wrote:

1. The bedrock driver of anthropogenic climate change is that CO2 change and temperature change have coincided, thus CO2 must be responsible for temperature change. Careful look at the data shows temperature change occurs first, then CO2 change. See graph here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

As explained in the text of your link, the usual explanation for the ice ages is that something other than CO2 changes caused an initial temperature change which is then amplified by a positive feedback mechanism involving the green house effect when the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean changes (due to the initial temperature change and resulting reinforcement). Thus the order of the changes supports the idea that CO2 causes a green house effect, and that anthropogenic releases cause warming.

2. Climate change models have been designed to agree with past temperature data. They have done a very bad job of predicting what will happen, however. They can't explain that temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

No, temperatures have continued to increase in the last decade. References were supplied earlier in this comment section. But no one expects temperatures to increase every year or even every decade. Other effects are present that can temporarily overwhelm the anthropogenic effect.

Neither of your arguments is correct. But you knew that right? Is it not silly to refer to a graph at a link to support your case when the text at the same link interprets the graph in a way that shows you are wrong? Or do you think that no one bothers to read?

I think using off-the-wall journal articles, especially if paid for by the oil companies, is a form of lying. There is a scientific consensus; there is a difference between using it and not using it.

wrote:what is unique about this event that makes it possible to conclude it is caused exclusively by human activity?

1. Anthropogenic release of CO2

2. Relationship between CO2 and global warming (See my response to Jersey Paul just earlier)

3. Computer modeling.

In my opinion (and not everyone agrees), the modeling results are required to make the case completely convincing. So I think there is more work to be done, but you do not have to be a weatherman...

wrote:What did man do to change the climate sufficient to convert the Middle East from a lush forest to a desert?

Animal grazing and crops would help with this transition. But who says there was no natural effect involved? Multiple causes can work together.

wrote:over the last 10 years the temperature has been demonstrated to be stable.

Source please. The data I find do not support this.

wrote:GCMs (computer climate models) do not validate a hypothesis. It takes physically observed hard data to validate the greenhouse hypothesis, and this is lacking today.

Baloney. To validate a hypothesis one takes the measured data and compares them to the results of calculations incorporating the relevant physics. This is exactly what has been done. You could claim that the models are not good enough yet, and I would agree that more needs to be done to make the results more accurate. But you misunderstand the process and the result.

wrote:For those who want evidence that statistcally the temperature over the past 10 years has been stable, check the Kesten C. Green and J Scott Armstrong paper “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” Energy and Environment 18, 7/8, 2007 and compare the two charts.

What charts? Showing temperatures?

That paper concludes that the IPCC report is not good enough at forecasting to be useful for policy decisions. It does not demonstrate that the temperature has not increased in the last decade. I am more than a little doubtful about this paper, as it seems mostly a rehash of obvious difficulties with forecasting and random statements by those objecting to the use of climate models, but not having investigated it in detail, I will say no more.

The conclusion of the paper:

To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to prepare forecasts of (1) temperature changes, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible proposed policy changes. To justify policy changes based on climate change, policy makers need scientific forecasts for all three forecasting problems. If governments implement policy changes without such justification, they are likely to cause harm. We have shown that failure occurs with the first forecasting problem: predicting temperature over the long term. Specifically, we have been unable to find a scientific forecast to support the currently widespread belief in “global warming.” Climate is complex and there is much uncertainty about causal relationships and data. Prior research on forecasting suggests that in such situations a naïve (no change) forecast would be superior to current predictions. Note that recommending the naïve forecast does not mean that we believe that climate will not change. It means that we are not convinced that current knowledge about climate is sufficient to make useful long-term forecasts about climate. Policy proposals should be assessed on that basis.

Nothing about temperatures in the last decade.

God is the guy that feeds the turtles.

from the RWAs last night justifies Romm's title. I had forgotten just how out of touch with reality these people are!