For the global warming folks

Two things -

1. You didn't read the article did you. It just says that the Greenland ice sheet isn't as acceptable to global warming not that global warming wasn't happening. It was neutral for that part.

2. Cap and trade was a Republican creation. McCain even ran on it when he was running for President. It was only after Democrates agreed to them that Republicans objected to it. Just like about everything else. cough healthcare mandate cough

Did you read where the ice is actually growing at the southern pole? cough cough.

In the article you posted? Nope not it there either.

Again - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED THAT DEBUNKS GLOBAL WARMING.

I should just give up. It's not like you're capable of thinking for yourself.

And you've crunched the numbers and figured that out for yourself or you just believe what you have been told by the media and liberal researchers? I have listened and read the global warming arguments, found other facts not publicized by the main stream media and have CHOSEN to not believe what they want to spoon feed me, YOU on the other hand spout the same talking points the media does. WHO is incapable of thinking for themselves?

YAWN.

This is a dead issue. There are two ways to reduce the carbon footprint immediately but the libs won't do it. 1) More nuclear power plants 2) increase fracking and CNG use

Of course they demonize both. What do they promote? Electric cars powered by clean electricity..... that comes from coal burning power plants that now must work overttime thus INCREASING the carbon footprint.

I’m not arguing global warming here, one way or another. I’m point out that the article LC posted says nothing debunking global warming. He never even read the article. He simply saw a head line on some wing nut site and posted away without even trying to read it or understand it for himself.

No I did read it and maybe you can't understand it, and its not a right wing site its a British tech site, maybe you should have read it.

"But we now know that the Greenland ice was exposed to much greater heat for many thousands of years and lost only a quarter of its mass, so the models are evidently wrong and another IPCC doom warning has been consigned to the dustbin of history (previously the organisation has attracted widespread ridicule for suggesting that the glaciers of the Himalayas would all be gone by 2035 and that the Amazon rainforest might suddenly catch fire, burn up and vanish)."

and where it says,

"Some of the participating scientists suggested that even though we are now pretty sure we're safe from the Greenland ice sheet, we may still be flooded out of our homes at some point by meltwater from the even bigger and chillier Antarctic ice. However recent research has shown that big ice shelves down there, which had been thought to be melting, are actually not: that nothing new is going on in the much-discussed Western Antarctic peninsula: and that in fact the mighty sheet froze into being at a time when the atmosphere held much more carbon than it now does. It will also be well known to regular readers that the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is steadily increasing in area year after year - baffling climate scientists and further undermining confidence in their models.

The new Greenland ice-core research is published here in hefty boffinry mag Nature. ®"

Which also blows your above statement that there was nothing about Antartic ice as well.

Is the earth warming?? I think it probably is. Is it a direct cause from man, I dont think it is, and even if it is the whole global warming industry that has been set up and is trying to force its way into your pocket can't possibly have any immediate effect on changing the worlds climate. It has been and always will be a method to earn money, period.

Did you read the actual study? As already mentioned, it certainly doesn't debunk climate change. Especially as it was published in Nature, a publication that's regularly published articles proving climate change.

The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that this is real. You know who disagrees? Conservative politicians. The same people who believe a woman's body has ways of preventing pregnancy if raped.

Climate change needs to be proven? The Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years. This part of Ohio was once covered by a glacier. Advancing glacier is global cooling. Retreating glacier is global warming.

That story labels ice samples from only 120,000 years ago as "ancient." How is that ancient when Earth is four billion years old?

Context is needed. 10 years might be ancient in Web time, but I don't see how 120,000 years is ancient in geological time.

Tell Conservatives there is a man in the clouds with a long white beard who watches our every move and dictates our rules to us, and they'll believe you.

Tell them you have studies showing the Earth is getting hotter, and they'll call you a liar because it was so cold last week.

[with apologies to G. Carlin]

There is evidence global warming stopped. Scientists are still debating what the data means but the models they've been using for the last 20 years are now clearly not true.

So, the panic that was issued by libs is unnecessary. But again, if it REALLY is about reducing carbon emissions lets do something that will work. Not electric cars or worrying about plastic bags but begin cracking and using CNG while we build new nuclear plants.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/all-the-reasons-why-global-warming-hasnt-stopped

No. Global warming hasn't stopped. That's just some more magical thinking that right wingers are so often engaged in. Kind of like believing their own internal poll numbers that Romney was going to win. Pick a data point you like and go with it. Never mind the rest of the numbers or the context in which they are presented.

I didn't say it did stop holland. I said there is evidence that it had but scientists are still debating the data.

However it is CLEAR that the models used to create panic amongst the governments over-exaggerated the warming. This is not a right-winger position, this is a FACT! Take a look at the models for 2013, we are no where near as warm as they told us.

This is the scientific models they LIBERALS use. We now know they are wrong. Yet you ignore this holland.

Oh Really.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/22/nasa-climate-data-indicates-that-the-long-term-global-warming-trend-is-continuing/

Today's weather is not climate.

Just because it's been below freezing for a week, that does not magically invalidate global warming.

If you have terminal cancer, and the doctor says you have 6 months to live, and you are still alive a year later, it doesn't mean your cancer has magically disappeared.

AC, where did I talk about today's weather? I discussed worldwide data from the MET that has shown warming on a global scale stopped. The impact of those results are still being debated about what they mean among scientists. The data is not in debate, but the implications of it are.

If you look, I didn't say Global Warming stopped now did I. But there is evidence that clearly puts the scientific models used to predict what the warming would be has been wrong.

holland, look at the graph on the link you showed. From just before 2000 until now, if you add a trend line, it flattens during that time, not the steep upward trend that the models of the hockey stick graph they showed now is it?

AND... researchers are also reconstructing the weather from the past 2000 years, not the 1000 years the models were based off of. The verdict thus far... we're cooling. http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php why? their hypothesis "Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun."

Please post validated scientific studies, MikeyA.

Who was the NASA scientist going on the record that we were going to hit another ice age in the 70's?

It's linked in the article I posted. See citation.

I don't see anything in that article about the scientist that was predicting an ice age about now.

I also seem to remember something about all the data they used for their impending doom climate model was supposedly erased and lost so was not open for external review.

You'll have a hard time getting a passing grade with only one source.

Do you really want more sources? I would have guessed that a professor's article discussing the results of his peer-reviewed study would be enough.

I can provide them if you wish.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf Here is a link to the National Academy of Sciences and a topic paper supporting the AGW theory.

I will direct you to page 3. It has the EXACT same graph from NASA that holland previously posted. Yet, this one has one added feature, a trend line of a 5 year running mean. It's a Now it clearly shows a spike from 1977 to 2009. But if when we take the MET data into account that says GW essentially stopped in 1997 then we narrow the scope further. What it shows is that in 1997 the surface temperature spiked to about 14.6 degrees C. In 1998 and 99 it fell to 14.4 degrees before rising back to 14.6 degrees. From 2000 to 2009 the average temperature holds around 14.6 and the bulk of the data falls well within the MOE, the biggest anomaly being a drop in 2006 well outside MOE. And as the trendline shows this period represents the MOST STABLE fluxuations through out the table (THE ONLY PLATEAU) and during that time it's a null value increase. This using the data AGW proponents provided as proof.

Now the IPCC in 2007 predicted that if CO2 kept at the current rate temperatures would rise another .4 degrees C by 2015 Source: IPCC 2007, 21, table SPM.6.). From 2000 to 2020 .8 degrees C. That's a huge increase. For us to make our 2015 IPCC goal we had better get going! Oh also in the same table, they predicted a 2 meter rise in sea level.

So you can either agree with me that the models are/were flawed or you believe that the next two years are going to REALLY suck i.e. goodbye most of the east coast and New Orleans.

Again, I am not arguing that AGW couldn't be happening, nor am I arguing that in the last 100 years did the temps increase. What I'm arguing is the predictive modeling they showed us for the last 20 years has not even come close. So when the hypothesis(model) is proven wrong by data you MUST develop a new hypothesis or find out what unaccounted for variable made the data deviate from the hypothesized end state.

I can agree with much of what you posted, MikeyA.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Did you read that thoroughly and research it any further?

"Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."

The "as he once feared" part dates back 20 years.

Yes I read it and I understood it. Now you go ahead and listen to a guy who is making boo-coo bucks off of this shit. Where did we get the Great Lakes from? Global Warming is not the big deal you have been brainwashed into believing it is. I don't know how old you are, but when I was in grade school we were told that by now we would be covered in ice. Now what am I supposed to believe with this new theory. I don't trust anything anybody has to say on anything! If you do,then you are more naive than you need to be and I got a bridge I'll sell you.

