When groggy says the vast majority of scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, you say that we should ignore the scientists and focus on empirical data. When I give you empirical data that shows the pause isn't really a pause, you say we should listen to scientists. Which is it?
I never said we should ignore the scientists. I said we should ignore the propaganda about a "consensus," which you keep falsely claiming is the same thing as scientific evidence. It isn't.
You have argued global warming isn't happening. You have argued global warming is happening but isn't anthropogenic (you have argued that anthropogenic doesn't mean caused by humans). You have argued that the scientists are ignoring empirical evidence. You have argued that we should ignore empirical evidence based on selectively quoted scientists.
You get so many things wrong, it's impossible to know where to begin. Sadly, as I have mentioned before, I have concluded that some of your falsehoods are intentional.
Let's set the record straight:
-- The climate changes. Always has and always will. Indeed, it was changing for billions of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. I have never disputed that.
-- Anthropogenic global warming -- the assertion that man-made CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented warming of the planet -- isn't currently supported by empirical evidence. I am skeptical of that premise (and there's no point blaming me if you think the IPCC and the Al Gore crowd are using the word "anthropogenic" incorrectly).
-- You repeatedly talk about the IPCC and "scientists" as if the two are interchangeable. They are not. The IPCC is dominated by a political agenda, not a scientific one.
-- I do not argue that we should ignore empirical evidence. Quite the opposite. I have argued the empirical evidence clearly shows the IPCC's predictions (or projections, if you prefer) have been spectacularly wrong. I believe we should pay attention to that evidence, not ignore it.
If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your confusion is legitimate, then that is an excellent reason why we should never use the expression "climate change."
Clearly, there are some people who confuse the scientific fact that the climate changes (which I assume we all accept) with the debate about whether or not CO2 emissions are causing unusual and dangerous warming. If "climate change" is a term that is misunderstood, then we should always stick to talking about man-made global warming. That will end the confusion (assuming the eco types actually want to avoid such confusion, which is a matter of some dispute).
Finally, if I am "a joke," why are you so eager to spend a month or so debating my responses to the latest alarming headlines?
