[Truth To Power]

This sea ice loss aligns with an upward trend in global average surface air temperatures due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

No, that's just another bald falsehood. Proof:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2022 ... th-lowest/

The minimum low in arctic sea ice was reached in 2012. Since 2015, six of the seven years had lower maximum sea ice than 2022, so 2022 was definitely cooler, proving me objectively right and you objectively wrong. Objectively.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, that's just baldly false:

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 100122.pdf

Quote the relevant text.

[Truth To Power]

Quote the relevant text.

"The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the
planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age
ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are expe-
riencing a period of warming.
...
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis
of modeled anthropogenic forcing.
...
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as
policy tools.
...
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes,
floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
...
There is no climate emergency."

[Pants-of-dog]

"The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the
planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age
ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are expe-
riencing a period of warming.

This argument is stupid.

It assumes that because other changes were natural that all other changes must also be natural.

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis
of modeled anthropogenic forcing.
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as
policy tools.

This is not an argument. It is an ad hominem and an incorrect one at that.

The climate models are more than adequate. You can tell because none of you denialists can ever come up with an example of an incorrect model.

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes,
floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.

This bit is clever. By specifying statistical evidence, the author implicitly acknowledges that other lines of evidence exist and the author is aware of them.

There is no climate emergency."

This last one is not even a criticism of ACC theory. The author is just complaining about people using the word "emergency".

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... oby-young/

[Truth To Power]

This argument is stupid.

No, it is more rational and scientifically credible than any argument offered thus far for CO2-centered climate theory.

It assumes that because other changes were natural that all other changes must also be natural.

No, it identifies the fact that CO2-centered climate theory fails the test of Occam's Razor. Century-scale warming episodes have always been natural in the past, so it is anti-rational and anti-scientific to assume a priori, without evidence, as CO2-centered climate theory does, that the most recent one cannot be natural.

This is not an argument.

Yes it is.

It is an ad hominem and an incorrect one at that.

No it isn't. It correctly identifies the fact that CO2-centered climate theory is completely dependent on climate models whose assumptions are false and absurd, and whose predictions are reliably and wildly inaccurate.

The climate models are more than adequate.

No they aren't. Every climate model that has predicted rapid warming as a result of increased CO2 has been wildly wrong.

You can tell because none of you denialists can ever come up with an example of an incorrect model.

That is baldly false. All the ones that predicted dramatic warming are incorrect.

This bit is clever.

You misspelled, "science."

By specifying statistical evidence, the author implicitly acknowledges that other lines of evidence exist and the author is aware of them.

Of course. There is anecdotal evidence and subjective evidence, eyewitness testimonials and the opinions of purported experts. They just aren't science.

This last one is not even a criticism of ACC theory.

Yes, of course it is.

The author is just complaining about people using the word "emergency".

No, they are identifying the fact that CO2-centered climate theory incorrectly predicts dramatic, unprecedented and harmful warming caused by increased CO2.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-there-is-no-climate-emergency-repeats-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science-daily-sceptic-toby-young/

The first paragraph of your source's criticism of the climate declaration says: "Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming"

That is a bald lie.

Your lying source goes on: "and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit."

That is also a bald lie.

Your lying source goes on: "Scientific evidence also indicates that climate change is contributing to intensified or more frequent natural disasters such as heatwaves, drought and heavy rainfall. "

That is also a bald lie.

The first three claims your source made are all bald lies. That is normal, routine, and expected for claimed "fact-checks" by advocates of CO2-centered climate theory. Everything else in the climatefeedback article appears to be equally false and dishonest, as the author either baldly lies or quotes sources who are baldly lying.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it is more rational and scientifically credible than any argument offered thus far for CO2-centered climate theory.

No, it identifies the fact that CO2-centered climate theory fails the test of Occam's Razor. Century-scale warming episodes have always been natural in the past, so it is anti-rational and anti-scientific to assume a priori, without evidence, as CO2-centered climate theory does, that the most recent one cannot be natural.

Occam’s Razor does not describe physical reality, nor is there any reason to believe that reality tends towards the simpler.

But now that you mention it, this question (i.e. how much of the current warming is due to anthropogenic forcings) has been asked. And so we have evidence that anthropogenic forcings are responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. It correctly identifies the fact that CO2-centered climate theory is completely dependent on climate models whose assumptions are false and absurd, and whose predictions are reliably and wildly inaccurate.

No they aren't. Every climate model that has predicted rapid warming as a result of increased CO2 has been wildly wrong.

That is baldly false. All the ones that predicted dramatic warming are incorrect.

No, this is why you refuse to name a single example of an incorrect model prediction.

You misspelled, "science."

Of course. There is anecdotal evidence and subjective evidence, eyewitness testimonials and the opinions of purported experts. They just aren't science.

Yes, of course it is.

No, they are identifying the fact that CO2-centered climate theory incorrectly predicts dramatic, unprecedented and harmful warming caused by increased CO2.

The first paragraph of your source's criticism of the climate declaration says: "Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming"

That is a bald lie.

Your lying source goes on: "and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit."

That is also a bald lie.

Your lying source goes on: "Scientific evidence also indicates that climate change is contributing to intensified or more frequent natural disasters such as heatwaves, drought and heavy rainfall. "

That is also a bald lie.

