Get your imaginary 'pause' off me, you damn delusional deniers

[RollingThunder]

There is a common line used by the AGW fanatics, it basically states that there can be cold days when the planet is warming because global warming causes a disruption in climate patterns.

There is a major problem with this; That is that They never specify how warming causes cold and expect everyone to accept "disrupts climate patterns" without question. If we are to believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise then why does the CO2 fail to take the edge off the cold in the winter? This is one of the many things that the faithful cannot explain.

Actually they TRY.. And the theory is that melting ice at the Poles disrupts the pressure balance that CONTAINS all that cold air at the poles.. There are natural cyclical leakages of cold Arctic air --- but the theory is that Polar warming is causing these "well - behaved" sags (arctic oscillations) to escape and wreak frozen havoc.

And SOMEHOW --- the Jet Stream at 30,000 feet is also distorted by Polar warming..

Hey --- don't point that finger at me... I'm just telling you what THEIR story is...

Here's my prediction.. The Geniuses have recently discovered that the Earth's climate stores heat energy. The NEXT GREAT IDEA they will (lately) discover is that excess COLD is stored at the poles as a natural reservoir that the Earth's HVAC system uses to balance out pesky increases in heat forcings. And that the feedbacks for all this heating and air conditioning are NOT POSITIVE RUNAWAY effects, but NEGATIVE STABILIZING effects of the Planet.

Probably by 2016 when they are still making excuses for their 20th century failures..

You see folks? Here's a guy who can examine things in his own words. Why is that important? Well it means he understands the subject and what his point is. Those people who respond to questions by posting cut and paste from someone else's work, do so be ause they don't understand the answer, and that is why their data often doesn't point to what they think it does.

ROTFLMAO......that twaddle is so hilarious considering the fact that you two are anti-science retards severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and completely full of misinformation, pseudo-science and deliberate lies (as well as bullshit, of course). Neither of you understands squat about what is actually happening with our planet's temperatures and climate. Naturally you would affirm each other's insane misinterpretations of the science supporting AGW.

 

[gnarlylove]

I am relieved to learn of the Dunning Kruger effect. Of course the bottom line is almost every person thinks they are right. It is natural to assume your beliefs, which support your actions must stay in line for you to maintain habits central to one's well being (or rather perceived well being). Group think is another reason our fellow man has no capacity for listening to one another without an all consuming prejudice.

What else would you expect in a society that has reduced reality brand recognition, slogans and ads? The short attention of handheld devices, obvious sophistry and propaganda from all sides is designed in marketing research and targeted to keep our attention off anything that might point to humanity going WAY WRONG in our approach to participating in the biosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Or you're just plain fucking wrong from the start

 

[ScienceRocks]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Or you're just plain fucking wrong from the start

Care to explain the entire palo temperature record without it?

 

[RollingThunder]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Actually, Matt, there really hasn't been a pause, as was explained in the OP. The planet has continued to accumulate thermal energy and the scientists know that because they can directly measure how much energy is arriving from the sun at the top of the atmosphere and also how much energy the Earth is radiating away into space. There has been a growing imbalance in the Earth's radiation budget for many decades and there has been no "pause" in that constant accumulation of extra heat. That's just straight physics. The heat has to go somewhere in the Earth system even if we can't see where it is right away, because we know it is not leaving into space.

The planet as a whole is heating up and that means not just the surface level air but also the oceans, the land and the ice.

The oceans have always been absorbing over 90% of the energy the Earth receives from the sun since day one, and the air at the surface only absorbs a bit less than 3%. Globally, the oceans have been getting warmer at greater depths and the increase in heat has been happening faster in the last decade or so.

The land is warming up so much in the Arctic that the permafrost that had been there for, in most cases, over a hundred thousand years is rapidly melting in many places and releasing methane.

Ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are melting, in some places quite rapidly, in most places and with only a few exceptions, all around the planet.

