The only language game being played is on behalf of the denialists. The scientists who overwhelmingly agree on climate change are doing science. The denialists are paid by oil, coal, and automobile manufacturers and/or are pushing their free market ideologies to resist potential regulation.ant wrote:This is a language game that the IPCC is playing. It's motivated by politics and money.
This is such an obviously false projection.
One of the summary bulletin points of the AR5:ant wrote:Actually the IPCC has backed off (however slight and begrudgingly) on anthropogenic factors being the dominate/ primary cause of climate change in the 20th and early 21st century.
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
I read that as well. The climate variability from internal forcing is the prime suspect for the "pause". The heat is being absorbed by the oceans. The problem with this is that being internal, the variability will inevitably swing the other way.ant wrote:My understanding is that one reason the IPCC's models are inaccurate is because the variability of internal forces (ie volcanic activity, plate tectonics, solar, cloud cover, ocean sediments, etc etc) that are variables which effect weather. Long term climate forecast is made that much more difficult.
I've been digging into the science recently, in large part due to your echoing of denialist claims. Where before I was ambivalent and merely trusting in the consensus, I'm increasingly certain that the consensus was reached on solid ground, from decades of painstaking research. All the "gotcha" questions you ask(solar warming/internal forcing/coral reefs/historical climate changes/etc.) are all gone into pedantic detail by scientists. Your questions are all answered. The weakness of predictions is due to the system being contingent. The science is settled despite how difficult it is to make predictions. You're not being a 'true skeptic' by repeating denialist claims, you're merely cognitively captured by sources with political and monetary motivations.ant wrote:Remember, you've chosen sides simply because there's a consensus (which history demonstrates means nothing)not because you understand the science.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... s-accurate