Now we have way more important things to worry about. Lets get on with life.

Oh, so you're one of the anti-science type people. Praise Allah.

I couldn't agree with MickeyA more. There is a real conversation to be had about how we treat the earth, but I'm sick of the fear mongering that goes along with it.

I'm old enough to remember the coming "ICE AGE" campaign where smog would block out the sun and we would all freeze to death. Didn't happen.

After that it was the acid rain scare of the 80's. The rain would strip the paint from your car and melt your skin! Skin still here.

Look we should be looking to use technology to the fullest, we should be funding the development at a university/research level where our nations brightest can get their hands in on the process. Not Washington handing our tax dollars out to private companies for CEO's to run into the ground and walk away with fat bank.

In the 70/80's we had a real problem with pollution and the EPA did some good things. Unfortunately it's now just a pay to play scam where the mega corp does what it wants and writes Uncle Sam a check for the vig on house money.

Lets not push consumers into technology which has not been perfected and that raises the cost of heating/cooling for the poorest among us. You think Mitt Romney is worried about a 5% cost in heating? I know a lot of folk who do. I know a lot of folk who think a 4 dollar light bulb is a lot of change.

GE was heavily behind the new light bulb standard, soon as it passed they closed down american operations and the shop they had ready waiting in China for the new bulbs (how convenient) fired up and started producing.

We can get this right, lets stop killing American jobs and making mega corps rich in the process.

Ah, CFLs...source of my favorite scare story of the past year...after years of pressure, publicity, and overall hoo-ha to switch:

Scientific American: Can Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs Damage Skin?

The curlicue compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) oft touted as an Earth-friendly alternative to standard incandescent bulbs may cause skin damage, according to a new study by researchers at Stony Brook University.

Now researchers have found that ultraviolet radiation seeping through CFLs may damage skin cells. Miriam Rafailovich, a professor of materials science and engineering at Stony Brook, led the research after reading an article in an Israeli newspaper that reported a spike in skin cancer on a communal farm when residents switched to fluorescent bulbs.

"In the past two years some disturbing reports have surfaced mostly in the European Union literature, which indicate that exposure to CFL bulbs might be responsible for exacerbating certain skin conditions, such as photodermatoses and skin cancer in humans," says the paper, published last month in the journal Photochemistry and Photobiology.

Under CFLs, the experiments showed cells stopped growing and changed shape. Dermal fibroblasts suffered worse than keratinocytes, since they are usually not exposed to light. This indicates these bulbs can damage skin in several layers.

Rafailovich explained that at close range, around a foot or so, CFL exposure is "the equivalent of sunbathing at the equator." This may not be cause for alarm for those who have CFLs mounted in ceiling fixtures, but it should be a concern with desk or table lamps.

-----------

So, in addition to the mercury "risk", we can add UV rays to the household too! Awesome, greenies....thanks for "saving" us.

-------------
From Environmental Health Perspectives (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences website):

In 2012 SCENIHR again addressed the issue of artificial light exposure with an eye to the general public and determined no studies had yet evaluated CFL-specific links to adverse health effects. However, the committee did find substantial evidence linking “single-envelope” CFLs—those with the bare spiral tube showing—to aggravation of chronic actinic dermatitis, solar urticaria, lupus erythematosus, and photosensitive eye conditions. The committee concluded that CFLs pose little short-term health risk for people of normal sensitivity but recommended that all people should avoid using CFLs for close-range desk or task lighting.

“A real problem for the public health aspect is that we have really insufficient knowledge about the actual exposure [to UV radiation],” says Mattsson, who chaired the SCENIHR in 2012. “Emissions are not the same as knowing the exposure.”

That’s an important distinction, says Brian Pollack, an assistant professor of dermatology and pathology at Emory University, because “UV radiation is carcinogenic. The bottom line is if these [bulbs] are emitting UV radiation of any amount, it needs to be defined, and it needs to be prevented.”

-----------
Yep. Ban the incandescents, but keep these? They are "green"? Seriously????

Please note: I'm all in favor of lowering power usage--I have several LED-bulbs ($$$$...jeez!) in my house. But there were obvious drawbacks to CFLs, starting with mercury levels and now UV emissions, that were/are pushed aside.

This is not biggest threat to humans living upon the earth, which is really what we're debating here because even if AGW to the extreme is true life on earth can survive it, would humans? Maybe, maybe not.

What this is is a distraction from the real problem, lack of fresh water.

As we've expanded we've become exceedingly efficient at growing food. But the quick expansion has taken it's toll on our fresh water supply. Where the water table of Nebraska used to be at 15 ft it is now at 40ft. We've damned and redirected our water to an exhaustive end. We have no efficient means of renewing it as a resource. The lack of it is the reason a majority of the world live in poverty.

And yet, sciences has not invested significant means toward finding a way to make efficient fresh water let alone potable water

I disagree they are working on fresh water production it just isn't sexy news nor does it further their AGW theories, so it doesn't make the evening news. Check out physorg.com search for fresh water and you will probably find a dozen articles about different gadgets to make fresh water.

I agree LC, but it gets no where near the money that electric vehicles do, and electric vehicles cause more CO2 in the area than gas vehicles.

If we allocated just 1/3rd of the money we're wasting we could see some real progress and it would be usuable in many third world countries.

Well I would say, why is it our responsibility to provide for all the 3rd world countries anyway? If you want to send your money there, hell if all the liberals wanted to send their money to the rest of the world fine, but that isn't the liberal way, they always want to take YOUR money and send it somewhere. Like teaching Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

A class act, ladies and gentlemen!

How much were your charitable donations last year?

What's your social security number, address, and the names of your children?

How much and to whom did you "donate" in last year's political races?

ZERO ac

reasearcher, how many guns do you have in the house, and have you ever taken ANY physotropic drugs for ANY reason?

Linecrosser, were you ever abused by your parents or another authority figure?

researcher how many guns do you have in the house, and have you ever taken ANY physotropic drugs for ANY reason?

Linecrosser, were you ever abused by your parents or another authority figure?

Clarence Oveur will now ask more questions for the both of you...

OHT, what is your favorite Mexican restaurant in NW Ohio?

how much were your charitable deductions AC?

Zero, since I ain't rich enough and with enough investments and whatnot to pull a Romney and itemize things to come out ahead vs. the standard deduction.

How do you like that nicely worded answer?

I like it, why give to charity when the government does a better job with the money, eh?

This is funny because you think you're making a point.

And what is your point? When people believe that government will wipe their ass for them and pay their bills, of course they are going to vote for who promises them the most.

I always thought charitable donations were a personal choice and no one's business but your own. If you itemize deductions they are usually a tax deduction.

I give to charities because I believe in helping the less fortunate. That is between me and my conscience and nobody's business but mine.

A heck of a point, actually. One that is discussed at board meetings quite frequently.
It points to a classic issue in the world of philantropy; one closely tied to the charitable deduction. As taxes increase due to more government (taxpayer) responsibility for social programs, donors to non-governmental social agencies often sense that they have "given at the office."
Conversely, when the direct IRA rollover provision was in effect, many charities saw increased donations because donors saw that they could do a direct transfer from a qualifying IRA to a qualifying charity and in essence, never pay federal tax on that money.
We'll see this even more as the new health care laws increase the adversarial dynamic between health care providers and consumers.

My point is just backing up your unintentional self-revelations.

So you agree that only government should be the provider of charity?

Quoting so I can laugh at this twice in a row each time I read this thread.

Researcher said: Oh, so you're one of the anti-science type people.

Typically for your class of person, you're just not listening.

What Sherry is really complaining about should be called "sensationalism science", which is apparently lucrative for somebody, just not us, the normal folk. Piqued by contrived crises, normal folk find themselves flung across spectra of concerns. One then logically concludes there's something arbitrary, highly subjective, about this view of the world. In short, it's science failing us, not from its investigation, but from its reporting.

Knowing full well that the ocean level is rising, I have no serious doubts about Global Climate Change. What remains to be seen is the Human contribution. We should demand the best sort of standards for analyzing that.

Typically for my class of person, I never truly listen to stupidity. I'm just cruel and like adding fuel to the fire. It's a character fault, for sure, but I can't help but be amused by you.

Researcher said: I never truly listen to stupidity.

You're having a more general problem. Sensationalism science is losing support in the general populace. It's not 1963 anymore. When people hear too many bad predictions, the predictor falls into the condition of being discredited. And it's the general public in this case that the "Global Warmmiors"* want to convince. Big disconnect.