Surface air temperatures rose quickly starting in the late 70s and, in reality, continued at about the same rate through the 80s and 90s and the 2000s until now. This notion that global warming had paused stemmed from some scientists who were using the usual standard temperature records that unfortunately had very little coverage of the Arctic (among other places), and they seemed to observe a slowdown, from the previous rapidly rising rates in the 80s and 90s, in the rise of (only) surface air temperatures, over the last decade and a half. They only observed what seemed to be a slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures, not a "stop" in the rise and definitely not a "cooling". More recently though, a new study that integrates satellite sensor temperature readings for the whole planet with other temperature records (see OP) found that the Arctic regions have been warming quite a bit faster than had been extrapolated in the other standard temperature records using the data from the few temperature monitoring stations there. The satellite sensors were able to give a much more complete record of the year to year temperature changes in the Arctic. Integrating the new Arctic date into the temperature record, it turns out that average global temperatures over the last 16 years have still been rising at the same rate as in the previous two decades, or possibly faster. No pause in even just the surface air temperatures, let alone the oceans, ice and land that collectively absorb the vast majority of the sun's energy in comparison to the air at the surface of the planet.

Also, a number of recent studies indicate that climate sensitivity, or possibly what you are calling "positive forcing", is more probably at the high end of previous estimates rather than lower. If the methane releases intensify, and they probably will, it may turn out that climate sensitivity to increased CO2, when all of the positive feedbacks are included, is much higher than even the current high estimates.

Climate change could be worse than anyone thought
10 January 2014

 

[westwall]

Actually they TRY.. And the theory is that melting ice at the Poles disrupts the pressure balance that CONTAINS all that cold air at the poles.. There are natural cyclical leakages of cold Arctic air --- but the theory is that Polar warming is causing these "well - behaved" sags (arctic oscillations) to escape and wreak frozen havoc.

And SOMEHOW --- the Jet Stream at 30,000 feet is also distorted by Polar warming..

Hey --- don't point that finger at me... I'm just telling you what THEIR story is...

Here's my prediction.. The Geniuses have recently discovered that the Earth's climate stores heat energy. The NEXT GREAT IDEA they will (lately) discover is that excess COLD is stored at the poles as a natural reservoir that the Earth's HVAC system uses to balance out pesky increases in heat forcings. And that the feedbacks for all this heating and air conditioning are NOT POSITIVE RUNAWAY effects, but NEGATIVE STABILIZING effects of the Planet.

Probably by 2016 when they are still making excuses for their 20th century failures..

You see folks? Here's a guy who can examine things in his own words. Why is that important? Well it means he understands the subject and what his point is. Those people who respond to questions by posting cut and paste from someone else's work, do so be ause they don't understand the answer, and that is why their data often doesn't point to what they think it does.

ROTFLMAO......that twaddle is so hilarious considering the fact that you two are anti-science retards severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and completely full of misinformation, pseudo-science and deliberate lies (as well as bullshit, of course). Neither of you understands squat about what is actually happening with our planet's temperatures and climate. Naturally you would affirm each other's insane misinterpretations of the science supporting AGW.

Thus speaketh the cut and paste drone who can't even carry on a conversation that isn't laced with insults and 3rd grade level personal attacks. You are the poster child for D-K effect, but as is true of all who are afflicted with that particular malady, you can't see the forest for the trees.

How about addressing the points that Flac made? Hmmmm?

 

[westwall]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Or you're just plain fucking wrong from the start

Care to explain the entire palo temperature record without it?

The paleo record DOESN'T support the AGW hypothesis. That's why GISS altered the temp data record.

 

[westwall]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Actually, Matt, there really hasn't been a pause, as was explained in the OP. The planet has continued to accumulate thermal energy and the scientists know that because they can directly measure how much energy is arriving from the sun at the top of the atmosphere and also how much energy the Earth is radiating away into space. There has been a growing imbalance in the Earth's radiation budget for many decades and there has been no "pause" in that constant accumulation of extra heat. That's just straight physics. The heat has to go somewhere in the Earth system even if we can't see where it is right away, because we know it is not leaving into space.

The planet as a whole is heating up and that means not just the surface level air but also the oceans, the land and the ice.

