yes. next question.

Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

It stops every winter, then starts again in the spring. next question.

GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

Every long term trend starts out as a short term trend.

Medium term trends get along well with other medium term trends, go bowling, maybe they catch a show or a ballgame at some point, I dunno...

TheOther: Every long term trend starts out as a short term trend.

And I'm sure there being more CO² in our atmosphere than has been seen for millions of years and the last time we were even close to current levels the temperatures were I think 10C above current temps has nothing to do with any trends.

namatad: strangely enough, the article asked a number of honest scientific questions.
which will be ignored

No, not really. There was a whole lot of "I want people to do things for me and I don't like what I read" in there.

I "know" that al gore and his followers will long be gone when we finally KNOW the answer.

We'll "know" within 20 years when it's another half a degree warmer and we'll really "know" in 50 years when it's two degrees warmer.

namatad: page 7 please (new window)

No, I'm not reading any further when the title is "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change" and starts off with misquotes from Dr. William Grey. Want to disprove me and science in general? Find something that isn't showing massive bias.

So....

If someone asked this same question in 1970, based solely on the first chart shown, they would possibly conclude that yes, it has stopped. Again, based solely on that chart, they would have been wrong.

GAT_00: misquotes

That should be out of context quotes, not misquotes.

namatad: we will "know" for sure

We'll more than know, we'll be farked and the planet on it's way to uninhabitable for humans.

why do global warming people, only use the period of data which fits their "hypothesis" and ignore periods of data which reject their "cause"

No, I'm ignoring "evidence" from a biased source. He made his "evidence" not worth reading by starting with a title that made me ignore him within 10 words.

Sigh. It's interesting how opinions on global warming are very often in lockstep with what the preferred party tells them to recite. The GOP has successfully managed to get fundies and the white, working poor reciting that global warming is a lie, whether or not they have any knowledge of the issue. Conversely, dems have irritating coffee house hipsters making the same claims with a similar lack of knowledge. What I think is irrelevant - the fact is that a scientific issue has morphed into a purely political one.

/"health care" is a similar phrase that sparks knee-jerk and almost universally uninformed partisan whaargarble

GAT_00: And I'm sure there being more CO2 in our atmosphere than has been seen for millions of years and the last time we were even close to current levels the temperatures were I think 10C above current temps has nothing to do with any trends.

They obviously don't.... According to you, the temperature should be at least 10 degrees higher.... and it isn't. Just maybe co2 levels don't drive temperature. Just maybe the cooling tend has started. Just maybe you're not Mr Knowitall.

Hey, how about looking at it like this: Would you read anything that had a title that was something like "Global Warming is an absolute, proven truth and anyone who doesn't believe it is a farking dumbass?" Even if it proved beyond a doubt that it is happening? Of course not. So why do you expect me to read an article that is the opposite of that?

namatad: a world renowned environmentalist (new window)

He's an author, not an scientist. How about you start finding scientists that prove you right? And try finding more than say 10-12, because I can come back with 1,000.

Oh, and nice citing everything else. You've proved absolutely nothing and are demanding you take everything I say to be true. I'm asking you to actually go find something to read that isn't absolutely biased, take off your little indoctrination, and read it. Your proof already exists. You just refuse to read it.

Non-scientists are non-scientific.

Sweet, time to yank the hybrid drive out of the old Prius and put in a V8.

Why would you post something from the NRO, a purely political publication, and think it has any bearing on the reality of science? If you want to disprove global climate change post thousands of peer reviewed journal papers because that's what global climate change has in its favor.

namatad: strangely enough, the article asked a number of honest scientific questions.

good

namatad: which will be ignored

If they are valid questions, scientists would be (and probably are already) asking them of eachother.

namatad: the people who "believe" in AGW do not allow anyone to question their faith
the people who are against AGW are heretics

We can clearly see your bias in your phrasing here. Is it possible for me to believe that I personally don't have all the answers but choose to place my trust in whatever the current scientific consensus is instead of trying to go against the current?

Why is it that if I believe the majority of experts on a subject instead of a minority I have to be lumped in with those people (if they even exist) who feel so strongly about global warming as to have faith akin to a fundamentalist's belief in god?

namatad: the scientists wish both groups would go away and let them collect data to test theories

If those were the only 2 groups, you would be right. I should think that if the majority of scientists believed CO2 was causing global warming that they would be interested in not just learning about global warming, but also having the non-scientist portion of the world choose to make changes to prevent it. I know if I were a scientist I wouldn't be content to discover the world would end because of a man-made disaster, I'd actually, and I know this is a shocker, try to prevent it.

namatad: me?
I "know" that al gore and his followers will long be gone when we finally KNOW the answer.
History will have the final word on whether they were fear-mongerers or prescient.

