2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Another poor analogy.

I'd be interested in your answer to my question above. Maybe you missed it.

Yeah yeah. Look, I know you are still sore after having your trust-funded neoliberal delusions about your beloved 'Guardian' shattered, but just accept that they lie every bit as much as the tabloids do and move on.

"The guardian has it's editorial line, but it doesn't go out of the way to lie to its readers at every opportunity" - Akrasia

Only recently you admitted that you don't do any of your own research, and clearly, this shows time and time again. You believe every little lie that is fed to you that you believe are from 'credible sources', when all they are dong is exploiting your confirmation bias... which such 'credible sources' have helped shape in the first place.

And you can’t just declare something is ‘a poor analogy’ you should show why it is a poor analogy. Gravity is a law in science, people who deny gravity are universally nutcases, but it doesn’t mean that every single element of gravity is fully known and agreed upon. Scientists have not got a framework that integrates quantum physics with Newton’s laws but this does not mean that Newton’s laws of motion are not true.

Climate change is unequivocally happening due to human activities. Our current trajectory is 3-4c of warming by 2100

Does this mean we know exactly what the consequences are? No, but no human has ever lived in a world that warm. The last time C02 was this high, there were forests on Antarctica, sea levels were 20 metres higher and global temperatures were 3-4c hotter than pre industrial levels, and, there were no humans

were well past 400ppm, and desperately hoping to limit C02 to less than 560ppm. Every extra tenth of a degree of warming risks setting off irreversible positive feedbacks

A true one. Newton’s Law of Gravitation

I’d encourage you to educate yourself again, but you’ve already declared education to be a waste of time

Given your recent track record of being consistently wrong every time you post anything I’m reassured by your disapproval

Let me count the top 5 ways just from this weekend

1. Downplaying the severity of Climate change
2. laughably not understanding the meaning of the term Neoliberal but ranting about me and the Guardian being neoliberals
3. not understanding the difference between organizing and inciting something
4. supporting Donald Trump. A clown of a president
5. Not knowing about Newton’s law of universal gravitation

Lol, that's it?

Sorry, the original point was about The Guardian's reporting of this report, which they did without any reference whatsoever to the caveats you outlined. They quoted outlandish statements like

By 2020, no less. This too

There was no qualification of any statements for the reader, no asterisk, no explanation of the context of the report. You still believe that this was responsible reporting? You see nothing wrong with it at all? The head of the leading UK climate research institute and the head of the UK Met Office both being reported as supporting such claims and endorsing the report seems totally reasonable to you?

So I get back to the New York Post and the other rags. As I said, The Guardian - your favourite go-to for all things climate alarmist - shares the same gutter as the rest of them.

Are there actually people who deny gravity? I've never heard of any. Gravity is as fully known and understood as is necessary to be able to predict, with the highest precision desirable, largescale planetary motions, land man on the moon and send spacecraft billions of kilometres to distant bodies with the utmost precision. They don't have to doctor or "adjust" data as they go. They don't use guesswork to fill in blanks or have datasets showing different figures, depending on whom you ask. So yes, gravity is a bad analogy.

'Gravity denier'.

It is probably only a matter of time now before the press start to worry us about 'Anthropogenic Gravity Change'. 🤑🤑🤑

And gravity still isn't a human made up law.

Do people on this thread think Neoliberal means you're a new age muesli munching Guardian reading hippy liberal leftie or something? Hilarious couple of pages, keep it going lads.

The point I was making is that scientists can be as close to certain as makes no difference about some parts of a scientific theory, but still not know everything about that phenomenon

Scientists can be extremely confident that AGW is real, and caused by humans via the greenhouse effect and still have uncertainties about what the exact conditions are that will trigger feedback loops.

Its not a contradiction, and I've explained this dozens of times already but you and others keep making the same dumb comments as if you've found a loophole that nobody has ever discovered before.

Danno said this "Uncertainties and Science: These two can not go hand and hand in a sentence..." and you piled in on this nonsense at the first opportunity you got.

I mean, it's ridiculous for anyone who knows anything about the history or practise of scientific research to claim that uncertainties cannot go hand in hand with science. Utterly ridiculous.

Scientists know exactly how much radiative forcing will change for each concentration of CO2, and they can calculate exactly how much warming CO2 would cause for each emissions scenario

The problem is that CO2 is not the only factor, There are other feedbacks that all interact with each other

In your analogy, Shooting a missile or landing a rocket on the moon, we are calculating the orbit of one single planetary body that we can predict decades and centuries in advance.

Guess what happens when we try to calculate 3 bodies gravitationally interacting with each other in space?

Scientists can't do it, and any estimate about where these bodies would be at any point in the future would have a wide error bar similar to the range for climate sensitivity

The fact that the 3 body problem is unsolved, doesn't mean Nasa cannot be unequivocal when they say that Mars will be at that point in space when their rover reaches it half a year from now

Climate scientists know that we are warming, but because there are multiple moving parts, our climate sensitivity is uncertain, but what we definitely have enough information to know that we need to act, because warming at any of the most likely range would involve very severe consequences and we need to avoid getting anywhere near a doubling of CO2 concentrations

My point was indeed referring to overall climate sensitivity, i.e. the net warming from it. That's what counts but is what we have a poor grasp of.