The oceans have always been absorbing over 90% of the energy the Earth receives from the sun since day one, and the air at the surface only absorbs a bit less than 3%. Globally, the oceans have been getting warmer at greater depths and the increase in heat has been happening faster in the last decade or so.

The land is warming up so much in the Arctic that the permafrost that had been there for, in most cases, over a hundred thousand years is rapidly melting in many places and releasing methane.

Ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are melting, in some places quite rapidly, in most places and with only a few exceptions, all around the planet.

Surface air temperatures rose quickly starting in the late 70s and, in reality, continued at about the same rate through the 80s and 90s and the 2000s until now. This notion that global warming had paused stemmed from some scientists who were using the usual standard temperature records that unfortunately had very little coverage of the Arctic (among other places), and they seemed to observe a slowdown, from the previous rapidly rising rates in the 80s and 90s, in the rise of (only) surface air temperatures, over the last decade and a half. They only observed what seemed to be a slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures, not a "stop" in the rise and definitely not a "cooling". More recently though, a new study that integrates satellite sensor temperature readings for the whole planet with other temperature records (see OP) found that the Arctic regions have been warming quite a bit faster than had been extrapolated in the other standard temperature records using the data from the few temperature monitoring stations there. The satellite sensors were able to give a much more complete record of the year to year temperature changes in the Arctic. Integrating the new Arctic date into the temperature record, it turns out that average global temperatures over the last 16 years have still been rising at the same rate as in the previous two decades, or possibly faster. No pause in even just the surface air temperatures, let alone the oceans, ice and land that collectively absorb the vast majority of the sun's energy in comparison to the air at the surface of the planet.

Also, a number of recent studies indicate that climate sensitivity, or possibly what you are calling "positive forcing", is more probably at the high end of previous estimates rather than lower. If the methane releases intensify, and they probably will, it may turn out that climate sensitivity to increased CO2, when all of the positive feedbacks are included, is much higher than even the current high estimates.

Climate change could be worse than anyone thought
10 January 2014

Here's the abstract of the "study". As is the case with 90% of these climate change studies they played around with computers and came up with what they wanted. There is very little to recommend this "study", though I do appreciate their admission that after decades of research they haven't advanced one bit.

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html#affil-auth

 

[RollingThunder]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

Actually, Matt, there really hasn't been a pause, as was explained in the OP. The planet has continued to accumulate thermal energy and the scientists know that because they can directly measure how much energy is arriving from the sun at the top of the atmosphere and also how much energy the Earth is radiating away into space. There has been a growing imbalance in the Earth's radiation budget for many decades and there has been no "pause" in that constant accumulation of extra heat. That's just straight physics. The heat has to go somewhere in the Earth system even if we can't see where it is right away, because we know it is not leaving into space.

The planet as a whole is heating up and that means not just the surface level air but also the oceans, the land and the ice.

The oceans have always been absorbing over 90% of the energy the Earth receives from the sun since day one, and the air at the surface only absorbs a bit less than 3%. Globally, the oceans have been getting warmer at greater depths and the increase in heat has been happening faster in the last decade or so.

The land is warming up so much in the Arctic that the permafrost that had been there for, in most cases, over a hundred thousand years is rapidly melting in many places and releasing methane.

Ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are melting, in some places quite rapidly, in most places and with only a few exceptions, all around the planet.

Surface air temperatures rose quickly starting in the late 70s and, in reality, continued at about the same rate through the 80s and 90s and the 2000s until now. This notion that global warming had paused stemmed from some scientists who were using the usual standard temperature records that unfortunately had very little coverage of the Arctic (among other places), and they seemed to observe a slowdown, from the previous rapidly rising rates in the 80s and 90s, in the rise of (only) surface air temperatures, over the last decade and a half. They only observed what seemed to be a slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures, not a "stop" in the rise and definitely not a "cooling". More recently though, a new study that integrates satellite sensor temperature readings for the whole planet with other temperature records (see OP) found that the Arctic regions have been warming quite a bit faster than had been extrapolated in the other standard temperature records using the data from the few temperature monitoring stations there. The satellite sensors were able to give a much more complete record of the year to year temperature changes in the Arctic. Integrating the new Arctic date into the temperature record, it turns out that average global temperatures over the last 16 years have still been rising at the same rate as in the previous two decades, or possibly faster. No pause in even just the surface air temperatures, let alone the oceans, ice and land that collectively absorb the vast majority of the sun's energy in comparison to the air at the surface of the planet.

