The stories and illustrations are public domain in the US, but copyright laws vary by country.

>Nobody has proved that the rate at which energy leaves the system has decreased
We proved that in the 19th century already. That's what "greenhouse gas" means.

>Examples of positive feedback loops in nature are exceedingly rare
Utterly false- all of evolution is nothing BUT positive feedback loops. Something evolves eggs - now egg-eaters can evolve, so the egglayers evolve better defences.
One of the biggest ones in the case of climate change is that methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Most methane in the world is trapped under ice. Ice melts, methane is released, heat increases, more ice melts. While all this means lowering the earth's albedo so even less heat is radiated... now you've got two mutually reinforcing feedback loops.

>You are a CO2 producing engine with every breath you take.
A half-truth at best. Animals and plants are CO2 neutral. You produce no more CO2 than the carbon you ate before. For every atom of carbon in your breath - you had to consume an atom of carbon first, which you got from plants that got it from CO2 taken from the atmosphere.

not considered a payload then ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

As a follower of Odin and worshipper of Thor I demand that science class teach the theory that Mjolnir causes thunder.

That depends on the time-frame. It's not one number, it's an exponential sliding scale.

The thirty year average we normally use in climate studies is still far more complex than describing a climate age. When we say "in the cambrian era the climate had these attributes" absolutely nobody expresses much doubt, even though we have far less evidence for that. We derive it by looking at what sort of organisms evolved at the time and, if we're lucky, maybe an ice-core here and there. A bit of geological evidence may hold some clues too.

So how come that is almost unquestioningly accepted ? Because a description of the climate over a period of several hundred million years is exponentially simpler than over one million years, let alone over centuries or decades...get down to months and weeks and our models break down within 5 days.

All the things deniers claim against climate models today apply far more to our models of ancient climates - and we have far less evidence to support those claims. But there is hardly any questioning about those (in fact deniers keep CITING those to try and argue that climate change cannot be influenced by man - considering every OTHER organism that has ever existed has influenced climate that's a bit silly in my view - why would WE be the only one that CAN'T ? We're just not that special. Fricking algae changed the climate and atmospheric composition irrevocably - they seriously believe we can't outdo ALGAE ?!).

Why don't they doubt the oxygen levels of near 40% in the carboniferous era ? The only evidence we have for that is giant insects (which needs that level to breath) and the fact that apparently trees all fossilized instead of decomposing at the time - and produced our fossil fuels.

Compared to the thousands of pieces of evidence for climate change today - from hundreds of disparate scientific fields with no other significant contact between them...
The only difference is that there is no political gain to be made from denying the carboniferous.

Sure there are scientists who question it - investigate it and may find evidence that one day leads to us adjusting that value to say 35% or 55% instead. But there's no news debates about that, it's scientists dispasionately collaborating by questioning each other - without malice.
Why the malice from deniers today ? Why the desperate desire to call themselves sceptics (even when they decidedly are not since sceptics by definition are people who support the theory with the most evidence) ?

It's got nothing to do with the science. The science is open to question - and frequently revised with new data as it should be. Technically we're at climate change theory number 500 and something. But the core theory is unchanged. It's fine detail adjustment - much like there have been lots of fine detail adjustment with Darwin's theory but the core theory remains intact.

But we have no theory that offers a better explanation of the observations. The hypotheses that have been advanced not only lack a single shred of evidence but are flat out disproven by the evidence we do have.
All the actual sceptics are supporting climate change because a sceptic is somebody who believes the evidence over their own ideology.

Anyone who has taken thermodynamics also knows that if you reduce the rate at which energy leaves a system then the total energy in the system will go up over time.
Anybody who understands complexity theory knows that this is absolutely guaranteed to cause feedback loops in a complex system which accelerates the effect.

That's the problem with climate change denial - the evidence you would need to disprove climate change would also disprove all of physics AND chemistry.
Sure there is a chance it's wrong - but in a universe where it IS wrong, cars and powerplants don't work so the question is never asked - after all, why would anybody build CO2 producing engines in a universe where they don't serve any useful purpose ?

Oh great resources WERE mustered in third world countries.
I was one of them, and I live in a third world country.

No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today.

ISIS exists only because of the crapshoot that Bush created with his stupid war.

>Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.

That's a ridiculously stupid claim to make. Climate is a LOT simpler than weather. Many, many orders of magnitude simpler. Why ? Because climate is an average.

If I ask you to predict the final results of a high school student randomly chosen, odds are you'd get it wrong almost every time.
If I give you a bunch of background information on him and his grades up until now, you'll get it right more often but almost never 100% for all subjects and there will still be outliers that surprize you.
Predicting a kid's final results is HARD -even with lots of data.

On the other hand - if I ask you to predict the average grade distribution for the state of New York for an entire high-school senior class and you say "It will be a normal-distribution" you will be right almost every time ! In fact, we're so confident in that outcome that if it's anything else that is - in and off itself - legally considered proof that there was large-scale cheating in the exam !

Same principle - even when it's VERY hard to predict a single data point, predicting an AVERAGE of those data points is far easier.
Climate is an average of weather over long periods (30 years typically). That's a LOT simpler to predict than the individual weather points that make it up.

Nah, he's just the reason ISIS exists in the first place.

>So now you move from ad hominem attacks to conflation, associating rejection of evolution with flat earth and alien abductions.

You're right, it's certainly possible that somewhere among the thousands of claimants of alien abduction is one that actually WAS abducted and did not just had a case of sleep paralysis. It should not be conflated with things which are conclusively refuted like flat earth or evolution denial.

Dude. For all I know you edited that page 5 minutes ago to try and 'prove' your point.

I quoted the inventor of fascism. That's a pretty good citation.

You're dead wrong because it is falsifiable. Just see what happens if nothing was done while controlling for likely impact (that means excluding anybody who were largely unaffected or who didn't need to act due to upstream efforts). That shows a different picture including one nuclear power plant that actually shut down.
There is very few legitimate examples. Most who did nothing were using systems like Unix which were never at risk. They did nothing because they didn't have to. Many of the rest got helped because hardware and software suppliers had made efforts and they gained from these through normal upgrade cycles.
The whole survivalist panic was overblown but not by the scientists. Thst was just people being idiots and they do that on their own.
In 1994 south African supermarkets couldn't keep up with demand for canned foods and survival gear. Many white people were convinced that the ANC takeover would be a doomsday event (same behaviour as before y2k). Rumors spoke of how the power stations would fail and murder gangs walk the streets. Nothing happened. And no politicians or scientists spread this. Just paranoid racist urban legends. You can't blame scientists for idiots who misquote them.

Does it count that domesticated sheep are no longer capable of interbreeding with wild sheep making them in the strictest sense of the word a new species: and that was definitely observed by humans. Lots of humans over a long time. But human observation nonetheless.