In using the termyouthe UNFCCC have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.
There...fixed it. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" to describe natural fluctuations. As you pointed out, the IPCC includes these natural fluctuations in the term "climate change."
I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use, since that means we'd have to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is not a climate change." Instead, if makes more sense to say: "The currently observed change in climate from a century ago is a climate change, but it might be merely climate fluctuation."
Even if we accept your UNFCCC terminology, then the whole point of the article becomes meaningless, as we can't differentiate a mere anthropogenic climate change from natural climate fluctuation based on the Scranton data.
Sheesh...I’m not doing too well!
I MEANT to add.... “Instead, it makes more sense to say:”
Apologies to all!
I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use
LOL, you don't have a say, in the usage it has already been decided by UN treaty obligations.
Climate Change in regards international law and its US law, as we are adherants to the 1992 "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ", controls the political debate regarding statutes and regulations.
Science has nothing to do with it, global political control and regulation of economies is the controlling and end product of this debate. The usage of political terms is a matter of international law and political shenannigans at this point. The issue is about political and economic control and nothing else.
You may argue your points all you wish, it will not change the terms of the real debate that remains hidden from your view as long as you fail to recognize what the real debate is actually about and insist on arguing from the wrong premises.
That is why the Political Summary from the IPCC states "Climate Change" is anthropogenic to a 90% certainty. The statement is a political statment not a statement of science. It is based on a concensus , a beysian estimate, of wearing the scientist's frock for cover and misdirection.
Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.
The genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf
"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."
And the intent of the use of such terms:
"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "
The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).