'i got it wrong on climate change - its worse', page-62

"No reputable scientist", hanrahan?

I decided to skip the usual baloney and nonsense which is the internet, and go straight to scientific articles. So, we'll see if we can find a reputable scientist. I've limited myself to about 15 minutes of searching, though, so this list is far from comprehensive:

Here's six: "One thing that is clear in Table 1 is that for every country where the number of frost days has been examined they are becoming fewer in number. This is consistent with the warming in average minimum temperature found for each country".

Here's two more: "Certainly there is evidence of increasing extremes in some parts of the world. Although these increases could simply be a result of natural climate variability, they are also consistent with many of the changes expected as a result of greenhouse warming."

And here's two more": "For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear... We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8."

One more here: "Western US wildfires already exhibit a climate change signal. The variability within hurricane and extreme precipitation/flood data complicates identifying a similar climate change signal."

And here's four more (and two we've seen before): "Results of observational studies suggest that in many areas that have been analyzed, changes in total precipitation are amplified at the tails, and changes in some temperature extremes have been observed."

And two more: "Daily precipitation in the UK has changed over the period 1961–2000... positive trends in its scale parameter are found across almost all of the UK, consistent with an increased frequency of heavy winter precipitation."

Two more: "This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar changes but with smaller magnitudes."

And three more: "we use this conceptual framework to estimate the contribution of human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the risk of the occurrence of unusually high mean summer temperatures throughout a large region of continental Europe.... we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude".

I'm out of time, but I hope the 22 scientists above elucidate why it is so vitally important to perform even a few minutes of research before posting such an easily falsifiable argument in public. You must realise that if the things you are claiming to be true (and which you offer as arguments to support your position) can be proven wrong so readily, people will not consider you or your opinions credible. Regardless of which opinion you hold, if you care about a topic, it certainly helps to investigate it properly by looking at the science.

In a debate, Christopher Hitchens once said "You give me the awful impression, and I hate to have to say it, of being someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever." Do your research, or you risk being perceived in a similar manner.