* ack!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070921185558AAZD5dE

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14426-un-report-admits-solar-warming-may-be-greater-than-thought

GZ there is something to be said for sensationalism science. I experienced it in Afghanistan when a few reports about the "dangerous dust" came out.

I worked closely with our PrevMed doctor, who is widely published on birth defects, and he broke it down this way. The scientist doing the study was having his grant rejected and was trying to cause a panic to keep his study going. My Doc's results of the dust showed that the dust in Idaho and Utah were way more dangerous and that being not very.

I'm not having a problem at all, actually. You seem to be having the problem here.

Researcher said: I'm not having a problem at all, actually.

Actually you are, if your "Allah" comment is any indication. Your class gave in to sensationalism science due to wretched self interest, therefore has let skepticism creep into what should be rock-solid debates... said debates hinging only on details, not directions. Mental market share has been lost. It bugs you, we can clearly tell. Deny it all you want; I'm sure it doesn't bother you at all, I say sarcastically, as I wait for yet another unbothered post from you.

How do you keep your conversations straight with all of those voices in your head?

nice sidestep

We've already seen the human contribution.

We are increasing our production of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor) into the atmosphere, while at the same time removing many natural mitigation avenues (known as 'carbon sinks') for those same gases. These gases have been shown in laboratories to have a greenhouse effect, and we are creating them faster and in greater quantities than our atmosphere can convert them. The results are marked changes in our climate.

We do have the best sort of standard for analyzing that: it's called the scientific method. It's not subjective; either something follows that method or it does not. If it does not, it is not scientific.

To borrow one of your favorite lines, GZ: 'What part of that is so hard for you to understand?'

Do you know how to avoid a trainwreck? Move to the side.

Sohio said: 'What part of that is so hard for you to understand?'

The part where you failed to prove to any level of reliability that Human gas and particulate inputs shove the entire global system into any particular direction.

Or the fact that the UN reports that solar warming have more of an effect than previously though.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14426-un-report-admits-solar-warming-may-be-greater-than-thought

It's been shown over and over again. It is widely held by every reputable scientific organization in the world. Google it. I am not going to bother to get into it in detail here, because you'll just ignore it, like you ignore every time I prove you wrong or challenge you nonsense. So, when you answer some of my challenges on other threads, I'll answer yours, troll.

Sohio, it has not been "shown over and over again" that Human gas and particulate inputs shove the entire global system into any particular direction. Nobody knows; there are only tantalizing hints. There's no way to run actual experiments since there's only one environment to test against.

No wonder the general public is skeptical, given your attitude. You treat the matter as closed, when the very mature of environmental cycles means the case is very much an open question.

So? That article is its own refutation. It 'MAY' be greater than previously thought. The same report that concedes that also states that it is still not as large a factor as human activity. Even the guy from THE CATO INSTITUTE says so.

My favorite quote is this: '“The simplest way to put it is: If you put a pot on the stove at the maximum temperature, and leave it on at that temperature -- are you telling me that the pot won’t keep warming?”
--Um, no, it won't. Well, it will, to a point. The pot will absorb the heat from the stove, and stabilize at the temperature being transferred to it by the burner...but it is not going to continue to get HOTTER than the stove. A furnace at a steel mill is much hotter than my home stove; that does not mean that if I leave a pot on the burner indefinitely it will eventually get as hot as that furnace. Unless, of course, you place some sort of enclosure around the pot, thereby preventing the air around it from allowing any heat to escape. Then you would be dealing with a sort of greenhouse effect, which is exactly the point...

Maybe if this Alec Rawls guy had something like an 8th-grade science background, or spent some time reading instead of dreaming up nutty conspiracy theories about the flight 93 memorial being a monument to Islam [google it: 'Crescent of Betrayal'], he would understand the basic concepts of heat transfer?

I think its more about continuing to fund their research grants than anything else. The sun is not and cannot be an absolute constant value for them to have an accurate computer model for climate change. I vividly remember that just after the climate=gate letters were exposed all the raw data that they based their original models on, I think it was that "hockey stick" graph were all conveniently lost.
I wouldn't mind the conservation aspect, the changing over to alternative sources of energy, the recycling of just about anything produced if it was for the out right smugness and demand from you all that I have to change the way I live or else and by the way you have to pay through the nose to do it. Green technology is its own industry with buzzwords and greed just like any other industry, its being pushed by politicians and marketing execs who are all looking to cash-in on the new fad. I think the last fad was making everything from hemp. Actually it might be the same people hemp didn't catch on so green energy now is the buzzword. All you have to do is follow the money and you can expose half of them like Al Gore. To the militant greenie, they think its a good idea to blow up all the non-green energy producing plants oh and the nuclear ones too, before there is anything with which to replace them. Not in the future, they want it done yesterday, and while you are sitting in the dark they will suggest some campfire songs to sing while waiting for sunrise (how is that for exaggeration?).
Even if they didn't want that here is the real kicker, 0bama has shifted a lot of money to his friends in the green energy fields which he got back in campaign contributions for green energy products, some failed, they personally made millions and took the money and ran off. What the president proposes is to regulate the existing energy producers out of business, they will hang on for a bit because there is no other viable source right now, they will pass that cost on to us, and now that the costs for "dirty" power is about up to what "green" energy costs, now they can switch to all "green" power because even though "dirty" energy was artificially inflated 300% to 500% in cost by targeted regulations, "green" energy cast the same and doesn't pollute us, its enviromentally safe, (pumps money into the coffers of the liberals).

And after the old plants are mothballed, torn down, turned into shelters for the homeless, they find that the wind turbines kill 1,000 birds a month, break down at least every other month, require more money to maintain than they produce energy, solar farms, raise the area temperature because they absorb more solar heating than the ground or vegetation, are created with some really toxic chemicals, have a lousy efficiency, are limited to about 7 hours of useful operation if it isn't cloudy. The will degrade over time and have to be replaced, they are about only 60% after 20 years, and you have to store that energy somehow, battery systems also degrade and have to be replaced about every 10 years.
So you want to replace systems we have in place for producing energy at and you cant use its current price, remove the last 6 years of regulations to get 2007 prices for energy, for something that costs a whole lot more, is less reliable, wont last as long, and might not really be as responsible for the perceived condition known as AWG? I think I'm in the wrong business, I should be trying to sell you some crappy green technology crap.

Instead of a pot on your stove lets compare it to a thermonuclear furnace about 10,000 time the size of your house. Your stove can only produce about 1500 watts of power from that burner, and that pot of water can only absorb so much of it and then the water turns to steam, that water will never unless under certain circumstances get hotter than 212F because it turns to steam, the sun which can produce quite a bit more energy can heat this planet up a whole hell of a lot more than it is now, why how much can that be?
how about enough to vaporize this rock. You haven't seen hot, until you look at mercury. As I have said in the past, if you think that MAN can have that much effect on the global climate do us a favor, in light of the EPA's ruling that co2 is now a pollutant and they now have authority over regulating it, i suggest you hold your damn breath until we avert the crisis of AWG.

You're in over your head here, GZ. I told you: Google it. I am not going to do your research for you. Do some work for once in your life. I know reading is hard for you because there's no explosions or gun shots like on TV, but try it. There is plenty of research and numerous studies from a wide range of credible international scientific bodies out there. You can even read the article Linecrosser linked to; there are some points in that article that explain a lot of the controversies relating to this specific aspect of the debate.

'There's no way to run actual experiments since there's only one environment to test against.'
--Also false. The atmosphere IS the experiment. You can use data collected from 'the environment' as empirical evidence against the initial hypothesis and predictions. We have only one planet, but the data we collect from that planet is manifold and can be tested against itself. There is where your control comes from.

By the way, still waiting for you over on 'guns or people-which shall be regulated'...

"Typically for my class of person, I never truly listen to stupidity. I'm just cruel and like adding fuel to the fire. It's a character fault, for sure, but I can't help but be amused by you."

May I ask you a question, researcher? You keep referring to yourself as a "class of person". May I say, your "type of person" instead? It seems more appropriate, don't you think? The reason I ask, is I wouldn't want you to place some sort of socialist label on me, like "racist, bigoted, homophobe". I want to stay ahead of the curve on this sort of thing, but the way P-C keeps reinventing itself, it's hard to keep up with sometimes

'the sun which can produce quite a bit more energy can heat this planet up a whole hell of a lot more than it is now, why how much can that be?
how about enough to vaporize this rock.'
--While it may be true that the sun is, technically, hot enough to melt this planet, there is but flimsy evidence that it is doing so on its own. There is, however, abundant evidence that our emissions are trapping heat within our atmosphere; independent of any direct intervention from the sun itself. The argument was not whether the sun is hot enough to burn us up, it was whether or not it is actually doing so as opposed to warming trends being caused by gases we're putting into the air. You are changing the focus of the argument.

