Do you read your own links!? In case you didn't realize, the study that you linked to says that AGW is happening over the long haul, but temporarily moderated because of exogenous factors. Here are the three key paragraphs (with some italicized portions to facilitate your reading):
----
"This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
Regarding the "consensus", see my comments above. (You know, the ones you responded to but don't seem to have actually read.)
No, I don't want you to post "verbiage" (which is exactly what it is), I'd like you to tell us why you personally believe the climatology community overwhelmingly rejects your position (which it does). Not that you think they are wrong, not even why you think they are wrong, but why you believe they reject all the "evidence" contained in all the links you can produce.
It doesn't, if you asked them in 1992 and me today, yes it would. But as I've shown you time and time again there is no "consensus" today. The burden of proof is now on you - I've shown you new data that has become available and all the people who, upon reviewing such data, have decided there, in fact, is no consensus. So, show to me scientists who have reviewed all the new data and all the new findings and still stick with their previous position. I have yet to find any so please do help if you feel so obliged. This is how science works you know. You have a hypothesis, you test it, repeatedly, and if your results vary from your stated hypothesis you fine tune your hypothesis and test again - I thought it was fair to assume we all learned that in grade school or JH at the latest.
I read your comments about the consensus and if you'd actually read what was written you'd realize the "consensus" was nothing more than poll taken amongst the people assembled at the UN meeting in 1992. You can call it whatever you want, you apparently choose to call it a consensus and that's fine but that's where the first talk of a "consensus" came from.
Oh, and the reason why I doubt is the same reason you believe - because of all the evidence and scientists and peer-reviewed articles that present the data.
Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
Do you read your own links!? In case you didn't realize, the study that you linked to says that AGW is happening over the long haul, but temporarily moderated because of exogenous factors. Here are the three key paragraphs (with some italicized portions to facilitate your reading):
----
"This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
Point #7 seems prescient, "The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one."
If you can call this an error, it's wise to realize, a small error in a very large truth is not very surprising.
You keep repeating assertions that have been discredited for quite some time and therefore are not scientifically accepted today. That is why your links are derided. They are sheer nonsense at this point in time for purposes of scientific argument. Refer back to my statements about "illusory free-thinkers", the definition of junk science (this time no link to the definition, since comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit), and where you can go amongst climate science professionals to appropriately elaborate on any new evidence you have to suggest.
On a more sarcastic vein, permit me to recommend
Frankfurt, Harry (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691122946.
In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications.
Would you like to show where the findings of just this past year have already been discredited? Please, I challenge you back up yourself.
My money is on you talking about more fallacies and illogical thinking and, essentially, anything that you can think of to take the subject at hand off a topic of pure science to a topic of philosophy.
It would seem that my previous statement holds true - you think that ANYONE who dissents must be practicing junk science. Wow, the world would be a very interesting place if all dissenters had been viewed this way through history. In fact is the round earth theorists that were viewed as dissenters and, most certainly following your logic, would have been accused of junk science.
Point #7 seems prescient, "The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one."
If you can call this an error, it's wise to realize, a small error in a very large truth is not very surprising.
Right, ok, put your critical thinking cap back on (I'll wait for you to find it...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K, got it? Alright.
In the world of science when you have a theory and you test it and the test turns out to go against your hypothesis, what do you do? You can either 1) slightly modify said hypothesis (i.e. "meh, it'll just happen later) or 2) reconstruct the base hypothesis given the new data. I suppose you can go with either but there's a vastly growing group of scientists that believe you should go with option 2 since the results of said test are so far from what was predicted (i.e. it's going to be much warmer in 2005, 6, 7, etc but the world actually cooled).
If you want to go with the first route that's fine, all I'm saying is there is a growing number of people who think we should go with option 2 given the results we've seen and, here's the important part. THAT'S FINE and not only is that fine but that's actually what science is suppose to do. By claiming the debate is over and killing any argument over it you're turning it into a strictly political debate instead of leaving it as a scientific one.
