The thesis is validated by the science because of accurate predictions it has made, and its conformity with the evidence that has so far accrued. The point about sustainability is rather simple: there are predictable effects of increased global temperatures, which will have serious consequences for large portions of humanity.
None of the urls that you toss in as a substitute for an argument show any
> measurement of a temperature change greater than one degree. That is
> because
> there has been no change in temperature any greater than one degree.
Look, honey, your sophistry isn't going to work here. Evidence is not a substitute for an argument: the URLs led directly to surfeit of evidence of unprecedented increases in global temperatures with the predicted effects on arctic ice temperatures and permafrost, and so on. They also led to a number of scientists discussing empirical evidence that the effects predicted in the theory have been recorded. You claimed that no scientist would pretend that the theory had empirical validity, but that is simply untrue, and I provided the data to back that up. The reason why you are claiming that you didn't notice an argument is because you didn't want to countenance the evidence and its significance.
Second, the temperature doesn't have to have risen by more than one degree: a 0.6 degree increase in average global temperatures over the last hundred years is sufficient to have made significant changes already, and the established relationship between that increase and the increase in carbon emissions which my links also discussed means that at the current rate of expanded output, the rate of temperature increase will increase as well.
What they do show, is models, which are only as good as the data put into
> them. Strangely they all omit the telling fact that the IPCC's computer
> models have all been reconfigured since the first predictions of
> temperature
> made from them proved to be wrong.
What you don't mention is that the IPCC's model for arctic ice melting was actually too conservative, not too extreme: arctic ice is melting much more quickly than anticipated, and the consequences will be with us more quickly than anticipated.
Like a demonstration of the problem of attackign your opponent's
> credentials rather than his argument 'Lenin's tomb' says
>
> "If you know of a good piece of work that is scientifically validated and
> *doesn't* originate from an industry lobby or an untrustworthy 'maverick',
> then why don't you go ahead and name it."
>
> But who does he cite in his favour? "the *Royal* Society"; and what name
> comes up first on their website? Sir Ron Oxburgh, former chairman of
> Shell.
What was that you were saying about rhetoric? The Royal Society is a scientific institution. It references one former chairman of Shell who acknowledges the problem. Your mentioning this as if it was some sort of revelation, when I put the information in front of you, is an artefact of your utter inability to address an argument. I asked if you could back up your claim that there are worthy scientific challenges to the consensus that do not originate from the oil lobby or some 'maverick', and you chose not to provide an example, but to point out the obvious. I will also constrain myself to pointing out the obvious, then. Sir Ron Oxburgh is mentioned on the site because he is one of a small number of oil industry figures who accepts the reality of climate change. He wants to make any measures that address it compatible with business interests. The Royal Society, not being a radical institution, wants the same thing. Hence, he appears on the site. Does this mean that the Royal Society's website is produced by the oil lobby? Does it mean anything at all? Does it address the question I raised?
What you are doing here, in steadfastly refusing to acknowledging the evidence - lying about it, in fact - and relying on misleading claims and bluster and rhetoric to undermine the best science available on this crucial issue, is encouraging obscurantism and reaction.