'if you think that MAN can have that much effect on the global climate'
--If you think that man CANNOT have that much effect on global climate, DO ME A FAVOR, ad present evidence that is not easily refuted by a person with barely a high school education.

Linecrosser:

'The sun is not and cannot be an absolute constant value for them to have an accurate computer model for climate change.'
--Well, you posted an article quoting a guy who says not only that it IS, but that it is a more significant value than previously thought. So if you don't believe that, why post that link?

'I wouldn't mind the conservation aspect, the changing over to alternative sources of energy, the recycling of just about anything produced if it was for the out right smugness and demand from you all that I have to change the way I live or else'
--LC, what do you think is the right thing to do? If you're not into conservation, fine. It's a free country and I won't try to change your mind, especially since I ain't so 'green' myself. But if you have any inclination whatsoever that conservation is a positive thing, why would you let this perceived 'smugness' stop you? Do you really hinge your lifestyle choices so much on what other people think and say or how other people act toward you? It seems to me like you are using this 'smugness' accusation as a crutch or an excuse...I see that a lot. 'I'd be more conservation-minded if YOU weren't so SMUG but since you are I won't bother.' Do whatever you think is right; don't use the alleged shortcomings of others as something to hide behind. You are only limiting yourself.

'Green technology is its own industry with buzzwords and greed just like any other industry, its being pushed by politicians and marketing execs who are all looking to cash-in on the new fad.'
--Okay, that may be true in some cases. I don't know for sure. But so what if it is? Does that invalidate the entire concept? You could say the same thing about the music industry...does that mean all music is invalid?

'I think the last fad was making everything from hemp.'
--Um, I think you might have missed the whole point behind that 'fad.' Heh heh.

"To the militant greenie, they think its a good idea to blow up all the non-green energy producing plants oh and the nuclear ones too, before there is anything with which to replace them. Not in the future, they want it done yesterday, and while you are sitting in the dark they will suggest some campfire songs to sing while waiting for sunrise (how is that for exaggeration?).'
--That is, as you say, exaggeration. You can use the 'militant' faction of any movement to discredit the movement as a whole. Even if there are those out there that, as you say, wish to 'blow up' existing energy utilities, it's a moot point, because it is not going to happen. Even if it were a credible concept, National Security would step in long before it ever happened. There are still people who think the world is flat, too...are they a legitimate enough contingent to warrant discussion?

'What the president proposes is to regulate the existing energy producers out of business, they will hang on for a bit because there is no other viable source right now, they will pass that cost on to us, and now that the costs for "dirty" power is about up to what "green" energy costs, now they can switch to all "green" power because even though "dirty" energy was artificially inflated 300% to 500% in cost by targeted regulations, "green" energy cast the same and doesn't pollute us, its enviromentally safe, (pumps money into the coffers of the liberals).'
--One of the largest conniving-liberal investors in green energy is BP. In fact, most of the so-called 'dirty' energy producers have 'renewable energy' departments and subsidiaries. So I don't think you have to worry about them going out of business.

'And after the old plants are mothballed, torn down,'
--Already happening. Been down Front street lately? Remember when Gulf and Pure had oil refineries here?

'And after the old plants are mothballed, torn down, turned into shelters for the homeless, they find that the wind turbines kill 1,000 birds a month, break down at least every other month, require more money to maintain than they produce energy, solar farms, raise the area temperature because they absorb more solar heating than the ground or vegetation, are created with some really toxic chemicals, have a lousy efficiency, are limited to about 7 hours of useful operation if it isn't cloudy. The will degrade over time and have to be replaced, they are about only 60% after 20 years, and you have to store that energy somehow, battery systems also degrade and have to be replaced about every 10 years.'
--I don't suppose you'll consider my source credible, but many of the statements you've made here have been debunked: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/31/492467/myths-and-facts-about-wind-power-debunking-foxs-abysmal-wind-coverage/?mobile=nc

'I think I'm in the wrong business, I should be trying to sell you some crappy green technology crap.'
--Good luck selling to me. I drive a 20-year-old van and work at a chemical plant.

In typical fashion, you missed something. I'm just mocking GZ by using "class".

Read and understand before replying. Thanks.

Sohio said: You're in over your head here, GZ. I told you: Google it. I am not going to do your research for you.

That's because you can't actually produce research that doesn't exist. As I've patiently said before, nobody knows about the Human input to the world environmental system. There's no way to run experiments, since the world weather system has no peer. Sure, we run predictive models, but due to the butterfly effect, those become useless fairly quickly.

It's very, very hard for academics to ever admit they are wrong, or wrong's little brother, "I don't know". This is the true nature of the so-called debate. People like myself ask how you know X or Y, and the academics claim their research concludes it. But it doesn't. When you look at their "conclusions", you see that they just don't know. And that's perfectly fine, as long as yahoos don't defend such uncertainty.

When I typed "yahoos", Sohio, I was thinking of you.

Sohio said: You can use data collected from 'the environment' as empirical evidence against the initial hypothesis and predictions.

Except you don't get consistent results. Why is this so hard for you to admit? That's why the Sherrys of the world become rightfully skeptical when previous, gospel-like conclusions get overturned. Sensationalism science just demands that these dweebs (thinking of you again, Sohio) issue a press release to one-up other so-called researchers. A pure Pons and Fleischman moment. (Sadly, cold fusion scammers are still with us.)

Once science discovered chaos theory, any rational scientist knew that there really was a practical limit to what can be known. Hell, the uncertainty principle suggested as much, but that was for very small scales. Chaos theory noted that uncertainty was pretty much built into macro-scaled systems. Wise men get used to seeing it.

Hence where we sit today, watching our world weather system and then noting longer and longer cycles resolving out of the mess, pretty much as Feigenbaum could have told us. So... when do you have enough information about these cycles? Well, you can't know. And that's the point. We haven't even whittled down uncertainty to minimal values. We're nowhere near that, and given the processing power and sensor density required, we're probably not going to know. We could place a meteorological sensor station in each square mile of the Earth, over land and sea, and there's still a limit to our predictive ability.

GZ,

'That's because you can't actually produce research that doesn't exist.'
--Nice cop-out. I don't have to produce the research, GZ. it's out there. And anyone with basic computer skills can find it. The scientific consensus is clear. The burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove it wrong. So, I invite you to use the scientific method which you know nothing about to disprove it yourself, since it seems to be so easy for you. If you can do so, I applaud you...science is not about one-upping, it's about finding the truth. So, if you can find that truth, publish it, so it can be peer-reviewed.

As for producing it for you, I won't waste my time. Your mind will not be changed. You want the info? Go get it, tiger. The good news is that, in any situation, the truth does not need GZ's stamp of approval in order to be the truth.

'or wrong's little brother, "I don't know".'
--More of your nonsense. Does it ever stop? 'I don't know' is not 'wrong's little brother.' 'I don't know' has nothing to do with being right or wrong; it is an expression of a lack of knowledge. That expression cannot be right or wrong, it expresses no position. I swear, if you were unable to make connections that do not exist, you would barely be abel to speak...

You are not going to lure me in with your name-calling. I realize that, as part of your trolling program, you need to hurl insults, in order to bait me into getting into a mud-slinging match with you and distract from the wider debate and your lack of any real knowledge. Call me all the names you like. I deal with ignorance like yours every day of the week--including weekends. Your trolling name-calling is not going to lure me in. It did not work on Historymike--much to your obvious and visible frustration--and will not work on me. You need personal insults in order to insulate your fallacious arguments, as is evidenced by the way you are careful to singularly frame them so I won't miss them. So, call me a dweeb, a yahoo...call me whatever you want. It only shows YOUR insecurity...not mine. Intelligent people don't need to call names. What would really bother me is if you complimented me.

As for not being able to run experiments, you might want to tell that to the scientists who analyzed the moon rocks brought back by the astronauts. I mean, they can't run any experiments on them, right? Because there is only one moon, and it's pretty far away...right? You might also want to tell that to the scientists that are still trying to determine what sank the Edmund Fitzgerald...I mean, since there was only one boat, and it is at the bottom of Lake Superior...I guess they are out of luck, eh? Oh, if only science had a way around these tenacious road blocks...but NO, the scientific method makes no allowances for such things. SIGH.

Your second post was, by the way, a particularly artful example of saying a lot of words while saying absolutely nothing at the same time.

