Here we have one of those classic climate-skeptic mistakes. This mistake is confusing weather with climate." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

"Climate isn’t the same as weather." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict Even though you have denied it. 

"What would it look like if Earth were five degrees colder on average than it is now? We would be in a glacial period. Sea levels would be perhaps 100 meters (over 320 feet) lower than they are today. (The last time this sort of thing happened, the drop in sea level aided human movement from Asia into North America because the land now under Alaska’s Bering Strait surfaced to provide something of a bridge.) Places like Chicago, London, and Manhattan would be buried under ice. Some places that are now deserts, like in the American Southwest or Afghanistan, would be wetter, while other deserts would expand. " https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict  This supports the climate change is dangerous argument.  

Yeah, they really do. Just like facts really support my points. 

Fredsnephew

@Pogue ;
To many pretty pictures and diagrams.

And to much angst.

You also seem to have given up trying to refute my logic.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

You realise that even though you have chosen a not that relevant graph which shows temperature in the atmosphere rather than on the surface, there is still a clear upward trend.

Also a your unsupported claims are totally wrong with the last couple of years including the warmest winter since records began in Pennsylvania: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ydr.com/amp/78178858

Guess your anecdotal comments aren't even accurate.

I said WINTER.  Winter didn't start until the end of December.

So what you're saying is that when you ignore 99% of the data available (all the states but one and 75% of the months), then according to your personal claims but no actual evidence there are a couple of years where it was cold.

Completely irrelevant. Your personal claims about a couple of years of Winters in Pennsylvania are irrelevant.

Also not sure why you're posting evidence that contradicts your claims, e.g. "The average U.S. Temperature during Jan was 32.2 F, 2.1 F above the 20th century average."

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

@Ampersand

As per your request for references, the following references are to the combined misunderstandings in Science that were accompanied by Scientific Consensus.  Coincidentally, a vast majority of these misunderstandings were defeated by a singular person or group who's research went against the consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

I'm inclined to side with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) who states: "The long-term prediction of future climate states IS NOT POSSIBLE".  

Now I'm waiting to hear about how these references to the centuries of Scientific consensus' that were wrong are somehow irrelevant even though you asked for them specifically.

So as per your links you point is that a few dozen scientific consensuses were wrong? Out of all the countless millions scientific consensuses that have been had in the last couple of hundred years? Seems like am amazing batting average that contradicts your point and specifically reinforces mine that the scientific consensus is a good indicator of something being correct. Thanks for your support.

Also if you actually see your links you'll see that most of them don't even apply to what we're talking about. We were talking about the scientific community. The scientific method didn't even properly start to develop until the 17th century so could not have been applied before then - so how could things like the emission theory of vision, discredited several hundred years before a scientific community even existed, have been part of the scientific consensus? Quick answer, it can't, which is why almost every one of the links on that wikipedia page is missing a soruce.

Lastly please don't falsify and misrepresent quotes, especially ones where I've already explained the mistake you're making. If you have to lie to back up your points then your points aren't worth making.

Pogue

The sun is also dimming, which is usually attributed to a colder planet but the planet is getting warmer. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/15/the-sun-is-blank-nasa-data-shows-it-to-be-dimming/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Climatologist have been right about
https://thinkprogress.org/climatologist-who-predicted-california-drought-10-years-ago-says-it-may-soon-be-even-more-dire-7acbb8df218c/
https://medium.com/@qwertie/successful-predictions-of-climatology-4ca6087166cf
" Not only were climate scientists and their models correct to project global warming resulting from the increasing greenhouse effect, but they’ve been quite good at projecting the right amount of warming. Climate scientists don’t take nearly as much credit as they should for these accurate projections." https://www.skepticalscience.com/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-book.html
"A common incarnation of this skeptic argument says, “Even with state-of-the-art computer models, scientists can’t even accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, so how can they possibly tell us what’s going to happen twenty years from now?” Here we have one of those classic climate-skeptic mistakes. This mistake is confusing weather with climate." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

"Climate isn’t the same as weather." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict Even though you have denied it. 

"What would it look like if Earth were five degrees colder on average than it is now? We would be in a glacial period. Sea levels would be perhaps 100 meters (over 320 feet) lower than they are today. (The last time this sort of thing happened, the drop in sea level aided human movement from Asia into North America because the land now under Alaska’s Bering Strait surfaced to provide something of a bridge.) Places like Chicago, London, and Manhattan would be buried under ice. Some places that are now deserts, like in the American Southwest or Afghanistan, would be wetter, while other deserts would expand. " https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict  This supports the climate change is dangerous argument.  