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
Where in the article you cited does it say that the start date for this phenomenon is being pushed back to 2015? (Answer: Nowhere). Have you seen the data for the past few decades? (My guess: No).
You have a "critical thinking detector?" Where? (Let me guess.....)
Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
Let me rephrase the question (so that you can perhaps not focus your reply in denying a consensus):
Why do you personally believe that your position is rejected by so many in the climatology community, such as, for example, Steven Chu, and the many others who do reject your position, whatever their number may be.
Where in the article you cited does it say that the start date for this phenomenon is being pushed back to 2015? (Answer: Nowhere). Have you seen the data for the past few decades? (My guess: No).
You have a "critical thinking detector?" Where? (Let me guess.....)
Are you really serious? It was in your own quote - did you even read your own quote before you posted it?
"However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model."
That really looks to me like it says 2015. Wait, let me copy and paste it "2015" - huh, look at that. Don't know what to tell ya...
Raising hypothesis from the dead does not amount to new "findings," (as your posts so eloquently demonstrate.)
It's not old data, it's new data. And the fact that you are not sourcing an article to refute it and simply saying I'm "raising it from the dead" makes my point for me - thanks!
.... you think that ANYONE who dissents must be practicing junk science.
No. Your assertions are junk. I would not even elevate it to calling it junk science.
You want to understand serious scientific dissent on AGW? Read, for starters, the works of Prof. Lindzen at MIT or Roger Pielke Sr. of CIRES (or the works of his son, Roger Pielke Jr., at Univ of CO). Google their names and take it from there.
Please educate yourself, instead of wallowing in blather that simply risks making you look like an illiterate. Then have a discussion.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
For recent amplifications and analysis on Keenlyside's statement, one could start here.
Quote:
The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn?t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.
Additional recent papers that support analysis about the Hadley vs GISS trends: Simmons et al., the recent GRL paper by Easterling and Wehman, Schuckmann, and a concise elementary account at SkepticalScience.
... Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
This is a pretty silly comment on the face of it. On a planet of ten billion, or amongst a community of millions of scientists, "thousands of dissenters" is an irrelevant amount. It's also self evident that a general consensus on Global Warming does exist, irrespective of your "dissenters." Consensus doesn't actually mean that everyone agrees, just that most do.
You slag defenders of the consensus by saying that "consensus" is just a poll taken at a particular single event, but there have been many polls over the years and the consensus on that it that most scientists agree that Global Warming is man made and a serious problem.
Others have pointed out that you are wrong because you are relying on outdated, somewhat discredited information, but you are also wrong in assuming that just because you and others disagree, that there is no consensus. Even if you believe the current consensus is wrong, it's still pretty clear that it exists. You are wasting a lot of energy fighting the existence of the consensus when you probably mean to just disagree with it.
Climate science is very complex by it's very nature, so personally, I think it's more important to relax, keep an open mind and try to take everything with a grain of salt without wilfully ignoring the facts.
For example, a good attitude towards environmental issues in general is summed up by these two.
Let me rephrase the question (so that you can perhaps not focus your reply in denying a consensus):
Why do you personally believe that your position is rejected by so many in the climatology community, such as, for example, Steven Chu, and the many others who do reject your position, whatever their number may be.
Because I think all the scientists who have reviewed the data and come to more moderate conclusion of "we need to study this more" have a more realistic approach. Their "science" is just as good as the "science" of the people you believe so who's in the right? Naturally you think you do and I think I do but that doesn't really get us anywhere. You've got scientists, science, and data to back up your assertion as do I. Mind you I'm not one of the people saying "ah look, it's nothing, we're all good, let's pollute as much as we want." I'm saying that with a problem as complex as this we need to make sure we really have enough data to be certain of what we are saying.
I think it's well known that the earth was predicted to be noticeably warmer in 2008 than 1998 (at the time) but that didn't turn out to be true - that in and of itself should make you think that either 1) this complex system is way, way more complex than we thought or 2) we need to re-calibrate our data with this new data to see what we've got.