By the way, GZ, speaking of conclusions not making sense, I am still waiting for you over on 'guns or people...which shall be regulated?'. Why don't you be a man and come back over there and answer your challenge? It's been a few weeks now. I told you, I won't let you off the hook. Are you scared?

Oh, and I believe Historymike had some questions for you over on the BGSU thread, still waiting to be answered. Something about commodities. You forgot to answer, so I thought I would remind you.

"GZ. it's out there. And anyone with basic computer skills can find it. The scientific consensus is clear. The burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove it wrong. So, I invite you to use the scientific method which you know nothing about to disprove it yourself, since it seems to be so easy for you."

That's just it. The consensus is NOT clear. GZ is saying you can't make a definitive assessment without a control group and that there is no control of the variables. You're trying to make a determination of an open system, that's not a slam dunk case in the science world.

"As for not being able to run experiments, you might want to tell that to the scientists who analyzed the moon rocks brought back by the astronauts. I mean, they can't run any experiments on them, right? Because there is only one moon, and it's pretty far away...right? A rock is a close system. I can put a moon rock and an earth rock in the same temperature, air, moisture, and then add variables and measure them against a control of both.

"The good news is that, in any situation, the truth does not need GZ's stamp of approval in order to be the truth." No but as I pointed out the pro-AGW scientists produced the IPCC models. According to their prediction, we should be significantly hotter today than we were 7 years ago. It's not. So, their model MUST be wrong, why? Because it is. This is not GZ nor I. This is them.

So once we throw out the models we must analyze what is wrong with the hypothesis.

I will agree that the temperature has risen. I will agree that the ammount of CO2 has risen. This does not equal cause and effect. If that were true then since people who eat oatmeal get cancer more (actual fact) then that would mean eating oatmeal causes cancer right? Or does it mean that old people both eat more oatmeal AND get cancer?

That's the problem of viewing a correlation as cause and effect which is essentially what the AGW scientists have done.

Who needs science when you can just pray?

Same could be said for a lot of things that "science" states as fact only to find out later it was wrong. The majority of the established science community at one time stated that the earth was flat at one point, There was standard thinking that the sun revolved around the earth. In the not so recent past people were consuming radiation thinking it was safe, the establishment also claimed that the speed of sound was unbreakable, space travel with impossible and that we would all be covered in a mile of glacier by this time was predicted in the mid 70's. I think they predicted we would run out of oil by now, and the biggest prediction that people most wanted to believe yet hasn't happened is that we would all be driving flying cars by now.

And this is why scientists, despite comments to the contrary here, realize that science is constantly evolving. There are advancements and new insights. This is nothing new.

But unless you can counter an argument with sound reasoning or conflicting science, you're just being a buffoon.

That's just it. The consensus is NOT clear.
--Yes, it factually is. Every major institution of science in the world agrees: the Earth is getting hotter, primarily because of human activity. Some of those include: National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Environmental Protection Agency, The Royal Society of the UK,
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society...and a lot more.

GZ is saying you can't make a definitive assessment without a control group and that there is no control of the variables... I can put a moon rock and an earth rock in the same temperature, air, moisture, and then add variables and measure them against a control of both.
--Yes. And you can use CO2 and other gases in a laboratory experiment to show that they create a greenhouse effect whereas other gases do not. This has been done.

No but as I pointed out the pro-AGW scientists produced the IPCC models. According to their prediction, we should be significantly hotter today than we were 7 years ago. It's not. So, their model MUST be wrong, why? Because it is. This is not GZ nor I. This is them.
--There is a problem right there. First of all, a prediction on the timeline of a result being off by a certain degree does not necessarily disprove the conclusion. If scientists predict a major earthquake, and a minor one happens instead, it does not mean their conclusions were entirely fallacious--or if they predict it will happen tomorrow and it happens next week instead. Note also that science is never really 'right' or 'wrong.' A disproven theory is not really 'wrong,' it just fails to explain new evidence; much as a theory considered proven is not really 'right,' but rather is the most provable conclusion available based on the evidence at hand. This is actually a failsafe feature of science: it is self-correcting. There is a subtle difference between 'disproven' and 'wrong.' It's SUBTLE, but there is a difference. Often, a disproven theory is the basis for that which disproves it. For example, the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't prove classical or Newtonian mechanics wrong, but it did show that classical mechanics did not hold true in every case.

I will agree that the temperature has risen. I will agree that the ammount of CO2 has risen. This does not equal cause and effect.
--Agreed. Correlation does not equal causation. On the other hand, blind reliance on that premise is a formal logical fallacy in itself: while correlation does not EQUAL causation; correlation does not DENY causation either. Correlation is often just one piece of evidence; on its own it is not enough. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on that alone. Again, countless experiments have been done to show that CO2 has a greenhouse effect. They have also shown the amount of it in our atmosphere is increasing, and that our expulsion of it is increasing, and that our elimination of natural mitigation mechanisms for it is also increasing. Therefore, based on the best evidence we have at this time, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming is real and we are contributing to it. So, while you could easily argue that correlation ALONE does not equal causation...we have other evidence to back up the theory.

If that were true then since people who eat oatmeal get cancer more (actual fact) then that would mean eating oatmeal causes cancer right? Or does it mean that old people both eat more oatmeal AND get cancer?
--Again, not on its own. However, the correlation is a good starting point to run experiments to see if there is anything there...or if it is just a coincidence. Fortunately, nobody is asking you to rely on 'correlation equals causation.'

Same could be said for a lot of things that "science" states as fact only to find out later it was wrong.
--Again, science really does not fit into the binary concept of 'right' and 'wrong.' Science deals with hypotheses and conclusions. Furthermore, that argument defies logic anyway: even if science is 'wrong' [disproven] on one topic, this provides no solid indication whatsoever that it will be 'wrong' [disproven] on any other. Some of your examples bear this out:

the establishment also claimed that the speed of sound was unbreakable,
--They didn't 'claim' it. It was shown several times: once you hit the sound barrier, your plane disintegrates. All of the experiments up to that time showed this to be true. When Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, it provided new, basically irrefutable evidence that the sound barrier COULD be broken. BUT, that does not mean they were 'wrong' before when they said you couldn't; there were dead pilots to prove it. Technology caught up with it, and now we routinely break the sound barrier. But, it has nothing to do with science being right or wrong. If science were held to be RIGHT in the first place, Yeager would have had no reason to test the conclusion. The same holds true for the concept of the Earth being flat; all evidence back then said it WAS flat, and while it is tempting to use the word 'wrong' about those conclusions, the fact is that 'wrong' has nothing to do with it. Much like in an American courtroom, when a guilty person goes free for lack of evidence: it is not about right or wrong, it is about evidence and conclusions. This is exactly the point: science is self-correcting, and practically any conclusion can be tested. Maybe not always successfully, but they CAN be tested.

I think they predicted we would run out of oil by now,
--The question here is : who is 'they'? I believe conventional wisdom in the 50s was that oil production would PEAK in 1970; it actually peaked a few years later and has dropped ever since. Sooner or later, we are going to run out of oil; even the oil companies do not dispute that (the peak oil theory was first put forth by SHELL OIL). The evidence they had in the 50s did not take into account new exploration and conservation technologies. Perhaps the evidence of today does not take into account some really cool thing that we don't even know about yet. But all you really have to go on is the evidence at hand, which leads to a conclusion; everything else is purely speculation, and is useless for long-term planning on any scale.

and the biggest prediction that people most wanted to believe yet hasn't happened is that we would all be driving flying cars by now.
--Again...who predicted that? And what people 'most wanted to believe' it? Also, what is a 'big' prediction? Your assertions there are pretty vague, and seemingly apocryphal.

The majority of the established science community at one time stated that the earth was flat at one point,
--LC, let me ask you this: what makes YOU so sure the Earth is NOT flat? Have you circumnavigated it? Have you seen it from afar? What have you done, ON YOUR OWN, to prove it to yourself? For that matter, how do YOU know the Earth DOESN'T revolve around the sun?

Are you just blindly accepting conventional, overwhelmingly accepted scientific consensus? Because that does not seem to be something you are willing to do when the conclusions suggest you might have to [EVER SO SLIGHTLY] alter your lifestyle...

"--Yes, it factually is. Every major institution of science in the world agrees: the Earth is getting hotter, primarily because of human activity. Some of those include: National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Environmental Protection Agency, The Royal Society of the UK,
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society...and a lot more." No, if that were true the models would be true. The models are false. I have showed it here. There MUST be something else happening that has caused the models to be flawed.

