THe fruits of contemplation at Duck N.C. about global warming

            I am venturing on foreign ground for this blog. It is around my reasoning on the subject of global warming . It is not the type of material that I have ventured to write about in this blog but that is about to change.
            At the retreat on the outer banks I contemplated this to try to extract what my understanding of the subject is and to formulate a way to process material  that is presented, Below is the fruit of that exertion.

I have had time to crystalize my thought about global warming this is my current state.

The levels of scientific proof that exist are hypothesis and theory , wiki can give a more complete definition of these manners of proof but it is accurate to say that an hypothesis is not as accepted  as fully as a theory and an hypothesis is proven through rigorous testing in a manner appropriate to the hypothesis. Statistics are a methodology used to do those proofs.
As it used to be said ,it doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.
I looked a graph that combined the prognostications of 117 of the computer models that predicted the rise in temperature that the earth was going to endure. Against that were the actual temperatures recorded over the time frame. None of the graphs predicted what was happening. Therefore the proposition remains as an incomplete hypothesis at best or fallacious at worse. I patiently await further data and /or a better hypotheses.
In those circumstances I am and we are as a society  brought calls for action;  expensive ,  with a loss of freedoms ,and a  consolidation of power into the hands of unelected officials. Many of these  calls are often  ill conceived and impulsive.
Those proposals are not scientific , they are social . Richard Feynman said that " a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.  To decide about those proposals I fall back on the legal levels of proof as they are designed to judge social questions and how I think about global warming  

                      The levels are ,first ,probable cause ,global warming certainly and easily meets that level of proof.

The second level is preponderance of evidence, and from my observation that level of proof is also quite easily met.
The third level is clear and convincing , for me global warming has not reached that level. As example I have not had a decent explanation as to what were the causes of both the medieval warm period 800 AD-1400AD or the Roman warm period approximately 200 BC to 400 AD and why they differ from what we are currently enduring .
Another example : I read yesterday of the rise of the oceans , this is sometimes attributed to global warming or even that the acceleration of it is due to gw. The graph I was looking at started in 1880  it  showed a sea level rise  which the trend of the moving average  showed a steady increase. The question which emerged was : what was causing the sea level rise in 1880 and since the graph did not go back farther, my assumption was that it has been going on even longer, which reiterates the question of cause.  These and many other questions have not been satisfactorily answered and I also  believe that for the society they have not been answered,  or there would not be the resistance to the hypothesis that currently exists if they were answered. I later learned that a period of time known as the little ice age end in the early 1700's it is safe to assume that the seas began to rise as the planet became warmer and the ice melted. Why did that happen and since is began over 300 years ago how much of the sea level rise is attributed to anthropogenic causes and how much is attributed to natural causes ?
This and other questions therefore in my mind do not raise the level of proof to clear and convincing.  I do not deny or affirm gw but I am not convinced that the hypothesis is valid and that all the social action is at all valid.  Some action might be , I would encourage private experimentation and  public research into various technologies for instance but neither  I nor the society are  prepared to spend vast sums of money or commit to any actions  beyond the most simple and logical. Such as telecommuting and various energy efficiencies.
Each call for social action also has to go through the levels of proof . I believe that the society is best served by asking that those levels be addressed and convincingly answered.
The final level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, that is doubt to which one can assign a reason. Global warming hypotheses are not even close to this point and therefore extreme social action is totally unwarranted  

.