As has been pointed out before, even though this web page is not obviously attributed (and is just a web site not a scientific peer reviewed paper,) other then having some fossil knowledge, the author is known to have no particular standing in the scientific community (especially in climatology.) He has a BS in geology, and is a retired historical geologist who worked in the West Virginia coal industry.
Perhaps you would link us to his peer reviewed work? Didn't think so.
That same basic chart is common knowledge. That was just the first I grabbed for reference. The bottom line is still that we don't seem to be in for anything out of the ordindary. After a couple of 100,000 years we can probably say there is a trend.
This is a pretty silly comment on the face of it. On a planet of ten billion, or amongst a community of millions of scientists, "thousands of dissenters" is an irrelevant amount. It's also self evident that a general consensus on Global Warming does exist, irrespective of your "dissenters." Consensus doesn't actually mean that everyone agrees, just that most do.
You slag defenders of the consensus by saying that "consensus" is just a poll taken at a particular single event, but there have been many polls over the years and the consensus on that it that most scientists agree that Global Warming is man made and a serious problem.
Others have pointed out that you are wrong because you are relying on outdated, somewhat discredited information, but you are also wrong in assuming that just because you and others disagree, that there is no consensus. Even if you believe the current consensus is wrong, it's still pretty clear that it exists. You are wasting a lot of energy fighting the existence of the consensus when you probably mean to just disagree with it.
Climate science is very complex by it's very nature, so personally, I think it's more important to relax, keep an open mind and try to take everything with a grain of salt without wilfully ignoring the facts.
For example, a good attitude towards environmental issues in general is summed up by these two.
I said the consensus claim began in 1992 as, yes, a poll at the UN meeting. More recent polls have shown that the consensus (does anyone have a % of what makes a consensus? At the UN meeting not everyone agreed so I'm still wondering how exactly we came to a consensus when not even everyone of the few thousand people assembled agreed in the first place) isn't quite a strong as it used to be with the thousands speaking out against the previous view of global warming (considering there was, back in 1992, very few dissenters and now there are many, many more should at least make people think about it).
The problem with the people claiming it's outdated information is that, in fact, it's not outdated at all. It's all data from 2008 and 2009. People can say it's outdated all they want but the actual links themselves show otherwise.
I guess the real issue is how many/what % of professionals does it take to have a "consensus." And furthermore, what does it take for there not to be a consensus anymore?
I haven't ignored any facts, that's really the problem here. I'm presenting new data that shows the problem is fairly complex and I'm being lamblasted for it. I'm not doubting any of the findings of either side - when you have a significantly complex problem you're going to have differing results and opinions and, as a scientist, it is your job to take in ALL the data not just the stuff you like or agree with.
No. Your assertions are junk. I would not even elevate it to calling it junk science.
You want to understand serious scientific dissent on AGW? Read, for starters, the works of Prof. Lindzen at MIT or Roger Pielke Sr. of CIRES (or the works of his son, Roger Pielke Jr., at Univ of CO). Google their names and take it from there.
Please educate yourself, instead of wallowing in blather that simply risks making you look like an illiterate. Then have a discussion.
My assertions are all pulled from actual data and scientific research done on the issues. There is absolutely nothing I've said in any of these threads that isn't wholly derived from the scientific results and evaluation of the data as it is currently being collected.
Just because I have a dissenting opinion that doesn't make me illiterate - it makes you close minded and stubborn.
That same basic chart is common knowledge. That was just the first I grabbed for reference. The bottom line is still that we don't seem to be in for anything out of the ordindary. After a couple of 100,000 years we can probably say there is a trend.
Comments
Please premit yourself to click a link, really. I've linked to peer-reviewed studies. What's that? You want another one, ok, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml
Do you read your own links!? In case you didn't realize, the study that you linked to says that AGW is happening over the long haul, but temporarily moderated because of exogenous factors. Here are the three key paragraphs (with some italicized portions to facilitate your reading):
----
"This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
Regarding the "consensus", see my comments above. (You know, the ones you responded to but don't seem to have actually read.)
