Climate scientists think that the rotation of the earth is responsible for a lot of the atmospheric and ocean effects that we see. In fact, most climate scientists think it is easy to prove. (Although not as simple as proving that radiatively-active gases affect the climate).
Now suppose the earth’s rotation speed was reducing by X% per year as a result of some important human activity (just suppose, for the sake of this mental exercise) and had been for 100 years or so.
On a related question, Doug and Leo asked what it would take to convince me of the validity of the models. Scientifically, this is an easy question. You need a lot of out-of-sample data. This will clearly take time, but it's the only way to do it. Pretending otherwise is simply to fool yourself. That said, I think if we had had some sort of a match between data and models since the IPCC projections in 2001, I would probably have moved a long way towards Leo's "convinced" position. When you think about it, it's remarkable that this failure of the models doesn't appear to have dented Leo's confidence in them at all.
Superficially this looks like democracy in action. But if Oliver’s accusations are true, what’s really going on is a sick perversion. A small group of activists – some of whom are receiving lavish funding from left-leaning US foundations – are behaving as though their personal opinions deserve more weight than the economic well-being of the rest of us (see here for further info).
Today Joe Oliver is my hero. We need dozens more like him – to name these problems, to confront them, and to help us find a way forward.
NOAA has been publishing information related to disasters that is extremely misleading and scientifically inaccurate.
The graph above shows NOAA's tally of "billion dollar disasters" which NOAA defines as "the 1980-2005 events which resulted in at least $1 billion in overall damages/costs at the time of the event" (emphasis added, source here in PDF). The bolded part of that sentence is where NOAA's methodology has a serious flaw, as $1 billion does not mean the same thing today as it did in 1980. In fact, adjusting just for inflation means that $1 billion today would have been the equivalent of $400 million in 1980. And that is not all, because there has been considerable development across the nation since 1980, meaning that there is more property and wealth to be damaged, $1 billion in damage today is actually equivalent to about $170 million in 1980.