Yeah, they really do. Just like facts really support my points. 

No, they really don't. 

Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8.

Climate models versus climate reality

There are a number of good reason the models fail.  Aside from those listed in the article above;

Flawed Climate Models

It doesn't help that some of the models are a series of coding errors;

Former NASA GISS climate scientist reveals incompetence, junkets, best model called "jungle" of code

But when all else fails, fake the data, so much for any credence in NASA's data;

DAVID ROSE:How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

...and for a profession so concerned about peer-review, why would they find it necessary to hide their data?

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Climatologist have been right about
https://thinkprogress.org/climatologist-who-predicted-california-drought-10-years-ago-says-it-may-soon-be-even-more-dire-7acbb8df218c/
https://medium.com/@qwertie/successful-predictions-of-climatology-4ca6087166cf
" Not only were climate scientists and their models correct to project global warming resulting from the increasing greenhouse effect, but they’ve been quite good at projecting the right amount of warming. Climate scientists don’t take nearly as much credit as they should for these accurate projections." https://www.skepticalscience.com/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-book.html
"A common incarnation of this skeptic argument says, “Even with state-of-the-art computer models, scientists can’t even accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, so how can they possibly tell us what’s going to happen twenty years from now?” Here we have one of those classic climate-skeptic mistakes. This mistake is confusing weather with climate." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

"Climate isn’t the same as weather." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict Even though you have denied it. 

"What would it look like if Earth were five degrees colder on average than it is now? We would be in a glacial period. Sea levels would be perhaps 100 meters (over 320 feet) lower than they are today. (The last time this sort of thing happened, the drop in sea level aided human movement from Asia into North America because the land now under Alaska’s Bering Strait surfaced to provide something of a bridge.) Places like Chicago, London, and Manhattan would be buried under ice. Some places that are now deserts, like in the American Southwest or Afghanistan, would be wetter, while other deserts would expand. " https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict  This supports the climate change is dangerous argument.  

Yeah, they really do. Just like facts really support my points. 

No, they really don't. 

Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8.

Climate models versus climate reality

There are a number of good reason the models fail.  Aside from those listed in the article above;

Flawed Climate Models

It doesn't help that some of the models are a series of coding errors;

Former NASA GISS climate scientist reveals incompetence, junkets, best model called "jungle" of code

But when all else fails, fake the data, so much for any credence in NASA's data;

DAVID ROSE:How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

...and for a profession so concerned about peer-review, why would they find it necessary to hide their data?

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann

Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that.

Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.

Pogue

@CYDdharta
Can you start debunking (or try to) the actual evidence for man-made climate change? Like the evidence on 
http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p1

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that.

Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.

Nothing is stopping you from checking, data and the source is clearly identified so have at it.  Do you have anything that shows an average of CMIP-5 models that is substantially different?  No?  Then that argument looks like a fail. 

Likewise, ad hominems don't make very convincing rebuttals.  Respond to the content of the articles instead of dismissing the source for no reason.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

@CYDdharta
Can you start debunking (or try to) the actual evidence for man-made climate change? Like the evidence on 
http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p1

Every one of those articles relies on NASA's NOAA data.  As I posted above, NOAA just got caught with their thumb on the scale.  Their data has been corrupted. 

Pogue

CYDdharta

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that.

Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.

Nothing is stopping you from checking, data and the source is clearly identified so have at it.  Do you have anything that shows an average of CMIP-5 models that is substantially different?  No?  Then that argument looks like a fail. 

Likewise, ad hominems don't make very convincing rebuttals.  Respond to the content of the articles instead of dismissing the source for no reason.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is - it certainly isn't me pointing out you lack evidence.

The data for your graph is not available and the claims are therefore impossible to check and cannot be relied upon.

You've already been provided with CMIP5 based data that contradicts your claims and have not responded to it adequately - trying to dismiss the evidence entirely rather than having to look at it.

In fact even without seeing the data and putting aside it looks like they're cherry picking, I can see another fairly obvious fudge. They have matches the series at 1979. 1979 was an especially warm year for global atmospheric temperature so when it returned to the mean it would look like the temperature was increasing slower than predicted.