No, I don't want you to post "verbiage" (which is exactly what it is), I'd like you to tell us why you personally believe the climatology community overwhelmingly rejects your position (which it does). Not that you think they are wrong, not even why you think they are wrong, but why you believe they reject all the "evidence" contained in all the links you can produce.
It doesn't, if you asked them in 1992 and me today, yes it would. But as I've shown you time and time again there is no "consensus" today. The burden of proof is now on you - I've shown you new data that has become available and all the people who, upon reviewing such data, have decided there, in fact, is no consensus. So, show to me scientists who have reviewed all the new data and all the new findings and still stick with their previous position. I have yet to find any so please do help if you feel so obliged. This is how science works you know. You have a hypothesis, you test it, repeatedly, and if your results vary from your stated hypothesis you fine tune your hypothesis and test again - I thought it was fair to assume we all learned that in grade school or JH at the latest.
I read your comments about the consensus and if you'd actually read what was written you'd realize the "consensus" was nothing more than poll taken amongst the people assembled at the UN meeting in 1992. You can call it whatever you want, you apparently choose to call it a consensus and that's fine but that's where the first talk of a "consensus" came from.
Oh, and the reason why I doubt is the same reason you believe - because of all the evidence and scientists and peer-reviewed articles that present the data.
Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
Do you read your own links!? In case you didn't realize, the study that you linked to says that AGW is happening over the long haul, but temporarily moderated because of exogenous factors. Here are the three key paragraphs (with some italicized portions to facilitate your reading):
----
"This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
Point #7 seems prescient, "The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one."
If you can call this an error, it's wise to realize, a small error in a very large truth is not very surprising.
You keep repeating assertions that have been discredited for quite some time and therefore are not scientifically accepted today. That is why your links are derided. They are sheer nonsense at this point in time for purposes of scientific argument. Refer back to my statements about "illusory free-thinkers", the definition of junk science (this time no link to the definition, since comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit), and where you can go amongst climate science professionals to appropriately elaborate on any new evidence you have to suggest.
On a more sarcastic vein, permit me to recommend In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications.
Would you like to show where the findings of just this past year have already been discredited? Please, I challenge you back up yourself.
My money is on you talking about more fallacies and illogical thinking and, essentially, anything that you can think of to take the subject at hand off a topic of pure science to a topic of philosophy.
It would seem that my previous statement holds true - you think that ANYONE who dissents must be practicing junk science. Wow, the world would be a very interesting place if all dissenters had been viewed this way through history. In fact is the round earth theorists that were viewed as dissenters and, most certainly following your logic, would have been accused of junk science.
Point #7 seems prescient, "The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one."
If you can call this an error, it's wise to realize, a small error in a very large truth is not very surprising.
Right, ok, put your critical thinking cap back on (I'll wait for you to find it...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K, got it? Alright.
In the world of science when you have a theory and you test it and the test turns out to go against your hypothesis, what do you do? You can either 1) slightly modify said hypothesis (i.e. "meh, it'll just happen later) or 2) reconstruct the base hypothesis given the new data. I suppose you can go with either but there's a vastly growing group of scientists that believe you should go with option 2 since the results of said test are so far from what was predicted (i.e. it's going to be much warmer in 2005, 6, 7, etc but the world actually cooled).
If you want to go with the first route that's fine, all I'm saying is there is a growing number of people who think we should go with option 2 given the results we've seen and, here's the important part. THAT'S FINE and not only is that fine but that's actually what science is suppose to do. By claiming the debate is over and killing any argument over it you're turning it into a strictly political debate instead of leaving it as a scientific one.
It's quite simple really, the models of the mid 90's which all of this is based on did not predict this to occur and now we're pushing it back to start happening in 2015. That really doesn't set off your critical thinking detector?
Where in the article you cited does it say that the start date for this phenomenon is being pushed back to 2015? (Answer: Nowhere). Have you seen the data for the past few decades? (My guess: No).