Also, a number of recent studies indicate that climate sensitivity, or possibly what you are calling "positive forcing", is more probably at the high end of previous estimates rather than lower. If the methane releases intensify, and they probably will, it may turn out that climate sensitivity to increased CO2, when all of the positive feedbacks are included, is much higher than even the current high estimates.

Climate change could be worse than anyone thought
10 January 2014

Here's the abstract of the "study". As is the case with 90% of these climate change studies they played around with computers and came up with what they wanted. There is very little to recommend this "study", though I do appreciate their admission that after decades of research they haven't advanced one bit.

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html#affil-auth

It's really a shame that the walleyedretard is too stupid and clueless to actually understand science. And too brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda to accept valid, peer-reviewed science even if he could understand it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually, Matt, there really hasn't been a pause, as was explained in the OP. The planet has continued to accumulate thermal energy and the scientists know that because they can directly measure how much energy is arriving from the sun at the top of the atmosphere and also how much energy the Earth is radiating away into space. There has been a growing imbalance in the Earth's radiation budget for many decades and there has been no "pause" in that constant accumulation of extra heat. That's just straight physics. The heat has to go somewhere in the Earth system even if we can't see where it is right away, because we know it is not leaving into space.

The planet as a whole is heating up and that means not just the surface level air but also the oceans, the land and the ice.

The oceans have always been absorbing over 90% of the energy the Earth receives from the sun since day one, and the air at the surface only absorbs a bit less than 3%. Globally, the oceans have been getting warmer at greater depths and the increase in heat has been happening faster in the last decade or so.

The land is warming up so much in the Arctic that the permafrost that had been there for, in most cases, over a hundred thousand years is rapidly melting in many places and releasing methane.

Ice caps, ice sheets, and glaciers are melting, in some places quite rapidly, in most places and with only a few exceptions, all around the planet.

Surface air temperatures rose quickly starting in the late 70s and, in reality, continued at about the same rate through the 80s and 90s and the 2000s until now. This notion that global warming had paused stemmed from some scientists who were using the usual standard temperature records that unfortunately had very little coverage of the Arctic (among other places), and they seemed to observe a slowdown, from the previous rapidly rising rates in the 80s and 90s, in the rise of (only) surface air temperatures, over the last decade and a half. They only observed what seemed to be a slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures, not a "stop" in the rise and definitely not a "cooling". More recently though, a new study that integrates satellite sensor temperature readings for the whole planet with other temperature records (see OP) found that the Arctic regions have been warming quite a bit faster than had been extrapolated in the other standard temperature records using the data from the few temperature monitoring stations there. The satellite sensors were able to give a much more complete record of the year to year temperature changes in the Arctic. Integrating the new Arctic date into the temperature record, it turns out that average global temperatures over the last 16 years have still been rising at the same rate as in the previous two decades, or possibly faster. No pause in even just the surface air temperatures, let alone the oceans, ice and land that collectively absorb the vast majority of the sun's energy in comparison to the air at the surface of the planet.

Also, a number of recent studies indicate that climate sensitivity, or possibly what you are calling "positive forcing", is more probably at the high end of previous estimates rather than lower. If the methane releases intensify, and they probably will, it may turn out that climate sensitivity to increased CO2, when all of the positive feedbacks are included, is much higher than even the current high estimates.

Climate change could be worse than anyone thought
10 January 2014

Here's the abstract of the "study". As is the case with 90% of these climate change studies they played around with computers and came up with what they wanted. There is very little to recommend this "study", though I do appreciate their admission that after decades of research they haven't advanced one bit.

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html#affil-auth

It's really a shame that the walleyedretard is too stupid and clueless to actually understand science.

