Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.
So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?
How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.
Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.
Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy
But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.
And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?
The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?
The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on
The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so much cheaper than actually doing something.
If AGW is a complete figment of our imagination, then we are in a lot of trouble because if the denialist/skeptics are right then we cannot do a thing to stop the inevitable collapse of the ecosystem, our food production systems and the inevitable billions of deaths that will follow.
However, the science I've examined rationally demonstrates AGW is a human externality caused by the irresponsible use of natural resources and dogmatic skepticism is just a way of dodging responsibility for mending our ways. We don't want to do because we are just so comfortable. Anything that makes us uncomfortable must be bad so it's easier to stick with apathy because inaction is just what the oil and coal companies want so they don't have to change.
Your position of political over-analysing is like asking "Are we sure this truck heading toward us", getting hit by it and then asking the doctor to say you "died from internal injuries" instead of "got hit by a truck" because you have a problem with double standards.
There is no science in your problem, only politics.