You have a "critical thinking detector?" Where? (Let me guess.....
Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
Let me rephrase the question (so that you can perhaps not focus your reply in denying a consensus):
Why do you personally believe that your position is rejected by so many in the climatology community, such as, for example, Steven Chu, and the many others who do reject your position, whatever their number may be.
Would you like to show where the findings of just this past year have already been discredited?
Raising hypothesis from the dead does not amount to new "findings," (as your posts so eloquently demonstrate.)
Where in the article you cited does it say that the start date for this phenomenon is being pushed back to 2015? (Answer: Nowhere). Have you seen the data for the past few decades? (My guess: No).
You have a "critical thinking detector?" Where? (Let me guess.....
Are you really serious? It was in your own quote - did you even read your own quote before you posted it?
"However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model."
That really looks to me like it says 2015. Wait, let me copy and paste it "2015" - huh, look at that. Don't know what to tell ya...
Raising hypothesis from the dead does not amount to new "findings," (as your posts so eloquently demonstrate.)
It's not old data, it's new data. And the fact that you are not sourcing an article to refute it and simply saying I'm "raising it from the dead" makes my point for me - thanks!
.... you think that ANYONE who dissents must be practicing junk science.
No. Your assertions are junk. I would not even elevate it to calling it junk science.
You want to understand serious scientific dissent on AGW? Read, for starters, the works of Prof. Lindzen at MIT or Roger Pielke Sr. of CIRES (or the works of his son, Roger Pielke Jr., at Univ of CO). Google their names and take it from there.
Please educate yourself, instead of wallowing in blather that simply risks making you look like an illiterate. Then have a discussion.
...
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.""
-----
So tell me: Is AGW happening, or is it not, based on your own cited source?
For recent amplifications and analysis on Keenlyside's statement, one could start here.
The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn?t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.
Additional recent papers that support analysis about the Hadley vs GISS trends: Simmons et al., the recent GRL paper by Easterling and Wehman, Schuckmann, and a concise elementary account at SkepticalScience.
... Would you like another link to the thousands of dissenters for you to realize there isn't actually a consensus anymore?
This is a pretty silly comment on the face of it. On a planet of ten billion, or amongst a community of millions of scientists, "thousands of dissenters" is an irrelevant amount. It's also self evident that a general consensus on Global Warming does exist, irrespective of your "dissenters." Consensus doesn't actually mean that everyone agrees, just that most do.
You slag defenders of the consensus by saying that "consensus" is just a poll taken at a particular single event, but there have been many polls over the years and the consensus on that it that most scientists agree that Global Warming is man made and a serious problem.
Others have pointed out that you are wrong because you are relying on outdated, somewhat discredited information, but you are also wrong in assuming that just because you and others disagree, that there is no consensus. Even if you believe the current consensus is wrong, it's still pretty clear that it exists. You are wasting a lot of energy fighting the existence of the consensus when you probably mean to just disagree with it.
Climate science is very complex by it's very nature, so personally, I think it's more important to relax, keep an open mind and try to take everything with a grain of salt without wilfully ignoring the facts.
For example, a good attitude towards environmental issues in general is summed up by these two.
Let me rephrase the question (so that you can perhaps not focus your reply in denying a consensus):
Why do you personally believe that your position is rejected by so many in the climatology community, such as, for example, Steven Chu, and the many others who do reject your position, whatever their number may be.
Because I think all the scientists who have reviewed the data and come to more moderate conclusion of "we need to study this more" have a more realistic approach. Their "science" is just as good as the "science" of the people you believe so who's in the right? Naturally you think you do and I think I do but that doesn't really get us anywhere. You've got scientists, science, and data to back up your assertion as do I. Mind you I'm not one of the people saying "ah look, it's nothing, we're all good, let's pollute as much as we want." I'm saying that with a problem as complex as this we need to make sure we really have enough data to be certain of what we are saying.
