IPCCs report on global warming.

This debate is basically polarised between two sides.
On the one side you have climate scientists, people that have studied the subject for years and their job is to research it.
On the other hand you have people that haven't studied it but have a general political position on certain issues, eg feminism has gone too far, gay marriage isn't right, Britain should be a white country. Their political position on climate change is that it is a myth.

I see alot of arguments from ignorance wrg to climate science from the people that you say take a 'political position'. For instance one of the most popular is something like: "antartic sea ice extent has increased over the last 30 years therefore global cooling". Obviously that statement has an empirical observation and a conclusion. The empirical observation is of course correct, but the conclusion is based on ignorance i.e the fallacy that the only thing that could cause antarctic sea ice to grow, is global cooling. In reality it is far more complex.

So what's happening? If it is happening is it actually bad? Nobody can say what is normal climate/ weather.

Yes they can, there are plenty of useful climatic definitions such as tri decadal average. No one is denying long term natural variability, but short term averages are still extremely useful - in particular when natural background noise is removed (e.g solar activity, pacific dipole oscillation, volcanic activity e.c.t) then the human contribution becomes clearer.

It's like watching a pendulum swing and one group saying that position x is the natural position, another says its position y. In reality things are in a constant state of flux.

Yes but that doesn't mean climate averages don't have utility.

Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by far.

You need to be more specific here, what do you mean H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas? Are you talking about how potent an equi molar amount of gas is, or how much said gas contributes to global warming. And in the later case, one of the positive feedback cycles of increased CO2 is also increased water vapour.

Anything that is strike through is unnecessary verbal baggage that makes absolutely no point other than to insult an individual and deserves a no more eloquent response than this. If you have something to contribute to the discussion then please contribute. You may think that some of these sarcastic metaphors about communists and low IQ are intelligent, but anyone that has been exposed to the internet for more than a month, will have seen it before. Take it to omegle.

So what's happening? If it is happening is it actually bad? Nobody can say what is normal climate/ weather. It's like watching a pendulum swing and one group saying that position x is the natural position, another says its position y. In reality things are in a constant state of flux.

Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by far.

if you say something often enough it'll become true.

I've stated it more than once now, the science says otherwise

I'm more than happy to discuss humanity's genuine impact on the environment, but I have no interest in bandwagons ignoring fact and making proclamations as fantastical as the ultimately meagre out-put of CO2 (a fraction of the total)

The implication that a small increase in the abundance of a low abundant constituent somehow makes very little difference is not a reasonable assumption. You can demonstrate this effect for yourself with ink and water, but the point is it isn't evidence that human contribution to CO2 isn't important.

via human means is somehow drastically altering the Earth's climate when the proof and even basic starting point (the fundamental physics of carbon dioxide alone and it's lack of abundance in the atmosphere to begin with preclude the possibility it is somehow the driving force behind global climate change)

Not true, and if it is please provide a citation to back up this claim. The physics of CO2 is well known, and being a tri atomic species it has vibrational modes in the IR region due to a change in dipole moment (so IR radiation radiated by the earths surface has a chance to be absorbed and radiated back towards the surface) While over simplistic, this is in essence the reason CO2 behaves as a greenhouse gas along with O3, H2O, CH4 and why N2 and O2 don't. What you are saying not only contradicts climatology but also molecular physics. But as always I'm open to be persuaded otherwise. Find me a citation that suggests the low abundance of CO2 and human output prevents it having an effect.

say otherwise, and then the observations so far prove predictions (whether earnestly believed) wrong.

Projecting onto me isn't going to help your situation. You say I have no evidence, I say I have fundamental physics and chemistry and science behind me.


No you don't. And if you think you do - source please.


I say your debating tactics are feeble and your 'proof' flimsy and shoddy and no more compelling than what a creationist would offer, you just dodge right round that and keep coming powered by the assumption that if you say something often enough it'll become true.

What debating tactics, be specific. I'm tempted to strike this through as verbal silage again, as it seems very much like a pointless ad homenin attack/ insult that I see no point in engaging with. Like I said, take it to omegle.

I've stated it more than once now, the science says otherwise, reality says otherwise, and the observations rendering the predictions say otherwise. I'd say common sense says otherwise but you'd just dance around that to.

No it doesn't, which is why the scientific community gives no credence to your views. And common sense is not an argument in science for good reason. Common sense says "if you push an object it goes faster, therefore einstein was wrong about relativity".

Join ignore as well, seriously given up.

Whatever, get busy with finding me some citations.

I've made my points

What points? Low IQs, communism and allegations of corruption without evidence. I'm not taking that seriously.

and if there is any trouble in communication it's that as far as you and your ilk are concerned I and anyone who is trying to point out that what the AWC proponents claim is flawed and what basic science and observationstate,is a 'climate denier'.

No, basic science says you are wrong - see above.


Done.

So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true. The IPCC is now even more confident that global warming is man made.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE98Q0A820130927?irpc=932


Opinions please

3. 'every climate prediction made not coming true' - care to explain, when temperatures are rising, the ice is melting, etc?