Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

[fletcher]

just like nobody claims the Holocaust didn't happen, they just use the word to mean something most don't. Sorry, if you use a phrase to mean something other than what's conventionally agreed and understood, you're not affirming it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Climate change exists. Find me one person that claims the climate has never changed.

the claims are these:
there's a recent increase in overall global temperatures (since the past 50 years)
the primary cause is human activity (specifically CO2)
all other candidates for causing global temperature increase have failed to account for them, as well as fail to predict patterns
it's the warmists who make the best predictions for extreme weather patterns, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snows. Not meteorologists and skeptics who just ask questions. If you have a person with better predictions than warmists, let me know.

You're not making any sense. Any other hypothesis is irrelevant to the hypothesis of the warmists. They could have the only hypothesis and that still wouldn't make them correct. They claim that humans cause warming. To test their hypothesis they have created models that use human activity to change the climate. The models have completely failed. Right now the best hypothesis is the null hypothesis. The climate changes, and always has. Maybe someday scientists will figure out why the climate changes, but that day has not come. And their predictions for 'extreme' weather patterns is just as bad. There has been no increase is hurricanes, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in droughts. Ten years ago some climate scientists were claiming snow would be rare. Now that that prediction that been found to be completely wrong, they have changed it to be an increase in the amount of snow.

 

[PRB]

While you're at it, please tell the alarmist scientist to stop making statements like "the last decade was the hottest decade in recorded history". If 17 yr trends are insufficient then, so is a 10 yr trend.

a decade to decade comparison is not the same as a 10 year trend

 

[PRB]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Climate change exists. Find me one person that claims the climate has never changed.

when people (especially scientists and policy makers) say climate change, they don't mean simply "the climate has changed", in fact, such a statement would be meaningless until you define what is the norm. To change assumes there is a static/default/native state. Climate has always changed? so is any change abnormal?

I know you're trying to say the climate has never changed beyond what is normal and expected and if there's any change, it's not caused by human industrial CO2 output. So I don't need to find a person who says "climate has never changed", I only need to find a person, which is you, who uses the phrase to mean different than what scientists are saying.

 

[PRB]

There has been no increase is hurricanes, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in droughts. Ten years ago some climate scientists were claiming snow would be rare. Now that that prediction that been found to be completely wrong, they have changed it to be an increase in the amount of snow.

Have there been increase in severity of each? who were those who said snow is rare and what are they predicting next? are all climate scientists wrong? or are some more vindicated than others? who is "they" who changed "it" to be an increase in snow (and is the snow local or global)?

 

[PRB]

No, stop obfuscating the issue.
No, that's the normal presumption. You're turning a negative statement into a positive statement via sentence structure and passing it off as something out of the ordinary, which it's not.

and that's the point, you can make any claim a "positive claim" if you wanted to, therefore the better test of burden of proof is whoever has the EXTRAORDINARY AND LESS SUPPORTED, LESS ACCEPTED claim. "Normal presumption" is exactly right, the person doesn't have the burden of proof for claiming the widely accepted common sense.

 

[PRB]

Yeah, angelatc, how can so many scientists be wrong? Is it possible that they're wrong on other things for the same reasons? Hmmm...

Yes, it's possible. But not so fast. Let's first establish which scientists are wrong about what. Or whether there is a consensus to serve as a null hypothesis or testable claim.