I think it's well known that the earth was predicted to be noticeably warmer in 2008 than 1998 (at the time) but that didn't turn out to be true - that in and of itself should make you think that either 1) this complex system is way, way more complex than we thought or 2) we need to re-calibrate our data with this new data to see what we've got.
Talk a bout weak science.
As has been pointed out before, even though this web page is not obviously attributed (and is just a web site not a scientific peer reviewed paper,) other then having some fossil knowledge, the author is known to have no particular standing in the scientific community (especially in climatology.) He has a BS in geology, and is a retired historical geologist who worked in the West Virginia coal industry.
Perhaps you would link us to his peer reviewed work? Didn't think so.
That same basic chart is common knowledge. That was just the first I grabbed for reference. The bottom line is still that we don't seem to be in for anything out of the ordindary. After a couple of 100,000 years we can probably say there is a trend.
This is a pretty silly comment on the face of it. On a planet of ten billion, or amongst a community of millions of scientists, "thousands of dissenters" is an irrelevant amount. It's also self evident that a general consensus on Global Warming does exist, irrespective of your "dissenters." Consensus doesn't actually mean that everyone agrees, just that most do.
You slag defenders of the consensus by saying that "consensus" is just a poll taken at a particular single event, but there have been many polls over the years and the consensus on that it that most scientists agree that Global Warming is man made and a serious problem.
Others have pointed out that you are wrong because you are relying on outdated, somewhat discredited information, but you are also wrong in assuming that just because you and others disagree, that there is no consensus. Even if you believe the current consensus is wrong, it's still pretty clear that it exists. You are wasting a lot of energy fighting the existence of the consensus when you probably mean to just disagree with it.
Climate science is very complex by it's very nature, so personally, I think it's more important to relax, keep an open mind and try to take everything with a grain of salt without wilfully ignoring the facts.
For example, a good attitude towards environmental issues in general is summed up by these two.
I said the consensus claim began in 1992 as, yes, a poll at the UN meeting. More recent polls have shown that the consensus (does anyone have a % of what makes a consensus? At the UN meeting not everyone agreed so I'm still wondering how exactly we came to a consensus when not even everyone of the few thousand people assembled agreed in the first place) isn't quite a strong as it used to be with the thousands speaking out against the previous view of global warming (considering there was, back in 1992, very few dissenters and now there are many, many more should at least make people think about it).
The problem with the people claiming it's outdated information is that, in fact, it's not outdated at all. It's all data from 2008 and 2009. People can say it's outdated all they want but the actual links themselves show otherwise.
I guess the real issue is how many/what % of professionals does it take to have a "consensus." And furthermore, what does it take for there not to be a consensus anymore?
I haven't ignored any facts, that's really the problem here. I'm presenting new data that shows the problem is fairly complex and I'm being lamblasted for it. I'm not doubting any of the findings of either side - when you have a significantly complex problem you're going to have differing results and opinions and, as a scientist, it is your job to take in ALL the data not just the stuff you like or agree with.
No. Your assertions are junk. I would not even elevate it to calling it junk science.
You want to understand serious scientific dissent on AGW? Read, for starters, the works of Prof. Lindzen at MIT or Roger Pielke Sr. of CIRES (or the works of his son, Roger Pielke Jr., at Univ of CO). Google their names and take it from there.
Please educate yourself, instead of wallowing in blather that simply risks making you look like an illiterate. Then have a discussion.
My assertions are all pulled from actual data and scientific research done on the issues. There is absolutely nothing I've said in any of these threads that isn't wholly derived from the scientific results and evaluation of the data as it is currently being collected.
Just because I have a dissenting opinion that doesn't make me illiterate - it makes you close minded and stubborn.
That same basic chart is common knowledge. That was just the first I grabbed for reference. The bottom line is still that we don't seem to be in for anything out of the ordindary. After a couple of 100,000 years we can probably say there is a trend.
Yes, common indeed.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=262
Apple had best get a clue before listening to Al Gore:
http://www.heartland.org/full/26066/...l_Warming.html