Fake science provided by a non-expert who didn't provide the data behind his claims so it could never be thoroughly checked.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that.

Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.

Nothing is stopping you from checking, data and the source is clearly identified so have at it.  Do you have anything that shows an average of CMIP-5 models that is substantially different?  No?  Then that argument looks like a fail. 

Likewise, ad hominems don't make very convincing rebuttals.  Respond to the content of the articles instead of dismissing the source for no reason.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is - it certainly isn't me pointing out you lack evidence.

The data for your graph is not available and the claims are therefore impossible to check and cannot be relied upon.

You've already been provided with CMIP5 based data that contradicts your claims and have not responded to it adequately - trying to dismiss the evidence entirely rather than having to look at it.

In fact even without seeing the data and putting aside it looks like they're cherry picking, I can see another fairly obvious fudge. They have matches the series at 1979. 1979 was an especially warm year for global atmospheric temperature so when it returned to the mean it would look like the temperature was increasing slower than predicted.

Fake science provided by a non-expert who didn't provide the data behind his claims so it could never be thoroughly checked.

LOL; obviously I do know what the term "ad hominem" means, you, however, appear to be confused about it's real meaning.

Someone posted a CMIP-5 graph showing tens of thousands of models?!?  Do tell.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that.

Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.

Nothing is stopping you from checking, data and the source is clearly identified so have at it.  Do you have anything that shows an average of CMIP-5 models that is substantially different?  No?  Then that argument looks like a fail. 

Likewise, ad hominems don't make very convincing rebuttals.  Respond to the content of the articles instead of dismissing the source for no reason.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is - it certainly isn't me pointing out you lack evidence.

The data for your graph is not available and the claims are therefore impossible to check and cannot be relied upon.

You've already been provided with CMIP5 based data that contradicts your claims and have not responded to it adequately - trying to dismiss the evidence entirely rather than having to look at it.

In fact even without seeing the data and putting aside it looks like they're cherry picking, I can see another fairly obvious fudge. They have matches the series at 1979. 1979 was an especially warm year for global atmospheric temperature so when it returned to the mean it would look like the temperature was increasing slower than predicted.

Fake science provided by a non-expert who didn't provide the data behind his claims so it could never be thoroughly checked.

LOL; obviously I do know what the term "ad hominem" means, you, however, appear to be confused about it's real meaning.

Someone posted a CMIP-5 graph showing tens of thousands of models?!?  Do tell.

And I think it is obvious you don't know the meaning. As we are at a difference of opinion the only solution is for you to support your claim, something you should have done in the first place.

When you accused me of making an ad hominem you offered no evidence or logic to support this, the only comment even tangentially related being a statement that I was dismissing your evidence for no reason - an illogical claim if you are alleging ad hominem arguments seeing as the entire point of ad hominems is that you dismiss an arguement for a specific (yet ineligible) reason of the opponent's personal characteristics.

Please support your claim or I shall consider my point proven.

Also do not make strawmen arguments, you seem to be conflating at least two separate points with your stating that I claimed someone posted a CMIP5 graph showing tens of thousands of models. Disagree? Then quote where I made that claim.

Lastly please respond to my arguments or make it clear you concede. You offer no defence that your graph is totally baseless.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

And I think it is obvious you don't know the meaning. As we are at a difference of opinion the only solution is for you to support your claim, something you should have done in the first place.

When you accused me of making an ad hominem you offered no evidence or logic to support this, the only comment even tangentially related being a statement that I was dismissing your evidence for no reason - an illogical claim if you are alleging ad hominem arguments seeing as the entire point of ad hominems is that you dismiss an arguement for a specific (yet ineligible) reason of the opponent's personal characteristics.

Please support your claim or I shall consider my point proven.

Also do not make strawmen arguments, you seem to be conflating at least two separate points with your stating that I claimed someone posted a CMIP5 graph showing tens of thousands of models. Disagree? Then quote where I made that claim.

Lastly please respond to my arguments or make it clear you concede. You offer no defence that your graph is totally baseless.

You really should have looked up the term first.  I was trying to avoid making you look foolish;

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

There are different forms this logic fallacy can take.  One form is through personal attacks on the poster.  Another form is by dismissing a source, perhaps calling it "a niche newspaper slinging accusations" while ignoring the substance of the article quoted.  Either way, you are attempting to shoot the messenger while ignoring the message; they're both forms of an Ad hominem fallacy.

