Coldest morning in 126 years

Originally posted by mjp2 ↑

I second Tristanc's post. Like TapD, you have made an unsubstantiated assertion. What's more you make that statement against a very large body of longstanding peer reviewed scientific work. If a credible scientist had dis-proven this, we'd have seen it. They haven't.

but do your best.

on your other point:

scientists research and prepare peer reviewed papers that report their findings;
those papers are frequently challenged and rebutted by further science;
the implications of those papers that survive that testing, together and individually are summarised and further scientifically and politically tested in preparing the IPCC reports - and a very dry document is produced, on what is now a very large and longstanding, well tested body of science. It is watered down politically - read Science as a Contact Sport - but it's there.

that is Science

those that deny the science put up web site blogs, think tanks, lobbyists and the like and are not systematically subject to verification by any mechanism like peer review. they have been shown to repeatedly reiterate falsehoods.

denialists deny science and are subject only to free speech - they can and do say what they like, with no necessary substance to what they say.

scientists publish carefully researched and tested science
who are warmists?
some of us comment on the science, "report it", answer questions about it. Maybe we should be simply considered pro-science? or science literate? Or just well informed, on the science, to varying degrees - pardon the pun?

for every credible scientist that credibly refutes an aspect of the science you will find an amended area of the body of scientific work. that is the peer review process. Since that has been going on now for decades it's a robust body of work

and no, that does not necessarily mean that the science is rebutted by a single wrong assumption
this is not a single theory undermined by a single wrong assumption
except perhaps if the action of greenhouse gasses was proven to be not be as the physics has deduced and experiment and observation has confirmed, repeatedly. The bulk of the scientific work is now quantifying the impacts. In the meantime, many decades on, no credible party has rebutted the key underlying science. sure work in some area of researching expected impacts may be overturned, and has been. That sort of correction changes some aspect of the understood impacts of climate change. And that goes on with peer reviewed science every single day.

One wrong assumption of importance: right now we are finding that the ice sheets are more likely to melt than was expected. And yes that is because an incorrect assumption was made. Scientists assumed the politicians would listen to them, recognise the risks and costs and move to abate greenhouse gas emissions. Now they have to assume that higher levels of emissions are possible and research further what greater impacts can now expected for those higher emissions. There's a wrong assumption for you. Sea level rises are now likely to be much higher than previously forecast by the scientists. But that depends, to some extent, on what action is taken to mitigate emissions levels.

Expand

Trouble is no sea level rise other than long term trend and even that is hard to be sure ,as continents still rising after last ice age. What happened to fifty million people in Bangladesh will be displaced by 2010, In fact land mass in Bangladesh has increased because it is mostly a delta and keeps making ground.
What happened to islands in pacific. Plenty of studies find that they are rising faster then sea level. The usual story, a small amount of half truth coupled with a huge amount of beat up.

As for peer review, it has been clearly demonstrated that a good deal of the time it is PAL review. In other words you cannot trust them. Do not hold scientists up as some sort of shing light. They are humans and subject to the same desires, weaknesses and pressures as the rest of us. They should be better than that, but sadly they are not.