Before everything went sideways, what was the general consensus back in the 90's for an explanation of the unusual climate phenomenon observed? Is there an alternate climate model than AGW which better fits the empirical evidence? If so, do you have any suggested reading on it? I am not really interested in sources that merely poke holes in AGW, but rather an alternate theory that fits the data.rockdoc123 wrote:Depends on what your definition of climate change is. If it adheres to Pielke Sr’s definition which is basically the fact that , well climate changes and there are a host of controlling factors then yes I agree with you….but if you are suggesting a definition that equates climate change with AGW then you are dead wrong. In fact there is a host of empirical evidence that points to major discrepancies between what that model would predict versus what has happened and is happening with climate. As I’ve pointed out numerous times there is no direct evidence for AGW, it is all modeled based on theory and those models produce non-unique solutions which means they can not be proofs.
In each of the cases you spoke of scientists continued to test the theories and continued to refine them….there was no huge swell of scientists arguing the science was settled it was business as usual for the scientists involved….theorize, test, re-theorize and test again. This was in fact the way climate science progressed up until the late nineties when it all went sideways.
Also, I assume you agree with the observed data listed in my initial post from NASA. The point of contention is that you are arguing that it could be caused by a host of factors other than AGW?