"--Yes. And you can use CO2 and other gases in a laboratory experiment to show that they create a greenhouse effect whereas other gases do not. This has been done." Closed system vice open system. Do water an oil mix? You'd say no and this is an undisputable fact. What we actually now know is that they will mix in space.... in a closed system.

"If scientists predict a major earthquake, and a minor one happens instead, it does not mean their conclusions were entirely fallacious--or if they predict it will happen tomorrow and it happens next week instead. Note also that science is never really 'right' or 'wrong.' A disproven theory is not really 'wrong,' it just fails to explain new evidence; much as a theory considered proven is not really 'right,' but rather is the most provable conclusion available based on the evidence at hand. This is actually a failsafe feature of science: it is self-correcting. There is a subtle difference between 'disproven' and 'wrong.' It's SUBTLE, but there is a difference. Often, a disproven theory is the basis for that which disproves it." I never said it was disproven. I said it was in dispute. That is clear. What if using your analogy, no earthquake happens. That would be the equivalent to the models published in 2007. They predicted massive warming. Using the NASA model no significant warming has occurred since the late 90's, and if anything we've had more periods of cooling.

" countless experiments have been done to show that CO2 has a greenhouse effect. They have also shown the amount of it in our atmosphere is increasing, and that our expulsion of it is increasing, and that our elimination of natural mitigation mechanisms for it is also increasing." Again this was used to create the models published in '07. So using that it should have risen, it didn't. So they must either change the hypothesis or find the variable(s) that caused it not to rise.

"Fortunately, nobody is asking you to rely on 'correlation equals causation.'" YES THEY ARE. That was EXACTLY what the model was intending to do asking us to rely upon the correlation of the two that you noted has been proven in a closed system. Not only have they asked us to rely on it they've asked us to LEGISLATE based upon it.

"Fortunately, nobody is asking you to rely on 'correlation equals causation.'" YES THEY ARE. That was EXACTLY what the model was intending to do asking us to rely upon the correlation of the two that you noted has been proven in a closed system. Not only have they asked us to rely on it they've asked us to LEGISLATE based upon it."

Also using your previous analogy of earthquakes. What if they predict a massive earthquake and MAKE EVERYONE MOVE and nothing occurs. Now you've displaced homes and businesses for a huge blunder.

A straw-man argument. Beside the point, and not pertinent to the subject at hand. What if they predict NO earthquake and one happens and millions die? Then you've killed millions for a huge blunder. We can go back and forth on this forever.

Or we can gut our infrastructure, bleed millions from the public for overpriced green energy, and discover who got all the money later on.

Using the NASA model no significant warming has occurred since the late 90's, and if anything we've had more periods of cooling.

Mikey, this notion has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-basic.htm

Yep. That is exactly what happened, too. As soon as all this 'green mania' took hold, they ripped down our highway system and outlawed cars, closed and dismantled all of our oil refineries, closed the coal mines and coal-powered plants, and made us all take public transportation. And the scrawny special interests behind those lobbies were no match for that big green money machine.

Yep. I'll never forget the day THAT all went down.

Ifrastructure is more than roads and highways.

So you know the real reason 0bama wont approve the pipline?

His buddy Buffet owns the railroad that is currently transporting all that oil to Texas from North Dakota.

So hip, I showed it using the very graph holland posted to prove AGW. If that was debunked it is because the NASA data was debunked.

Please look back up. I used his very graph and the trend lines of it. If you dispute that you are disputing NASA who supports AGW As you do.

Soho, people die in earthquakes. Predictions don't save lives. Adapting does.

Your tinfoil helmet is falling off.

When did you become close personal friends with The Prez?

Mikey, you didn't show it. The NASA chart shows a warming trend all the way through. If you want to go year-over-year, there are instances where one year was cooler than that before it, but the prevailing trend shows a rise.

Ok. Let me show you again.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf Here is the link. Scroll to page 3.

You will see the EXACT same graph from NASA provided by holland. The difference between the two is in my link they added a trendline.

From the late 90's to 2007 what is the direction of the trendline? I'll help you here. It's flat. The only time it moves outside of the MOE is when it lowers significantly for 2006. then holds at the pre-'06 level.

Now... how do you debunk that the temperature didn't rise during that timeframe when by NASA's own data I demonstrated that it held. I didn't say it cooled. I didn't even say global warming stopped.

I said the IPCC made predictions. They presented a model. The model says that by 2015 our global surface temperatures will have risen by .8 degrees Celcius. Per the NASA data, we don't see that. So if the model is wrong then the hypothesis was wrong or at least didn't account for a variable. So what is the variable? Is it permanent? Is it temporary? Will it hold Why/Why not?

These are answers that the scientists MUST answer. Why? Because they want to legislate based upon it!

Sohio, you should just stop. It's pathetic. You're getting destroyed in this argument because I'm using AGW proponent data, I'm using scientific logical thinking. Even researcher has concluded that what I am saying is founded in reason.

I am not some crackpot yelling conspiracy. What I do ask is before we radically attempt to change our economy, society, infrastructure that we at least be right. That is not too much to ask.

Mikey,

Thank you for posting that. There was a lot of good information, neatly summarized in that article. I recommend you read the whole thing.

Sohio, you should just stop. It's pathetic. You're getting destroyed in this argument because I'm using AGW proponent data, I'm using scientific logical thinking.
--Wishful thinking on your part. One tiny section of flat trend in an otherwise dramatically upward trend--especially when the trend shows you only a mean reading--does not refute the findings. You are not thinking logically; you are ignoring cyclical variables. The other difference in the graph that you cited is that it also denotes a margin of error, which you ignored.

LOOK AT THE GRAPH, Mikey. You are citing it, so you are giving it credence (you can't cite it and then call it bullshit). Do you see how the temperature also declined in the past? Do you see the cycles? Temps have trended down in the past, sometimes relatively dramatically. Looking at each year-over-year, there have been cycles of drop-off in the temps that way, too. But if you look at the trend and the cycles as whole, she is GOING UP. If anything, you are fighting yourself with the 'flat-line' point. Look at the trend: what other times did it 'flat line'? NEVER. It either went UP, or DOWN. If it is not going down as opposed to up (as in the past), it suggests that we are stuck in an anomalous upward pattern; at least until we get a significant cooling cycle as before. It's not coming down like it did before.

I didn't say it cooled. I didn't even say global warming stopped.
--You said 'Using the NASA model no significant warming has occurred since the late 90's, and if anything we've had more periods of cooling.' In fact, we have not had 'periods of cooling,' we have had years that are slightly cooler than others in a short period of a large trend of warming; and we certainly have not had 'more' of them. And if you are not saying it 'stopped,' then there is no point to your argument.

Is it temporary? Will it hold Why/Why not?
--Based on the evidence at hand, it IS temporary, and it will not hold. How do we assume that? Because it never has, going back as far as that trend does, and the factors causing that trend are increasing rather than decreasing. We have every reason to believe the trend will continue upward. If focusing on that miniscule detail in the midst of everything else they presented there makes you feel better, have at it.

I did not ignore it. MOE works both ways. Up and down. The cooling of 2006 was shocking the only part outside MOE.

"I recommend you read the whole thing." I did. As I said I use the data from AGW proponents.

"Looking at each year-over-year, there have been cycles of drop-off in the temps that way, too. But if you look at the trend and the cycles as whole, she is GOING UP." Actually, that is the longest section of stability through the whole graph, I previously noted that too. During that time the trendline flatlines, for a 10 year period. That period does not show a "cycle". In fact that period is when the "cycle" El Nino ended.

" In fact, we have not had 'periods of cooling,' we have had years that are slightly cooler than others in a short period of a large trend of warming; and we certainly have not had 'more' of them. And if you are not saying it 'stopped,' then there is no point to your argument." Again, the only year outside of MOE it cooled. Where you say "slightly cooler" is wrong. Now you are confusing relativity. If it's cooling then the next year it gets slightly cooler. If it's warming then the next year it cooled. The starting point matters.

"And if you are not saying it 'stopped,' then there is no point to your argument." That is the whole argument. When the model that predicts the worst and scientists tell us to legislate and change our culture and the model is wrong then we've changed had to change a large portion of our society based upon a farce. That is why they NEED to be right. When they're wrong they lose credibility. THE.... MODEL..... IS ...... WRONG!

"Based on the evidence at hand, it IS temporary, and it will not hold." What evidence other than the IPCC model that IS WRONG? "and the factors causing that trend are increasing rather than decreasing" Again, then we SHOULD be .8 degrees Celcius higher in 2 years and the ocean will be 2m higher.