 

[skookerasbil]

Perpetual bitterness is gay.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's the abstract of the "study". As is the case with 90% of these climate change studies they played around with computers and came up with what they wanted. There is very little to recommend this "study", though I do appreciate their admission that after decades of research they haven't advanced one bit.

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html#affil-auth

It's really a shame that the walleyedretard is too stupid and clueless to actually understand science.

/s42.photobucket.com/

Of course, it's a given that the ol' cartoon-kook is too braindead to understand science (or even how to tie his shoes).

 

[S.J.]

It's really a shame that the walleyedretard is too stupid and clueless to actually understand science.

/s42.photobucket.com/

Of course, it's a given that the ol' cartoon-kook is too braindead to understand science (or even how to tie his shoes).

Because the only smart ones are those who goose step along with the "scientists" who are paid to research something that doesn't exist.

 

[gnarlylove]

Who do you think is paying them?

Do you have any clue how credible science is built and progresses? It works according to conjectures and refutations (see Karl Popper). Science is always scant on research money so funding is given priority to science that is more roboust and widely validated. What little money there is just not really wasted on evidence that is easily refutabe. For if it were easily refutable then research would not receive funding (or very little). Let me remind you 97% of peer reviewed articles agree climate change is quite real.

The information backing your side comes from an overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed, proprietary information and studies done by the corporations with an obvious undeniable interest in certain conclusions that boost business.

Why do you not apply that logic to your side? And yet you reply with a confidence that betrays a basic understanding of how credible peer reviewed science works and progresses from conjecture, to hypothesis, to evidence, to evidence to theory to law or fact. For climate change to not exist you need to tune out aspects of credible science that don't fit your world. Evidence is not corrupted when two separate humans with no clear profit motive studies the world and discover their work validates one another. As this becomes more common things like evolution, gravity and climate change become widely accepted (unless you shelter yourself from harmful data and seek group think). Evidence is corrupted when its based on "industry science" which has an undeniable profit motive.

 

[S.J.]

Who do you think is paying them?

Government grants.

Don't you realize science works according to conjectures and refutations (see Karl Popper). Science is always scant on research money and the money available would not be wasted on evidence that is easily refutabe.

They're not scant on research money when the ones holding the purse strings want a specific result. And the scientists know that if they don't announce that specific result, their funding stops, which is why they hid conflicting results.

The information backing your side comes from an overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed, proprietary information and studies done by the corporations with an obvious undeniable interest in certain conclusions that boost business.

The information backing your side comes from profit driven scientists who have an undeniable interest in keeping the taxpayer money coming in. If their only objective was truth, they would not omit exculpatory evidence.

Why do you not apply that logic to your side? And yet you reply with a confidence that betrays a basic understanding of how credible peer reviewed science works and progresses from conjecture, to hypothesis, to evidence, to evidence to theory to law or fact. Evidence is not corrupted when two separate humans with no clear profit motive studies the world and discover they work validates one another. As this becomes more common (and 97% of peer reviewed articles agree climate change is quite real). Evidence is corrupted when its based on "industry science" which has an undeniable profit motive.

First you have to prove global warming exists. Then you would have to prove that business is responsible for it in order for your indictment of business to hold water. You have not proven either, but one thing we DO know, and that is that these scientists are receiving taxpayer money to do this research by government officials who benefit by global warming appearing to be real, and we DO know that they've hidden certain findings that certain government officials don't want the public to see. Only a fool would not question their motives.

 

[Abraham3]

Who do you think is paying them?

Do you have any clue how credible science is built and progresses? It works according to conjectures and refutations (see Karl Popper). Science is always scant on research money so funding is given priority to science that is more roboust and widely validated. What little money there is just not really wasted on evidence that is easily refutabe. For if it were easily refutable then research would not receive funding (or very little). Let me remind you 97% of peer reviewed articles agree climate change is quite real.

The information backing your side comes from an overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed, proprietary information and studies done by the corporations with an obvious undeniable interest in certain conclusions that boost business.

