Is this statement about climate change a scientific one?

It doesn't exclude the possibility of new discovery. That's perfectly scientific. To make a final determination without further verification, investigation, and experimentation? That would be unscientific. The great scientists and explorers invited competition and inspection. They were not covetous of their discoveries. Einstein: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Galileo: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. " Tesla: "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. ... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor. "

It is scientific since it is based on the evidence. I gave you an example yesterday, the recent NASA paper on climate sensitivity uses the data from natural forcings to explain the observations and they can only account for around 50%. GHGs make up the rest.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-1...

The second one is a bit less realistic, requiring lots of confidence in the models. However if the observations fall within the confidence intervals and the model is not missing any important parameters then it is reasonable to think that the accuracy may improve in the future. If after a reasonable period of time (enough to give a statistically significant estimate) the observations have sufficiently deviated from the model then it's time to concede defeat.

"There are no known natural drivers of climate that can explain the observed warming."

Yep, it is scientific. It reflects how little the scientific really understands about climate dynamics in general. It also explains why the folks at HADCRUT cannot get the winter weather right. And don't start in with "weather is not climate." They made predictions and were dead wrong.

"It appears to support a hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of global warming..." No it doesn't support the AGW hypothosis. If there were natural drivers which could explain the temperature rise, AGW would be dead in the water. You must differentiate between evidence against and evidence in favor. Your initial statement is neither.

I could claim that the current warming is caused by space aliens on the dark side of the moon. I could claim it has to be space aliens because we know of no natural drivers. It could still be natural forcings or space aliens or anthropomorphic CO2. Scientists must gather positive evidence to support their particular hypothesis.

Edit: Five TD's, looks like I hit a nerve with the resident alarmists. They really don't like when somebody employs simple logic. It tears their arguments to shreds. Let me be more suucinct then. No evidence can be found to support hypothesis A (natrual forcings). This CAN NOT IN ANY WAY be used as evidence to support hypothesis B (AGW).

Regarding models, I don't have much use for them. The mainstream scientific community has models which show the earth will warm anywhere from 0.5 to 6 C by the year 2000. One of them is bound to be right. What does that mean? Nothing actually. It would be the same as 20 gamblers going to the casino, eash with a way to beat the roulette wheel. Only one of them walks out ahead. Is his "system" good? I wouldn't put money into it on that basis alone.

good answer, Trevor, different than (from Mike's attitude) you forgot to point that "tremendously plenty the entire gamut of sciences," in different words tens of hundreds of occupation professionals in rankings of world places over many many years, have all been biased socialist tree-huggers, while Michael Crichton, Fred Seitz, Rick Perry and Richard Lindzen are Galileos.

The statement is part of a a conclusion based on the results from modeling. It is caveated (phrase "no known") because as scientists do more experiments, more relationships may become apparent and the model refined to reflect the new knowledge. The models (General Circulation Models) include natural and anthropogenic factors that influence the earth's energy balance. We can recreate past climates that are driven only by natural factors well. When the model is run forward, it indicates that we should not see the warming we currently see, and that it maybe should even be cooling some. It is only when you add in anthropogenic factors that we are able to reproduce the current increase in the earth's mean global temperature we now can directly measure.

Look at figure 4 and read the text to understand (page 7). It is an older reference now, but things haven't changed that much yet.

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_ch...

Just like the question and the answer 42 in the Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy, I believe that the 2 terms climate change and science are mutually exclusive and 1 can't exist if the other is present.

climate change and real science do not mix - oil and water mate.

<<<There are no known natural drivers of climate that can explain the observed warming>>

I fthey can say that, you could also say that there are no artificial drivers of climate that can explain the observed warming.

Let's see. If this were Paleoanthopology, it would go something like this. There are no known creature except Zinjanthropus that could have made these tools. Zinj was Louis Leakys name for the Paranthropus skull that he found that was later dertermined not to be a tool maker.

Ignorance is a very bad place to argue for a theory. That is why most alarmists won't admit to what we don't know.

Yes. This is exactly how all scientific theory becomes developed. Possible explanations are eliminated until an explanation is found that can't be eliminated. If all natural causes had not already been eliminated, then climatologists would still be debating whether human activity is the primary cause -- and they are no longer debating that. The known potential natural explanations have been eliminated. And that is the scientific process at work.

This is why there is never a natural explanation that holds to all the observations. Natural explanations cannot fit the facts.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

-- Sherlock Holmes

Sure it's scientific.

The snippet "No known ________ exists" is ubiquitous in the literature and is almost always used as a justification for investigation.

I just submitted a paper based based solely on the fact that no known ___________ exists. I'd be happy to share it with if/once accepted as I assure you my motives were noble.

EDIT re your additional details.

I work daily with sensors that are very poor at producing instantaneous readings that are worth a damn, but they are great at measuring and recording trends. Sometimes, rates of change are more important than individual values.

It is not scientific at all unless the science started in 1960. Considering that the earth has been through ice ages and then warmed there must be natural drivers of climate change that cause warming. We just don't understand them all yet.