The next two years are going to really suck then.

"If focusing on that miniscule detail in the midst of everything else they presented there makes you feel better, have at it." I am focusing on the predictions THEY made and THEY tell us to legislate by. Their predictions have been wrong and they've given no reason as to why.

They must now tell us the why. You can't say well the evidence tells us this while presenting the same "evidence"(predictions aren't evidence BTW) which was shown to be false by the passing of time alone.

MIkey,

You are failing to take into account that predictions made by the IPCC are weighted to the variables in effect at the time the prediction is made. The 'best guesses' you keep referring to were assuming a certain level of emission would continue. If you would look up the IPCC data that you keep citing, you would see that they also made concurrent predictions [worst-case, best-case, and best-estimate] that took into account unforeseen changes in CO2 emissions. There has not been just one prediction. A prediction is just that: a prediction. If you expect any prediction to be spot-on every single time, you are going to be disappointed. The fact is that, while their predictions have not been correct TO THE LETTER, they have been accurate overall and within the margin of error. And since a prediction is not a conclusion, it does not HAVE to be 100% accurate in order to support the subsequent conclusion. The outcome of a prediction, much like correlation, is just one piece of evidence that can be used for or against a conclusion.

I'll say it again, Mikey: what you are suggesting has already been debunked:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

Sohio must have money invested in green energy companies, I wonder how much he lost in Solyndra besides what they took out of his paycheck in taxes.

You are real hung up on that aspect of things, aren't you?

It might surprise you to know that the only company I own stock in is the chemical company I work for. And they are NOT 'green', I promise you.

MIkey,

You said "(predictions aren't evidence BTW)"

That is true. Evidence proves or disproves a hypothesis; and leads to a conclusion. The prediction is a separate step in the scientific method. However, the outcome of a prediction can be used as a piece of evidence to draw a conclusion. That is why there are flexibilities inherent in a prediction, just as there are different degrees of certainty between different conclusions. While there might be slight (or even major) variances in the outcome(s) of a prediction, it is whether it serves to help prove or disprove a hypothesis overall that counts. It is just one part of the wider body of evidence. Based on some of the unforeseen variables that you have pointed out, the IPCC has refined their hypothesis slightly to account for them, as you asked--which is an important part of the scientific method. If you'll read the articles both you & I posted, you'll see that they revisit their studies every few years to make adjustments and assess progress.

On top of that, you say that predictions are not evidence...then you use minor flaws in the initial predictions as evidence that the hypothesis is wrong. So...which is it?

Sohio, when they give us their model and say "this WILL happen and we must drastically change our society" then yes I can use that prediction to doubt the credibility of their hypothesis.

They still haven't explained the variables that affected the hypothesis. That's telling. Now we are not really talking about simple variance within the MOE we're talking they got it totally wrong.

Our climate has not warmed .2 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years. The oceans have not risen 2 meters. This is a total failure on those who tell us it "WILL" happen.

Mikey, now I can tell you have not read the article I linked to.

They still haven't explained the variables that affected the hypothesis.

Some examples from the article:
1. "However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18% lower (for example, the 'Best' model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2)."
2. "The IPCC FAR 'Best' BAU projected rate of warming from 1990 to 2012 was 0.25°C per decade. However, that was based on a scenario with higher emissions than actually occurred."
3. "using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend."
4. "the IPCC has tended to underestimate or failed to account for CO2 emissions, increased rainfall in already rainy areas, continental ice sheet melting, Arctic sea ice decline, and permafrost melting."

when they give us their model and say "this WILL happen and we must drastically change our society" then yes I can use that prediction to doubt the credibility of their hypothesis.

--No, you can't. The passion or conviction with which a prediction is made has nothing to do with its veracity as evidence, until the outcome is known. Again, you are using your own doubt of the initial prediction as evidence against the hypothesis. The only thing that counts as evidence is the outcome of the predictions, which were accurate overall.

Now we are not really talking about simple variance within the MOE
--Yes we are, actually...

we're talking they got it totally wrong.
--No, they didn't, really...

Our climate has not warmed .2 degrees Celsius in the last 10 years. The oceans have not risen 2 meters. This is a total failure on those who tell us it "WILL" happen.
--You are creating a false equivalency here. Nobody said anything WILL happen. Nobody did say that because nobody CAN say that (nobody credible, anyway). Nobody can see into the future; and in reality stating something 'DEFINITELY WILL' happen subverts the scientific process in the first place. They made hypotheses and predictions. Those are not statements of certain facts. They have to be tested and scrutinized. And published and peer-reviewed. Instead of viewing the conclusion along with the evidence that overwhelmingly supports it; you are taking the bass-ackwards approach of viewing the conclusion, then skipping past the rest of the evidence looking for insignificant variances in the predictions. If you're going to do this, you might want to note that the IPCC 'AR4' predictions were spot-on in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. What does that tell us...? In the grand scheme of things, it tells us nothing. But, if we are going to cherry-pick, I can cherry-pick some data that completely refutes your cherry-picked data.

Mikey, we are going to have to agree to disagree. You & I are seeing different things when we examine the data. If you insist on seeing what isn't there, I can't stop you. I have tried over and over to show you where you're missing the point, but you seem pretty convinced that you are correct.

I think they did explain it, The solar output isn't a constant and can vary enough to change their calculations.

Even the UN admits solar output isn't constant and their calculations didn't account for it.

Mikey, now I can tell you have not read the article I linked to. Actually I did. Hence why I linked it. Like I said before I link from AGW proponents, unlike people like LC. That way I can show that I pay attention and my concerns are based upon AGW data.

"1. "However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18% lower (for example, the 'Best' model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2)." Ok, but they must tell us why? Is it because of what we already did? Was it because more trees were planted? This is not a full explaination of the variable.

"2. "The IPCC FAR 'Best' BAU projected rate of warming from 1990 to 2012 was 0.25°C per decade. However, that was based on a scenario with higher emissions than actually occurred." I'm not disagreeing, I've posted it several times. That's the point of my posts. Why are did they give us the "worst case scenario" and not make that clear. Read the IPCC report, it's all based upon this.

"3. "using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend."" El Nino was not a factor of the timeframe I'm talking about. It ended in '99. Sun spot activity peaked in 2000, so if you think as solar activity went down it affected the temperature upward then you are sorely mistake.

"4. "the IPCC has tended to underestimate or failed to account for CO2 emissions, increased rainfall in already rainy areas, continental ice sheet melting, Arctic sea ice decline, and permafrost melting."" Permafrost melting is supposed to "increase" the ammount of CO2 in the atmostphere and cause more global warming. This has already begun, however we are not seeing the rise in temperatures they said. So since it's happening and it increase the ammount of CO2 and that causes surface temperatures to rise then we should see the temperature rising. Again, we are not seeing it. It was warmer in 2012 but 2011 was colder and 2010 was close enough to the mean that no significant warming occurred. That's not a slam dunk. It's ambiguous at best..

"Again, you are using your own doubt of the initial prediction as evidence against the hypothesis. The only thing that counts as evidence is the outcome of the predictions, which were accurate overall. OMG that's what science is supposed to do. Test hypotheses'! And if the outcome of the prediction were true we would not be discussing it.

"Now we are not really talking about simple variance within the MOE
--Yes we are, actually..." Then you're arguing symantics. The reason for a MOE is take into account Error. If we're arguing about variances within it we're talking a percentage of a percentage that could easily be affected by something as simple as the collection method was tainted.

"we're talking they got it totally wrong.
--No, they didn't, really..." Then you are fooling yourself. I've used your same data, shortened the timeline to the time when we really scrutinized the affects of CO2 on the climate and AGW was accepted as a theory and it does not show that.

"--You are creating a false equivalency here. Nobody said anything WILL happen. Nobody did say that because nobody CAN say that (nobody credible, anyway). Nobody can see into the future; and in reality stating something 'DEFINITELY WILL' happen subverts the scientific process in the first place. They made hypotheses and predictions. Those are not statements of certain facts. Then we should not be legislating upon it. At least not to the affect we are.

"I have tried over and over to show you where you're missing the point, but you seem pretty convinced that you are correct." I haven't even disowned the AGW theory.

What I have said is Climatologists need to back off their legislative and sociological ideas and instead go back and rethink the hypothesis or give a full explanation why what they said would come to pass did not.

Likewise in the meantime we need to back off this whole electric car bullshit which we know increases CO2 not decrease it and remove the gov't subsidies.

Who funds your research, MikeyA?