As for the rest, you dismissed my graph because you were suspicious that it didn't use all of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models.  I figured you only accepted graphs that use all of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models; otherwise you'd be dismissing my graph simply because it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, a case of blatant hypocrisy.

Ampersand

@CYDdharta

If an articles claims are just accusations which have been sling rather than, say, evidenced claimed, then pointing that out IS attacking the nature of the argument.

By your own definition it was not an ad hominem, unless you think slinging accusations is a valid form of evidence and want to try and make an argument supporting that. 

Also, please quit strawmanning. My rationale was clearly explained.

"Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that."

It was because there is no data to support it. The graph could have no basis in reality or it could have the data warped. Maybe those 102 model runs are representative and maybe they're cherry picked.

If you had provided the data then we could see and maybe the 102 would be perfectly adequate (although it's so poorly made I doubt it).

You only believe it because it supports your view. There is no actual basis for paying a moment's attention to your graph.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

@CYDdharta

If an articles claims are just accusations which have been sling rather than, say, evidenced claimed, then pointing that out IS attacking the nature of the argument.

By your own definition it was not an ad hominem, unless you think slinging accusations is a valid form of evidence and want to try and make an argument supporting that. 

Also, please quit strawmanning. My rationale was clearly explained.

"Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that."

It was because there is no data to support it. The graph could have no basis in reality or it could have the data warped. Maybe those 102 model runs are representative and maybe they're cherry picked.

If you had provided the data then we could see and maybe the 102 would be perfectly adequate (although it's so poorly made I doubt it).

You only believe it because it supports your view. There is no actual basis for paying a moment's attention to your graph.

I haven't posted any articles that are just accusations, just ones that imparted information you don't want to hear, so it was an ad hominem.   And yes, you've made your "rationale" quite obvious by demanding to see the data for my chart, who's source is much more clearly identified than any other graph in the thread and is publicly available.  Do you question the validity of graphs who's sources aren't even linked?  No, of course not, they agree with your preconceived beliefs on the issue.  I'm afraid you're laid bare your hypocrisy on the issue. 

Pogue

Can you guys stop with the mini ad-hominem debate? @CYDdharta Start debunking the points, please. The independent sources I bought up. 

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Can you guys stop with the mini ad-hominem debate? @CYDdharta Start debunking the points, please. The independent sources I bought up. 

None of the models show the global warming pause we've been experiencing since the late 90s - early 00s. 

Pogue

@CYDdharta
No. Blatant lie. As I stated on http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p2 and http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p3 with graphs and quotes it has been warming a lot. It is only the human emissions that are helping stop the heating. Along with the dimming of the sun. However, it is still getting hotter.

CYDdharta

LOL, yeah, warming well within the margin of error illustrates the Earth heating up in leaps and bounds.  The hiatus is well documented, yet unexplained by modelers.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

LOL, yeah, warming well within the margin of error illustrates the Earth heating up in leaps and bounds.  The hiatus is well documented, yet unexplained by modelers.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

Slowing does not mean it doesn't exist. The sun is dimming and countries are cutting carbon emissions.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/roads-decoupling-21-countries-are-reducing-carbon-emissions-while-growing-gdp ;
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges (sigh we are leaving)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Slowing does not mean it doesn't exist. The sun is dimming and countries are cutting carbon emissions.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/roads-decoupling-21-countries-are-reducing-carbon-emissions-while-growing-gdp ;
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges (sigh we are leaving)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/

...so the models take the sun's radiation into consideration?  Likewise global trends?  No wonder they don't work.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

@CYDdharta

If an articles claims are just accusations which have been sling rather than, say, evidenced claimed, then pointing that out IS attacking the nature of the argument.

By your own definition it was not an ad hominem, unless you think slinging accusations is a valid form of evidence and want to try and make an argument supporting that. 

Also, please quit strawmanning. My rationale was clearly explained.

"Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that."

It was because there is no data to support it. The graph could have no basis in reality or it could have the data warped. Maybe those 102 model runs are representative and maybe they're cherry picked.

If you had provided the data then we could see and maybe the 102 would be perfectly adequate (although it's so poorly made I doubt it).

You only believe it because it supports your view. There is no actual basis for paying a moment's attention to your graph.

