Interesting parallels between say the debate on the dangers of smoking (or the hole in the ozone layer) and the climate change debate. If we take smoking then firstly scientists proposed the link between smoking and cancer. Their work is validated by peer reviews but at the same time vested interests successfully spread doubt so the public is confused. Over time, many years, it becomes generally accepted that the link is there though it remains difficult to prove in absolute terms. However at some point the truth is obvious to just about all through their personal experiences. And so will it be with climate change......
With climate change we have the vast majority of scientists believing in anthropogenic warming and the forecast consequences of a destabilised climate. I can't think of one national scientific institute across the world that has publicly said it is flawed science. We have anecdotal evidence of people feeling that the climate is changing. We have science with a plausible reason why this might be. We have evidence that the climate is changing, from a seemingly endless string of extreme weather disasters and changing seasons. We have respected well known people saying they are convinced and concerned. The weight of evidence is building inexorably - but there may never be absolute proof in the same way that there isn't for smoking and cancer or for aerosols and the hole in the ozone layer.
Munich Re deal with reinsurance and their 3 Jan press release notes a total of 975 natural catastrophes in 2010, 90% of which were weather related like storms and floods, markedly exceeding the average for the last 10 years (785). They conclude by saying "The high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change". Not proof but adding to the weight of evidence. The suggested link between warmer seas noted in previous posts, likely caused by mankind, and the severity of storms impacting Queensland is not conclusive but again adds to the weight of evidence.....

Hey Alice
You want an answer about a hypothesis expressed in terms of a Law.
Yeah, right - just shows us how much you understand about the scientific process.
Byebye.

CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE BOTH A CAUSE & AN EFFECT?

Hey Rich2

Interesting you begin your post with a red herring, Naomi Oreskes' preposterous thesis. As one of her targets S Fred Singer noted, her book is "shoddy and unprofessional." True historians of science "would present an UNBIASED account of the available FACTS and carry out sufficient DUE DILIGENCE to obtain such facts. In this case, we have little more than a polemic that expresses the considerable prejudices of the authors, particularly those of professor Naomi Oreskes."

Your worry about a "destabilisng climate" suggest (incorrectly) you believe there is a possibility of achieving Goldilocks climate that, like Heaven or some eco-Eden, will suit all folk from Tibuktou to Archangel.

Change is what climate does, and has done ever since the Earth acquired an atmosphere. Do you have any idea of the tremendous variations ver geological time?

Your Munich Re post is similarly revealing. Evidence of change tells little or nothing about WHY that change is occurring. Perhaps it's the translation, but for me the insurer's explanation confuses CAUSE and EFFECT.

In any case, are you seriously suggesting one can draw meaningful generalisations of this kind from a ten-year record? Even the (questionable) "standard climatological normal" is thirty years, 1961-1990.

Alice (in Warmerland)

Rich2 said: Given the scientific evidence that sea and air temperatures in the world are warming and that we now appear to be seeing an increasing number of extreme weather events around the world I dont see how anyone could logically say that a particular extreme weather event is not related (at all) to anthropogenic global warming.

Because it is not AGW causing it. It is not happening.The scientific evidence is definitely NOT IN.

Bonmot - thanks for the link but was there any point you wanted to make?

Rich2 - no the analogy doesn't hold. In the arguements over tobacco the tobacco companies did try to obfuscate the issues. In that case there was cearly plenty of funding for pro-tobacco research.

In contrast, in the climate debate, almost all the funding has flowed to pro-global warming science. Activists looking desperately for some evidence of funding from energy companies have only been able to find the odd $200,000 or 300,000 grants to lobby groups - derisory compared to the billions going into global warming research. (The Department of Climate Change's annual budget alone is around $80 million.)

The reason for this is that the climate stuff just does not affect the basic business of the energy companies the way that anti-tobacco material affected the tobacco companies. At worst, strident activism may slightly reduce the rate of growth of energy consumption. Makes more sense for energy companies to be seen to be green.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=9

Ocean is where most of the mass is, so the SST Anomaly is most relevant.
ENSO is getting most of the coverage but Indian Ocean dipole is at extraordinary levels, as is the Antarctic Ocean indexes. This is no surprise as the models *expect* the climate to change, so this means the main driving structures will start behaving differently.

Air temps are impacted by tropical flows to the poles, and pole air flowing to the tropics:->snowstorms in Europe, drought and floods all "attributable" to changing climate. ("Causation" is different story)

The title is clearly wrong: All weather is *related* to anthropogenic global warming...provided one is not one of the faithful who denies with 100% confidence. How "related" is a tricky science question which very few have the facts and expertise to discern.
Have fun with the "I reckon..." games!