Radical rodent

I like your asymmetric debating style. You expect everyone else to provide evidence, while you express the most outrageous opinions with no evidence at all.

Let me put the driver concept in budget terms. When you read your bank statement it includes items of income. These include pay, interest etc. Outgoings are bills, ATM withdrawals etc.

If the two are equal your balance will remain constant If outgoings exceed income your balance falls, if income exceeds outgoings your balance increases. Every change is accounted for. There are no gaps. If I were a taxman I would compare your bank statement with your lifestyle. If you were clearly spending more than the income shown in your bank statements, the gap between them would be evidence of unidentified income.

The Earth's energy budget is similar. The amounts of energy entering the system and leaving are accounted for and match the observed increase in energy content(and hence increased temperature)

The unidentified drivers you propose would show as gaps in the energy budget. There are no gaps, and therefore no unidentified drivers.

I am glad to see that your position is shifting. You have stopped denying that global warming is happening. Now we can work on your "anything but CO2" opinions regarding the cause.

EM, from YOUR list below:

Arctic sea ice extent decreasing
Arctic sea ice volume decreasing
Greenland ice sheet losing mass
Antarctica ice sheet
Arctic snow cover decreasing
Antarctic sea ice extent increasing.
Antarctic sea salinity decreasing
Glaciers retreating

which of these have not happened before, in LIVING history, or PHOTOGRAPHIC history? Then there is RECORDED and WRITTEN history and ARCHAEOLOGICAL history.

The Franklin Expedition did not survive to write Peer Reviewed papers for the Royal Society, but all the evidence proves where their ships got to. It is possible that alien spaceships plucked their sailing ships off the surface of the sea and dropped them on the seabed through holes cut in the ice with laser death rays, but on balance, I prefer the simpler explanations. They sailed through water that was not solid ice.

Radical rodent

You have odd ideas about the Victorian Arctic. Franklin's ships Erebus and Terror got as far as King William Island in their first season before the ice stopped them. They spent the next three years frozen in place before being abandoned.

The Royal Navy subsequently lost five ships to ice while looking for Franklin.

Nowadays cruise ships, yachts and commercial cargo ships pass through the same waters in season. Conditions are not remotely comparable.

EM, it was me not Radical Rodent.

Have you mapped out where Erebus and Terror were found? Or even HMS Investigator?

You can't accuse people here of expecting you to do your work for you, when you are relying on regurgitating failed propaganda. Modern technology has confirmed Inuit legends/folklore that was previously dismissed by people over the last 100+ years, and more recently by Climate Scientists.

The Franklin Expedition, and the rescue attempts were all misguided and tragic misadventures, with no sense of direction, just a belief in the destination. Just like Climate Science.

What Franklin did achieve is now evident, despite Climate Science's best efforts to discredit him. Nobody is sure if Climate Science has achieved anything, but it has sunk, unfortunately with a trace.

Tossing an evidence free, context free list up is really all the EM's of the world can do. It takes great faith on the part of the climate kooks to ignore the utter lack of a crisis. I would point out that EM is engaging in religious thinking, but that would insult both honest thinkers and the sincerely religious.

Golf Charlie

Franklin's expedition and the rescue attempts all failed at great cost.

Why? Because the NW Passage was a much less hospitable environment in the mid-1800s than it is now. Why would a fan of the Little Ice Age expect otherwise?

Hunter

The evidence for my 36 changes is spread over thousands of scientific papers.

Feel free to research them for yourself. I no longer bother casting pearls before swine, or evidence before deniers.

EM. "I no longer bother casting pearls before swine, or evidence before deniers."

So why are you still posting here? Are you intending to just coast along or debate properly? Lists are rather poor arguments.

ACK

I'm just another sad old git here for the company, like the rest of you.

Do you really think any scientific evidence I link is going to make the slightest difference to the likes of radical rodent, golf Charlie or hunter? ( Incidentally, it was hunter who asked for the list.) I've given up on changing their beliefs, and now just make conversation as the mood takes me.

I've also given up on my original reason for coming here, which was to find genuine evidence against AGW. Nobody here has any.

EM . Climate Science fails to learn from history again, ignoring past patterns, and assuming that modern observations are more important because they are more scientifically observed.

Many bogus claims have been made, based on Climate Science.

Miliband lost the election, Labour are in ruin, Britain voted BREXIT, the EU is teetering on collapse and Obama and Clinton have been dumped.

If only 3% of the vote swing in any of the elections, was attributable to bad policy decisions resulting from faked Climate Science, that will be Climate Science's legacy. Political opinions swing left and right just like ice extents go up and down. Unless Climate Science comes up with something more than gossip, rumour and incorrect assumptions based on dubious evidence, climate science is going the way of witchcraft and voodoo.

Trump is listening to the 3%.

Golf Charlie

You forgot to mention HMS Resolute, Pioneer, Assistance and Intrepid, all lost from Belcher's 1852 rescue expedition.

Radical rodent

You demonstrate that a scientific theory is false by

a) showing that reality does not behave as the theory predicts.

b) by demonstrating that an alternative theory better predicts reality.

Regrettably you have not been able to do either.

An illustration of a). Predictions by sceptics have a very low success rate. For example, Fritz Vahrenholt, in his 2012 book, Die kalte Sonne (co-written with Sebastian Lüning also from RWE; literally the title translates as The Cold Sun) predicted that global temperatures would drop from the 2010 value of 0.72C to anomaly 0.4C between 2012 and 2016 and then maintain that level. With new records in both 2014 and 2015, and 2016 due to come in around anomaly 1.0C, Vahrenholt's prediction has been falsified to date.

Golf Charlie

Trump is listening to the 3%.

In which case may your God help us all.

The universe is a mindless machine ruled by the cold equations of physics. If you ignore that reality the universe will crush you without compassion, pity or remorse.

The cold equations do not care whether you are a president-elect or an old lady. Trump's denial will not stop climate change, but, more than any other human, he is uniquely positioned to make it worse.

EM is bullet proof in his self enforced ignorance. He has to ignore the paleo evidence of a sea ice free Arctic. He has to ignore the flat lines of storm frequency, intensity and range. He has to pretend drought, heat, cold, are all changing significantly. He has to forget the never found hot spot. And oh so much more.

And EM, as typical with fanatics, gets it backwards on the predictions. The catastrophic predictions are the ones which must withstand the test of validity. Skeptics, poking jokes, are only required to be right once. Skeptics predicted Tibetan glaciers correctly. Skeptics predicted that polar bears were ok. Skeptics predicted not much would be changing in climate. Skeptics. Amongst many other things. Keep it up EM. You must work hard to keep up your self-delusion.

Radical rodent, hunter

How do you know I'm bulletproof? You've never tried.

Try linking me to all this evidence you claim to have, but somehow cannot produce.

Radical rodent

I understand very well that there is no evidence. If there were convincing evidence against AGW you would have produced it by now.

Ladies first.

EM, if there was convincing evidence that CO2 is the driving force of climate change, now and through current and geological history, how many more billions are required to get climate scientists to produce any?

If anything bad now happens due to BREXIT, TRUMP, or the forthcoming failure of the EU, climate science is to blame. How much more evidence do you need? Climate science has failed miserably, but has changed the political climate. All it took was 3%.

Radical Rodent, in most countries of the world, you need evidence and cross examination before people are asked to weigh up evidence in a trial, then, any decision of guilt can be determined.

These mere details were also skipped by climate scientists in their undue haste to conclude what they had already decided.