You know that do you? You 'KNOW' it? So people who accept scientific consensus believe in it like a religion, but you predict the future with a certainty. You also seem to be the only person, despite not being a scientist, who is able to define when we as a society know something for sure and when we don't. That's a pretty nifty skill.

Abagadro: Non-scientists are non-scientific.

Got a link to a peer-reviewed study to back that up? Thought so.

They really don't know for sure, since the science for tracking and the statistical data are both flawed and developing. So whether global warming exists in reality is a political football being tossed artound by groups that either benefit from it's existance or lack thereof. When in doubt, follow the money.
Next question.

namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.
I hate how it has been politicied.

Are you getting a kick, etc.?

And the right-wing war on science continues...

Look, just because the temperature has leveled off for the moment, doesn't invalidate the long-term trend (and calling that line of thinking "idiotic" says more about you than the people you're criticizing). Hell, look at the graph they present, and you'll see that between 1940-1950, the temperature went DOWN! Didn't stop it from going right back up afterwards.

If you are simplistic enough to expect global warming, or any climate change, to be a straight line progression, you have no business talking about climate.

namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.


I rather doubt it.

SkinnyHead: True science welcomes disproves dissent, as they already have done for people who deny global warming. Those people normally can't be bothered to actually look at the scientific consensus, though, preferring to cherry pick the one scientist out of ten thousand, usually not a climatologist, who disbelieves in global warming. Half the time, he really doesn't, and the anti-AGW-crowd just misreads his paper.

FTFY.

C.

Most of the talking points are addressed here. With actual, you know, science. (new window)

If you're still confused, the climate guides at NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, royalsociety.org, and the summation at IPCC.ch are very good also.

If you need a more laymans explanation for phenomena try realclimate.org, run by published climatologists with links to the actual scientific studies under explanation.

Can't we just have another Palin thread?

Global Warming/Cooling/Climate change is soooooooo 2006.

Thats weird, I am 29 and I have not seen global warming. I thought we were past the "Man made global warming" scam.

Smackledorfer: namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.


I rather doubt it.

Yeah, apparently not understanding basic absorption and re-emission spectra of greenhouse gases, how the concentration increase of such can be traced directly to the efforts of humans, and the known variables mitigating climate change at the moment would indicate that to be a disengenuous statement and maybe outright lie.

Trollmitter:

GAT_00: namatad: page 7 please (new window)

No, I'm not reading any further when the title is "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change" and starts off with misquotes from Dr. William Grey. Want to disprove me and science in general? Find something that isn't showing massive bias.

Arjibuh: Ignorance redacted.

Why don't you try following the link I provided or going to the pages I suggested? All the result of actual scientific inquery, not someone with an agenda pushing something. (AKA, what namatad linked).

GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

And kill some silly and dangerous legislation.

GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

Yeah, because environmentalists have had a long history of colluding with industries.

SVenus

Sheesh, that idiotic graph again? You got smacked around the last time you posted it for the inaccuracies contained therein. Furthermore, the scientific community has been calling it climate change since the '70s. Finally, it was our last president that had the whitehouse stop using global warming, because it sounded too scary.

At least come up with talking points that have not been shown to be dramatically wrong.

Firstly, in their graph ten years is an insufficient sample size.

Secondly, they started charting just before 1998, an el nino year (which is unusually warm) to make it look like there wasn't an upward trend in temperature.

Thirdly, they say it's hard to dispute their graph. It's actually shockingly easy, and anyone who does ten minutes of Googling can see how dishonest their article is.

Get with it dude, it's now Climate Change so that any way it goes it s still proves it.

Asking 'why is the sky is blue' is also a legitimate scientific question. And ignorance of the reasons why does not mean there is a significant amount of controversy in scientific circles as to the explanation.

Just because a particular person is not aware of the body of work done on a particular point does not mean that the issue has not been addressed by that particular field. Ignorance, no matter how honest or well-meaning, does not mean controversy.

Now where TFA has a very, very good point is regarding transparency and access. The science of ACC is informing a debate that transcends a research world that tends to be unused to direct contact with the general public. That gap needs to be narrowed, and it should have been done long, long ago.