Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Welsh cake]

I'd probably start with the synthesis report from the IPCC's 4th Assesment.

IPCC don't carry out their own original research. You can discount them and anything they claim to "contribute" to AGW.

If you're not satisfied with that you'll find the references to the primary peer-reviewed litearture for each modelling approach in the reference section.

Can you provide me some links please?

In climate science, especially climate change studies we tend to see a focus on changing trends, in mean global Co2 Concentration and Mean global temperature for example. We analyse how these trend change over time and in relation to one another. I'm not sure why you would expect us to try and differentiate between 'natural' weather and 'anthropogenic' weather given that the argument is we are affecting the whole climate system as opposed to particular events.

Okay, let me rephrase the question again then, how do you differentiate between a natural climate trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

I'm not asking for indisputable evidence that we are actually affecting our climate because all that seems to be on offer is a few skewed graphs and the assertions of governmental department cronies looking to place new legislation and so-called green taxes on an already failing industry.

I'm asking you to falsify AGW. If you can't then there's nothing to debate - climate change is dead.

The artcile clearly states that Welsh Co2 emmisions are the highest in the U.K. per person. Icleand for instance is globally one of the lowest Co2 contributing countries but per capita it's one of the highest.

Per person? How did they work that out? Aren't there more sheep than people in Wales?

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

No, what you said was:-

When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.

I won't grant you that, no. Observing correlations is the only way you can determine causation.

So you're arguing correlation proves causation, in spite of the fact that you're committing a logical fallacy?

We've established that the sun is responsible for the incoming energy flux. Your statement would be true if it were amended:
"The sun is at least partially responsible for Earth's climate"

No, "partially responsible" couldn't be further more the truth. What else is the driving force behind our weather climate if it's not our planet's own parent star? It's certainly not going to be Proxima Centauri now it is?

As for evidence, you claimed that climate scientists ignore solar forcing. A few recent papers or reviews in the literature which (in context) fail to take into account or make reference to solar forcing would be adequate evidence for this claim.

I've yet to see any proponent of AGW here actually link me to one of these peer-reviewed papers or journals. Perhaps you will be the first?

The most accessible and emcompassing reviews of the evidence are those by the IPCC. Given the snide comments you've made regarding the IPCC, it seems futile to even offer the evidence.

Seriously, cut out your nonsense with allegations of me being underhanded. And with all due respect the IPCC can take their tax-payers' millions and fuck off*. They don't carry out any original research. They don't help your argument in any way. They don't even monitor climate related data or parameters.

*Actually, I think the US Government are basically telling them to "fuck off" by stopping their funding:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/...g-of-ipcc/

When you're presented with evidence that is statistically significant in the context of some hypothesis, it's not enough to simply say "correlation does not imply causation".
You can say that about any scientific claim, that doesn't mean you've adequately refuted, or demonstrated that the evidence does not support the claim.

Yes but there's more than one type of empirical and scientific evidence that would satisfy my standards, not just statistical analysis, because while providing some benefits in experiments how we interpret the data in the end, or lack of, may not actually be what is demonstrably occurring within reality.