lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:


This would be a reasonable position If we were having this debate in 1905.
The reason that paper you referenced was created was as an acknowledgement of the mass of evidence accrued since that time.

If you look at the time gap between when the earth was first postulated as being round, and being widely accepted as round was something like 2000 years.

That was 2000 years of the null hypothesis being totally incorrect, since it is pretty much independent of scientific proof.



Your argument has a much more fundamental flaw though.
You are debating as though AGW and natural variation are mutually exclusive.

If you think about it AGW is natural variation, because humans are a part of nature. We are a part of nature that has never been able to significantly affect the global climate before.

Of course, maybe you think that their have been highly intelligent races in earth history which also produced large amounts of green house gasses and changed the climate.

In that case, I would totally agree that it is simple natural variation, and whatever homeostatic mechanism which wiped that species out will also wipe us out, and then the planet will self stabilize.

Of course, you would have to show me some credible peer reviewed literature proving that their was a intelligent race in earth pre-history that also triggered high speed global warming.

It wouldn't be any less baseless than most of your other claims,

So,

Please provide evidence that previous Global warming was caused by and intelligent species altering the whole planet, and i will accept that our planets current behavior is within the "standard rage".

If you can't provide such evidence you will have to demonstrate a force other than CO2 emissions are driving the global temperature increase.

I wont hold my breath, expect a direct answer or any provision of proof for these statements. I doubt you will even under stand the point i'm making, but your not the only person reading these posts.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:



Not so. I believe there can be both. But you have to quantify one to realise the other.

As I have pointed out; in Chapter10 of AR5 they said they couldn't find a "fingerprint" for natural variation. They didn't include it. Therefore to them it seems it doesn't exist.

Little pieces need to be added in.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:



It seems there is not much intelligent life on earth now.

Plenty of confirmation bias of course.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:



it is confirmation bias when you don't look for yourself, because you think you know the answer.