Why do you not apply that logic to your side? And yet you reply with a confidence that betrays a basic understanding of how credible peer reviewed science works and progresses from conjecture, to hypothesis, to evidence, to evidence to theory to law or fact. For climate change to not exist you need to tune out aspects of credible science that don't fit your world. Evidence is not corrupted when two separate humans with no clear profit motive studies the world and discover their work validates one another. As this becomes more common things like evolution, gravity and climate change become widely accepted (unless you shelter yourself from harmful data and seek group think). Evidence is corrupted when its based on "industry science" which has an undeniable profit motive.

Marvelous. Well said.

 

[Abraham3]

They're not scant on research money when the ones holding the purse strings want a specific result. And the scientists know that if they don't announce that specific result, their funding stops, which is why they hid conflicting results.

Try to keep in mind that a scientist ACTUALLY caught falsifying data is done. That is a career-ending crime. Do you actually think they would ALL risk that?

 

[gnarlylove]

The information backing your side comes from profit driven scientists who have an undeniable interest in keeping the taxpayer money coming in. If their only objective was truth, they would not omit exculpatory evidence.

It's obvious business has an interest in "science" that promotes or permits use of its product. So if profit motives corrupt and skew findings of scientists who agree with climate change, then how do you avoid the same corruption occurring in "industry science?"

First you have to prove global warming exists. Then you would have to prove that business is responsible for it in order for your indictment of business to hold water.

I'll take a real life example, not some impersonal article you won't read (neither would I).
I lived in SLC for 3 years. It is pristine just half an hour outside the city center with tons of lush green mountainous organisms. During nearly 3 out of the 4 months of winter and half of summer there was some nasty air that you could taste at times. Once I was bussed up the canyon to my ski resort job above the city clouds, you could get a clear picture of this poor air quality. I saw this sign on way more often then not while I biked or traveled by hopping the rails.

This is a view from about 6000 feet looking down on south SLC near Sandy. Notice the pollution column?

And again, yes its a city underneath the fog and smoke:

(don't forget china: China's Smogageddon)

So you're saying mankind has nothing to do with smog? What is smog? Originally a combination of smoke and fog. By definition it includes human activity: the expelled exhaust of various burning and combustible products like oil and gas etc. But somehow we have nothing to do with that? Are you claiming that all of that smog would be there if humans were not driving and burning coal?

So if you admit smog is caused largely by human activity then it's a pretty small step to realize the enduring amount of smog takes decades (CO2 does anyway, methane tends to dissipate in a decade roughly) to dissipate in the atmosphere. There is no denying the CO2 retains sunlight in the atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere this would not be a problem but at the same time there would be no humanity either. Thus you can make sense of why the earth has been steadily rising in temperature over the last decade or 4: we have been adding CO2 at rates that cause climate instability. I mean given the amount (which may be calculable but not understandable/relatable) you realize how mankind can and does have an effect on temperatures by 1 C and steadily rising. This isn't small time pollution, it's decades of accumulated daily activities.

Then again, it's up to you to dismiss what evidence doesn't fit into your personal beliefs so perhaps you don't even belief the earth has been warming, but it doesn't take a climate scientist to know:it has been warming the last 15 years. We argue over how much and how quickly it will increase but we don't argue that it has been...at least people with an interest in facts rather than maintaining belief systems.

Now if warming isn't due to mankind, what is your scientific explanation?

 

[skookerasbil]

The Green Agenda

 

[mamooth]

There is a common line used by the AGW fanatics, it basically states that there can be cold days when the planet is warming because global warming causes a disruption in climate patterns.

And those cold days will, on average, be warmer.

What is it specifically about the term "global warming" that confuses you? Warming means warming, not cooling, as you seem to think.

If we are to believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise then why does the CO2 fail to take the edge off the cold in the winter? This is one of the many things that the faithful cannot explain.

It _does_ take the edge off the cold. So says the temperature record.

Try learning the basics before you bother the grownups again. Despite what you seem to think, your standard belligerent stupidity routine doesn't work at hiding your ineptitude.