Well I'm not sure 'could' is a very scientific word (but I'm not very bright either to be fair.) Proven Science needs to use a word like 'will' and then there is less debate (within the boundaries of beyond reasonable doubt.)
If you smoke we dont know for certain you will get cancer but we know you could - is that proper science?
Science rarely uses will as it deals in a language based on statistical anaylysis to a degree of certainty typically 0.05. most of the problems of perception are that lay people expect absolute certainty and science rarely speak like this. Some people have fallen from planes and lived so would you say you die if you do this or that you are very likely to die?
This whole debate is based on lot's of Scientific theory but very little proven Science (very difficult to prove something that generally takes thousands and thousands of years when you only have 50 years of limited knowledge and poor data.)
The greenhouse effect has been know for well over a century. What you mean is we dont know the effect of realising more beyond saying it gets warmer. There is some merit in saying we cannot say exactly what will happen- exact sea level rise, exact temp rise, "weather events etc.
If we treble the number of smokers we cannot say exactly what will happen beyond saying more will get cancer. we cannot say what age, what countries etc just the braod outline and a prediction. FWIW this is more recent science than greenhouse gases.
The last 50 years has the best data as thousands of years ago we need proxy measures as we did not have a worldwide grid of temperature sensors including ones in space- you criticise the best data.
The scientists keep uncovering more and more info and it all points towards their assumed theories being correct
Science generates data, data generates theories. Science did not "predict" AGM we observed it from the data.
but they are and have been unable to prove these theories leaving huge black holes in their Science. (Science needs facts,data and working models not consensus and assumptions)
I would rather not take a science lecture from you and what black holes?
You want will cause but you dont want a consensus? How does that work then?
Any scientist would know there is rarely a consensus and when there is - such as smoking causing cancer - it not a critique to point this out. There is a consensus on the world being round as well - is that bad? Poor argument as consensus means most experts think this lay person is wrong and you use this to attack them - Interesting tactic though ill advised
The IPCC cannot explain the last 15 year stalling without using another unproven assumed science.
Its partly an artefact from the 1998 el nino year being the warmest in history and the upward trend is still there. How many of those years were in the top 15 of all time?
Its true to say the models did not predict this but we could get a hiatus in cancer from smoking or results that did not mirror prediction but it would not make the basic science false only incomplete , which no one denies.
If a Scientist tells me a Solar eclipse is going to happen tomorrow and it doesn't I'm going to question his theory
It's more like it did not last quite as long as predicted though rather than it did not happen so a poor analogy
I think the problem here is in some respect the report would be better saying climate is changing because of C02 and the likely effect are combinations of raised sea levels, sever weather events etc. Then you would just complain it was vague though.
To some degree we are making assumptions as we are predicting the future and that is quite hard when we have no control and no prior "experiment " with the globe and C02. it remains the case it stores radiation and it is a greenhouse gas. I have yet to hear a creditable scientific theory as to why stored energy wont raise temperature- do you have one as robust as you are demanding of the IPCC?
(If we behave like good boys and girls we will go to Heaven. Sound familiar!)
Yes it sounds like a lazy straw man to suggest that the IPCC is somehow like the fiction of religion. Why not present your certain science that proves its all BS - you have none hence we get this as a "science" debate.