If your plumber was to come to your house and give you an estimate to replace the copper pipes in your house and based his cost on very rough estimates using outdated pricing guides would you be upset when the cost was more than 20% over the estimate?
Would you be upset if you had no water flow to the back part of your house because he ran out of the replacement plastic tubing?
Would you be upset if he replaced your 3/4" copper lines with 1/4" plastic lines, and now you have enough water out of your faucet to fill a bottle cap?
You plumber swore that all your old copper pipes would slowly kill you and your children in 20 years if you didn't replace them, you know have a house with plastic pipes that though they are now the current standard, do not last as long as the old copper ones and are less durable.
You plumber charged you for everything and refused to come fix the leaks he left in the first place because it has been more than 3 days since you paid him in full.
Would you recommend this plumber to a friend?

Ok, but they must tell us why? Is it because of what we already did? Was it because more trees were planted? This is not a full explaination of the variable.
--That is explained n the article. Read it.

Why are did they give us the "worst case scenario" and not make that clear. Read the IPCC report, it's all based upon this.
--They did make it clear, if you read the report. They made sure to build-in curves in the model to account for variances in the levels of CO2 output.

so if you think as solar activity went down it affected the temperature upward then you are sorely mistake.
--Actually, they are saying the opposite: they are saying solar activity had little to do with it. It has since been said--by others--that solar activity may have had more effect than thought, but is still a minor factor in the big picture.

Permafrost melting is supposed to "increase" the ammount of CO2 in the atmostphere and cause more global warming. This has already begun, however we are not seeing the rise in temperatures they said. So since it's happening and it increase the ammount of CO2 and that causes surface temperatures to rise then we should see the temperature rising. Again, we are not seeing it. It was warmer in 2012 but 2011 was colder and 2010 was close enough to the mean that no significant warming occurred. That's not a slam dunk. It's ambiguous at best..
--We are seeing the temperature rising. That is what is melting the permafrost. I suspect you are also reading obsolete data. If you'll look at the AR4, which supplanted the previous studies, you'll see it was actually HOTTER than they predicted for 5 straight years, dead-on accurate for four non-consecutive years, and only cooler than they predicted for only 3 of the 12 years in the study. Yet you stubbornly choose to cherry-pick the data that you favor.

Then you're arguing symantics. The reason for a MOE is take into account Error. If we're arguing about variances within it we're talking a percentage of a percentage that could easily be affected by something as simple as the collection method was tainted.
--What we are dealing with here is actually the margin of uncertainty, not 'margin of error.' I misidentified that myself. There are differing degrees of uncertainty in any scientific conclusion. So what we are accounting for here is not 'error,' but uncertainty. It's not semantics. What you have called into question is minor differences in what was called for and what happened, which again, fell within the expected margin.

OMG that's what science is supposed to do. Test hypotheses'! And if the outcome of the prediction were true we would not be discussing it.
--You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. As you say, the purpose is to test HYPOTHESES. It is not to test PREDICTIONS. Hypothesis and prediction are two distinct steps in the scientific method. This is why you are so hung up on meaningless aspects of the prediction. You are demanding not that they explain their hypothesis, but their predictions. Predictions that come out differently than expected can sometimes prove a hypothesis in ways not previously thought of--this is why it is important to maintain the distinction. I don't know how many times I have to say this to you: the prediction's outcomes are one piece of evidence used to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The body of evidence as a whole has proved their hypothesis. And the reason we are discussing it is because you insist on skewing the data to say things it does not say. Or, more accurately, to NOT say things it DOES say...

Then you are fooling yourself. I've used your same data, shortened the timeline to the time when we really scrutinized the affects of CO2 on the climate and AGW was accepted as a theory and it does not show that.
--First of all, it is not 'my' data. Second, that is exactly what you've done: 'shortened' the time line. Basically, cherry-picked the data to fit your needs. The entire study scrutinizes the effects of CO2. You can't 'shorten' the timeline unless you wish to conduct your own experiment.

I haven't even disowned the AGW theory.
--That's good. You can't really 'disown' it since you never owned it. It is not your theory.

What I have said is Climatologists need to back off their legislative and sociological ideas
--You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legislature works. Climatologists do not legislate. If you have a problem with what LEGISLATORS do with this information, I suggest you write your congressman. You might also want to note, though, that the ones funneling money to your lawmakers to influence them aren't the climatologists. It's the other guys.

instead go back and rethink the hypothesis or give a full explanation why what they said would come to pass did not.
--Which they have done--on a schedule, no less--several times. Although it is important to note that most of what they said would come to pass HAS, to varying degrees. It is all in the article I linked, and in many other articles on the web. If you don't like mine, you can find one of your own. It is out there.

Likewise in the meantime we need to back off this whole electric car bullshit which we know increases CO2 not decrease it and remove the gov't subsidies.
--Another straw-man. If you have a problem with electric cars, I suggest you complain not to climatologists, but rather General Motors or Toyota, the ones who are more than happy to attempt to make a buck off the idea.

Holy cow, have you ever taken a science class?

Have you ever been in the real world?

Yes, the one where I understand that scientific research and plumbing are not the same thing.

Your right only idiots would pay researchers to waste money on stuff like buttered toast and exercising shrimp on a treadmill. The real world where no one would pay a plumber to screw up and waste their money.

I know I'm right, but I didn't say whatever ridiculous thing you just implied.

Some people believe in progress. I'm sorry you are not one of those people. There are countries that don't claim to be as advanced as the US. I'd suggest considering a move.

Now that is funny, suggesting I move. I suggest you crawl back into the academia world you live in with your other elitist friends. Maybe you can continue to convince yourselves that your visions of "progressive" change in the world won't turn out like Greece, France and Russia. Good luck I wish you well.

We're only "elitist" because we understand the difference between scientific research, plumbing, and economic policy. How academic!

LC, your plumbing metaphor is apples and oranges to begin with.

There are different degrees of certainty in all scientific theories and conclusions. Also, what you are describing is a tradesman hired to perform labor, not conduct research.

That said, for the most part, residential plumbing is a science that has a fairly high degree of certainty. It has been around quite a while now, different things have been tried, and apart from occasionally-evolving materials and equipment, it is pretty much a settled method even for novices.

Therefore, you would expect a plumber to apply knowledge already widely avaiable to his trade in order to get your job done efficiently. In addition to plumbing, you are describing a plumber who has a poor grasp of basic mathematics and measurement, and apparently does not stand behind his own work.

What you would not do is hire a plumber with the expectation that he is going to use your home as a sort of experiment. You are paying him for what he already knows and can do; not to find out new things on your nickel. And anyway, from what you described, he's not doing any research or finding out anything new, he's just an idiot.

This really has nothing to do with the career of a research scientist, who is being paid with the understanding that, at the outset, he is dealing with unknowns. In a word, he is EXPERIMENTING. He is looking for knowledge not already available, and, unlike with pipes and liquid, in the case of climatology, there are a lot of variables and a wide range of data that needs to be extrapolated. You are paying him for whatever results he might find; you are not paying him with a result already in mind, like you are with a plumber.

So...not really the same thing.

Your probably right Sohio, but I can safely say that researchers who are making their living on studying global climate change can be guaranteed to only come to the conclusions that support their preconceived notions regarding the subject.As the saying goes you don't shit where you eat. Do you honestly think that any of those researchers have any intention to disprove the subject of human caused global warming? And if you think those same people have the integrity to show that they could be wrong I think your fooling yourself. I think self interest and self preservation comes into play when it comes time to report their findings, let alone their own personal leanings before they even begin the research.

Oops wish I could edit my post, I should have said instead of safely say, that I question whether those researchers.

LC, you are free to think that, if you want. However, it doesn't really PROVE anything. There is actually a name for what you just described: 'ad hominem circumstantial' or 'appeal to motive.' It is a logical fallacy. The supposition that certain people studying climate change may have a real or perceived motive to to make it appear as though climate change is real, in and of itself, does not prove nor disprove their conclusions. This is not very different from saying firemen must like it when buildings catch fire, because if that never happened, they would be out of a job.

Respectfully, I think you are fooling yourself. 'Those same people' really have no need to display the integrity to 'show' they are wrong; if they are indeed wrong, then anyone else is free to use legitimate methods to prove it...if they are wrong or lying, we don't have to wait for them to realize or admit it. So, once again, you are wishing for something you don't really need. There is a lot of money behind disproving global warming. And if one person or one small group of people could convincingly do it, there would be a very nice paycheck in it for them, yet it has not really been done.

Linecrosser obviously doesn't read a lot of scientific research. There is absolutely zero supporting evidence for that claim.