The first three claims your source made are all bald lies. That is normal, routine, and expected for claimed "fact-checks" by advocates of CO2-centered climate theory. Everything else in the climatefeedback article appears to be equally false and dishonest, as the author either baldly lies or quotes sources who are baldly lying.

Do you even know what the theory of anthropogenic climate change is?

If so, please summarize it.

[late]

No, no one determines what a science says

That doesn't make sense, but what else is new.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it isn't. It correctly identifies the fact that CO2-centered climate theory is completely dependent on climate models whose assumptions are false and absurd, and whose predictions are reliably and wildly inaccurate.

No they aren't. Every climate model that has predicted rapid warming as a result of increased CO2 has been wildly wrong.

That is baldly false. All the ones that predicted dramatic warming are incorrect.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

…….

In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming,” said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. “This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts.”

…..

The actual study is here:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 19GL085378

[Truth To Power]

Occam’s Razor does not describe physical reality,

It is a principle of credible scientific reasoning that CO2-centered climate theory violates.

nor is there any reason to believe that reality tends towards the simpler.

That is of course just false, as every equation of physics and chemistry proves.

But now that you mention it, this question (i.e. how much of the current warming is due to anthropogenic forcings) has been asked. And so we have evidence that anthropogenic forcings are responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming.

But only laughably bad "evidence" that violates the principles of sound scientific reasoning such as Occam's Razor.

No, this is why you refuse to name a single example of an incorrect model prediction.

No, I have identified them many times; you just ignore them and repeat your claim that I "refuse to" or am "unable to" identify them. Mitchell et al. 2020 and McKitrick and Christy 2020 proved that CMIP5 and CMIP6 both dramatically overpredicted observed warming. A Canadian model, CanESM5, overpredicted observed warming by a factor of seven.

Do you even know what the theory of anthropogenic climate change is?

It's the theory that CO2 is the principal factor determining global surface temperature, and that continued use of fossil fuels will therefore cause large, unprecedented, and harmful increases in global surface temperature.

[Truth To Power]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

They change the temperature data to agree with their models, and then claim that shows their models are accurate!

[Pants-of-dog]

It is a principle of credible scientific reasoning that CO2-centered climate theory violates.

That is of course just false, as every equation of physics and chemistry proves.

But only laughably bad "evidence" that violates the principles of sound scientific reasoning such as Occam's Razor.

At this point, it is clear that your knowledge if how to apply Occam's Razor comes mainly from movies. The Wikipedia article even contradicts this belief of yours about Occam's razor.

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%2 ... 0criterion.

No, I have identified them many times; you just ignore them and repeat your claim that I "refuse to" or am "unable to" identify them. Mitchell et al. 2020 and McKitrick and Christy 2020 proved that CMIP5 and CMIP6 both dramatically overpredicted observed warming. A Canadian model, CanESM5, overpredicted observed warming by a factor of seven.

I doubt it.

Provide evidence.

It's the theory that CO2 is the principal factor determining global surface temperature, and that continued use of fossil fuels will therefore cause large, unprecedented, and harmful increases in global surface temperature.

No, this is not the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

[Truth To Power]

At this point, it is clear that your knowledge if how to apply Occam's Razor comes mainly from movies.

No, you are just engaging in false and disingenuous ad hominem filth again, as usual. You seem to have nothing to offer but ad hominem filth. I wonder why that is....

The Wikipedia article even contradicts this belief of yours about Occam's razor.

No, of course it doesn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual.

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.

Which CO2-centered climate theory also consistently flouts.

I doubt it.

But you are wrong.

Provide evidence.

I already cited two peer-reviewed papers.

This ain't my first rodeo with you, PoD. You demand evidence, I provide it, and you then repeat your claim that I never provide evidence. It's always the same.

No, this is not the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Yes it is.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are just engaging in false and disingenuous ad hominem filth again, as usual. You seem to have nothing to offer but ad hominem filth. I wonder why that is....

No, of course it doesn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual.

Which CO2-centered climate theory also consistently flouts.

Your lack of knowledge about how to use Occam’s razor is irrelevant.

The effect of natural forcings versus anthropogenic forcings has been tested. The current estimate is that humans are responsible for about 110% of the observed warming.

But you are wrong.

I already cited two peer-reviewed papers.

No, Vaguely mentioning them without providing any link or even a title is not citing.

Chances are the studies do not say what you think they do.

Like the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you think it says something other than what it actually does.

[Truth To Power]

The effect of natural forcings versus anthropogenic forcings has been tested.

By assuming away solar effects.

The current estimate is that humans are responsible for about 110% of the observed warming.

No. That is not "the" current estimate. It is "a" current estimate, and one that has zero (0) scientific validity.

No, Vaguely mentioning them without providing any link or even a title is not citing.

Yes it is.

Chances are the studies do not say what you think they do.

No, you simply made that up.

Like the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you think it says something other than what it actually does.

More unsupported claims from you.

Don't you understand what it means when objective physical reality always agrees with me and disagrees with you?

[Pants-of-dog]

By assuming away solar effects.

No. That is not "the" current estimate. It is "a" current estimate, and one that has zero (0) scientific validity.

Yes it is.

No, you simply made that up.

More unsupported claims from you.

Don't you understand what it means when objective physical reality always agrees with me and disagrees with you?

This is just more sentence fragments that poorly seem to communicate mere ad hominems. This is boring.