Watts per square meter is how climate forcing is measured. I would suggest that the detailed IPCC reports, created by scientists from around the world in all related areas of science can not be blown off as "not evidence". Nor can the hundreds of world wide science organizations such as NASA, NOAA, etc. be blown off so easily. Evidence is clearly identified.
Climate "forcing" is not climate. They can, because they aren't evidence for the specific claim in question. They can, because they are controlled politically. No; it is merely claimed, incorrectly.
Climate forcing is the name given to factors that push climate in a direction - such as toward warming. No, you have ZERO evidence of their being a conspiracy. Remember that this issue is international.
No, it is the name given to estimates of the factors that are assumed to push climate in a direction such as towards warming. Depends what you want to call a "conspiracy." Lyin' Michael Mann's unanimously unsuccessful lawsuits against climate realists who challenge his fraudulent methodologies have been paid for by one or more anonymous deep-pocketed donors. Is that a conspiracy? Obviously.
Since you admit it is obviously international, going after Michael Mann is POINTLESS. Plus, you should at least know what those lawsuits were about before pretending they support your opinion.
Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann Posted on August 13, 2015 by curryja by Judith Curry A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One The backstory on Mann vs Steyn is described in previous posts [link] and links therein. The short story is this. Mann is suing Steyn (and others) for defamation regarding a statement about ‘the fraudulent hockeystick’. Steyn is countersuing. The lawsuits have been tied up in DC courts for years. The new book compiles what is presumably evidence obtained by Steyn’s lawyers regarding whether ‘fraudulent’ is defamatory here. And this is only Volume 1; apparently there is a Volume 2 in the works. Mark Steyn has 3 blog posts (so far) on the book: A disgrace to the profession What a piece of work on Mann! Punching back twice as hard
That doesn't change ANYTHING concerning climate science. Climate is what it is. And the entire world of related sciences accepts that Earth is warming due to human activity.
It is Mann who is doing the going after, and your claim is a bald non sequitur. Fail. I know what they were about, which is how I know they support my statements of fact.
The real problem here is that Mann is NOT the center of world wide climate science. So, those who want to ignore climatology choose to go after this one individual. Pathetic.
No, that's an irrelevancy. No, those who want climatology to be a real empirical science identify Mann as part of a larger problem that makes climatology not a real empirical science.
I agree that Mann is an irrelevancy in terms of the numerous sciences of climatology. Climatology IS a real empirical science. There is no question about that.
There are many thousands of studies that address the wide range of aspects involved. They are being performed by countries all over the world. You can investigate these various studies. There are various starting points. One can look into what these organizations are finding: https://gisgeography.com/free-world-climate-data-sources/#:~:text=NASA%20Earth%20Observatory&text=It's%20through%20the%20NASA%20Earth,for%20the%20public%20to%20consume. Of course, one could start with NOAA, NASA and others in the US or look at the IPCC which includes studies from science being done in all nations.
Not studies. You claim it's empirical science. That means it can be proven or disproven through experimentation. Now name some experiments.
Experiments don't have names. Here is a list of contributors to the IPCC work on climate. You can investigate their work. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Annex-IV.pdf Your question is a hint that you may not be aware of the magnitude of the science - either in terms of the range of involved sciences or the number of studies.
Your answer is a hint that you really don't know anything about actual science. Haven't you said something about being an engineer? Must be something like a computer engineer that has no connection to real science. Empirical, as anyone who's ever taken say, high school physics, can tell you means it's based on experimentation. Make a falsifiable hypothesis and then set up an experiment to prove if it's correct. That's been the heart of science for hundreds of years. Climate "science" does no such thing. It devises models that can be run over and over to speculate about processes. There are massive faults with the idea of modeling something as complex as the earth's climate. And since there's no way to empirically validate the guesswork, there's no way to say conclusively that it's right. So in the end, the IPCC stuff is right up your alley if you buy the narrative being pushed. But for folks with a background in real science, it means nothing.
There are major differences between engineering and science. So, it's best not to confuse them. There is nothing amiss with scientific progress on climate. The catch with your focus on individual hypotheses with an experiment to follow is that climate depends on large numbers of factors, each of which is being studied. There is no single experiment that could be constructed to address climatology as a whole, as it involves the interactions between the numerous areas of science - NOT one. That certainly does not mean that it is beyond science to study climate. It just means that it is more complex than can be addressed by an experiment.
But there are even greater differences between science and anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda, which you have so thoroughly confused. Other than the fact that it has indisputably retrogressed in the last 40 years under the influence of anti-CO2 nonscience....? No. The "catch" is that what you are no doubt pleased to call climate "science" does not actually study any factors. It just contrives plausible excuses to derogate all factors other than CO2. Sure there is: comparison of leading and trailing correlation coefficients where correlations have been observed. Problem is, that experiment has been done with the correlation between CO2 and temperature, and it proved that temperature affects CO2 more than vice versa. Right. Wrong.
I have said very little about propaganda. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the hundreds of other sources of science are not propaganda. No, there are other sources of warming. Methane is one of significant concern, as it is more powerful per unit volume than is CO2 - it's just that far more CO2 is being produced. The more notable risk of Methane is that as tundra melts, methane is produced by the resulting biological processes. The production of methane by the vast areas of tundra is something that humans have no way of addressing. Another problem is that there are limits to how much heat our oceans can absorb. They have long been a mitigating factor - even more than was originally thought. But, scientists are saying that there is a limit to what oceans can absorb. One can look at FL ocean temperatures and consider how much more heat can be absorbed. Also, there is major studying of solar activity. YOU say it is wrong that there can't be an experiment that addresses the total picture of Earth's warming. Can you specify what you are proposing as such an experiment. One such experiment might be the measurement of Earth's warming. But, that one is a clear confirmation.
This is NOT a supportable claim. Please remember that even Exxon Mobile has made predictions that conform to those of other scientists throughout the entire world. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections
You need to cite your sources. I've cited numerous sources. I've cited this case, which is from a source that is TOTALLY opposed to AGW. And,your response is no more than "no it isn't".
