That's a sobering fact. It is good to keep in mind that this business whose name evolved from AGW , to just Global Warming, and then rather absurdly to "Climate Change". Has nothing to do with climate change, nor whether mankind is messing up the global climate -- which is a separate question. It still has only to do with the Hansen Hypothesis. And that hypothesis has to my satisfaction been proven wrong. My point is this, we wouldn't be trying to get international agreement on CO2 emission if it weren't that we were still stuck on the Hansen Hypothesis, and if it weren't being assumed that Hansen's hypothesis is correct; this, despite the now massive amount of data that's calling Hansen's hypothesis into question. So why are we doing this? And why are we insisting on calling AGW "climate change?" The climate changes regardless of whether Hansen's hypothesis is correct? I think one has to look in the political/financial realm for the answer to these questions. I least I hope so, because otherwise it is far too depressing to consider that the answers might turn out to be the same as the answer to the question, "why did we wait half a century to start turning right on red?", or the question, "Why are we still sitting at red lights despite there not being another car in sight for miles in all possible approaching directions?"
Interestingly there are only three of the issues brought up where there is complete agreement. One is smoking and health, where the statistics don't leave room for counter argument (that's not true of health and second hand smoke however); a second is the acid rain issue in which cause and effect, and the chemistry are completely understood and consistent with all observations; and the third is the Ozone hole issue, where the science is thoroughly understood, down the detailed photo reactions and their kinetics which have been proven to be in complete agreement with all observations. Counter arguments can still be launched against the other issues, however, which are not entirely settled, but not for the same reason in each case. By the way, as of 2006 DDT is still used in twelve countries and that number is expected to rise.
We get it. Global Warming causes more rain and less rain. Jem has been arguing for a while that if GW is occurring that it should cause more rain. You and Ricter argued that GW causes less rain. So do you know think it causes more rain?
If its settled science, why would they need to do further research? How many grants are out there for studying gravity?
Nice ad homing and diminishing the argument by calling it "Hansen's Hypothesis" . There is no such thing. It's actually called climatology. Classic MOD tactic. Did you ever learn why the satellite and land based data aren't exactly the same? You are so full of shit.
What piezoe is is what the think tanks call a Trojan horse. The think tanks know that no matter what, the hard core righty deniers will never change their opinion. So the strategy is to have the operator - in this case piezoe - appear to be a progressive, a lefty. This allows him to gain some credibility with those on the left. Then after entering these ideological gates he springs out with the litany of classic MOD tactics. Casting doubt, ad homing, appearing to be a "scientist". This is far more effective than having someone who is obviously a conservative spread the doubt. But he is not being paid by post or word. He's salaried.
If you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is, you should look up the word before commenting. All scientists know the word and what it means in the scientific sense. It has always been the AGW Hypothesis. This is not anything I made up. Everyone in science knows exactly what that means. It is attributable to Hansen as the main proponent, which of course is not giving proper credit to those he worked and published with when he was in the habit of publishing in peer reviewed journals. He was the head guy, so credit for the hypothesis defaults to him, and the AGW Hypothesis is therefore synonymous with "Hansen's Hypothesis". Ask any scientist what this means and they will explain it to you, just as I have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
This is amusing when it comes from a member of Skeptical Science's "Crusher Crew" like futurecurrents who are paid to silence any global warming dissenters on the web by "drowning them out".
I am not trying to be a troll to you futurescurrents but why did it go from being called "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"???? Also, where are the fellow people on the Left to have your back on this? You are fighting a one woman battle here in this thread it seems... If someone questions mass-muslim immigration they are called a number of names like "islamphobic, racist ect..ect.." by many folks on the Left, yet here you are as a woman fighting all of these horrible people and no one seems to have your back. What "changed" for you besides the climate?
I asked you once if you thought a single peer-reviewed paper could prove AGW. I don't want you to say what you believe about the matter, but if you think a single paper could do it. Two competent persons here have explained to jem how science and the science of this matter work, but it's not sinking in. As a working scientist yourself, your answer would have weight. So, could a single peer-reviewed paper prove AGW?