I haven't posted any articles that are just accusations, just ones that imparted information you don't want to hear, so it was an ad hominem.   And yes, you've made your "rationale" quite obvious by demanding to see the data for my chart, who's source is much more clearly identified than any other graph in the thread and is publicly available.  Do you question the validity of graphs who's sources aren't even linked?  No, of course not, they agree with your preconceived beliefs on the issue.  I'm afraid you're laid bare your hypocrisy on the issue. 

Lol, now you're just slinging baseless accusations directly. You say my claim was wrong? Then actually form an argument to support that rather than just giving me your totally unevidenced opinion.

The latter half of your post can be disregarded as a tu quoque logical fallacy - nothing you have said means my logic and claims against you are wrong.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

Lol, now you're just slinging baseless accusations directly. You say my claim was wrong? Then actually form an argument to support that rather than just giving me your totally unevidenced opinion.

The latter half of your post can be disregarded as a tu quoque logical fallacy - nothing you have said means my logic and claims against you are wrong.

Since you have nothing pertinent to add, you can stop posting.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

Lol, now you're just slinging baseless accusations directly. You say my claim was wrong? Then actually form an argument to support that rather than just giving me your totally unevidenced opinion.

The latter half of your post can be disregarded as a tu quoque logical fallacy - nothing you have said means my logic and claims against you are wrong.

Since you have nothing pertinent to add, you can stop posting.

But pointing out the fallacirs of people like you is half the reason I come here! Why would I stop when I can point out how you are trying to dismiss my claims with absolutely no logic or evidence, like you have here, showing you absolute intellectual poverty?

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

But pointing out the fallacirs of people like you is half the reason I come here! Why would I stop when I can point out how you are trying to dismiss my claims with absolutely no logic or evidence, like you have here, showing you absolute intellectual poverty?

Suit yourself, so far the only thing we've firmly established is your hypocrisy.  That seems somewhat masochistic to me, but if that's what you enjoy, have at it.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Ampersand said:

But pointing out the fallacirs of people like you is half the reason I come here! Why would I stop when I can point out how you are trying to dismiss my claims with absolutely no logic or evidence, like you have here, showing you absolute intellectual poverty?

Suit yourself, so far the only thing we've firmly established is your hypocrisy.  That seems somewhat masochistic to me, but if that's what you enjoy, have at it.

You again make baseless claims with nothing in your post actually supporting what you say. e.g. stating that we've established my hypocrisy and providing nothing to substantiate this. Your post is therefore worthless.

i once again use reasoning to point out the rationale basis for dismissing your post - that it does not meet the most basic requirements of an argument by having evidence, logic or reasoning to support its claims. My post is once again a valid contribution.

Do you actually think you are coming off well in these exchanges?

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

You again make baseless claims with nothing in your post actually supporting what you say. e.g. stating that we've established my hypocrisy and providing nothing to substantiate this. Your post is therefore worthless.

i once again use reasoning to point out the rationale basis for dismissing your post - that it does not meet the most basic requirements of an argument by having evidence, logic or reasoning to support its claims. My post is once again a valid contribution.

Do you actually think you are coming off well in these exchanges?

Do you think you're coming off well???  Anyone with any sense stopped reading this thread long ago, like about the time you started with the ad hominems.

Mike

Climate change is a natural event. Since humans are part of nature and nature is all about change via the physical constructal law, so what is the issue? Whether humans were here or not, climate change happens, for we live in a constantly changing universe in every instance of time.

If you have problems with change, let’s increase taxes and regulations, hoping to stop the universal clock of change.

Pogue

@Mike
@Ampersand and I have explained this before. The rate of this happening is too fast. We should probably be cooling because the Sun is dimming. We are emitting all the Carbon that is heating up the planet. This, right now, is not natural. 
"Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Climate models are reliable 
"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Climate models are reliable 
"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm

LOL really?!?  Is that what they meant when they said

In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny. Based on our analysis, which relies on physical understanding of the key processes and forcings involved, we find that the rate of warming over the early twenty-first century is slower than that of the previous few decades. This slowdown is evident in time series of GMST and in the global mean temperature of the lower troposphere.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

If the "climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend" means the climate models are reliable, that's not a good thing for climate alarmism, as it means they are reliably wrong.

Pogue

@CYDdharta
Still warming and the quote proves that man-made climate change is real. Thank you for proving my point! The debate is officially over because you admitted that I am right. Your source, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf "in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing."