Global Warming is over.

[cale]

not at all. AGW is a left conspired political movement disguised poorly as "settled science" supported by notable intellectuals like Al Gore and Bill Nye and scientists on the public teat. You could not have done better "brave" to support your scientific literacy in human caused climate change. what is there to question when Seattle is cooling in a warming world?

Actually it's an explanation for measurable change that's supported by facts, and studied and verified by thousands of climate scientists around the world in academia.

Only to you and your ilk is it a conspiracy which you gain exposure to as you watch your pre-packaged "news" at night. It's not political until the talking heads made it so, congrats to you for being incapable to differentiate between policy and the information they use to develop that policy.

[BraveUlysses]

not at all. AGW is a left conspired political movement disguised poorly as "settled science" supported by notable intellectuals like Al Gore and Bill Nye and scientists on the public teat. You could not have done better "brave" to support your scientific literacy in human caused climate change. what is there to question when Seattle is cooling in a warming world?

if it's a conspiracy theory why are you quoting a blog that cites cliff mass, who uses climate data to make an assertion that the seattle times article is incorrect?

why do you selectively choose when you believe climate data is accurate?

[gwb72tii]

Actually it's an explanation for measurable change that's supported by facts, and studied and verified by thousands of climate scientists around the world in academia.

Only to you and your ilk is it a conspiracy which you gain exposure to as you watch your pre-packaged "news" at night. It's not political until the talking heads made it so, congrats to you for being incapable to differentiate between policy and the information they use to develop that policy.

so, let me see if i understand you correctly.
the AGW "settled science" movement is not political in it's motivations?
It is pure science, data driven, and above reproach?

[cale]

so, let me see if i understand you correctly.
the AGW "settled science" movement is not political in it's motivations?
It is pure science, data driven, and above reproach?

It's not about a movement, that's what you fail to comprehend. Cambridge and Harvard studying global warming and concluding it is driven by man is no more a "movement" than their medical departments finding a diet high in sugars to be a large driving force behind an obesity epidemic the world is facing.

What individuals in the public eye chose to do with the information and findings provided by the academics/universities is not relevant to the accuracy of their findings. If policy makers conclude that they should tax soda for being high in sugar to deal with growing medical costs, and a bunch of engineers who aren't dietitians come along and say that sugar isn't that bad, doesn't change the fact that kids are dying of heart disease before their 18th birthday because sugar is fucking bad.

Keep listening to those engineers.

[gwb72tii]

the whole point of the link to Cliff Mass was, in effect, climate alarmism is a political movement.
It was about someone from the "progressive" political spectrum pointing out data does not support the newspaper article that global warming killed the tree. He further states the actual temperature data shows no global warming at all and in fact shows global cooling.
He has been roundly criticized by the "man is warming the planet" movement for daring to speak the truth.
What else would you call it when truth takes back stage?

[BraveUlysses]

What else would you call it when truth takes back stage?

we call that "gwb posting"

[Morrison]

^ That made my Monday.

[Wschnitz]

"the planet is actually cooling"

That fake science tho, you telling me all these NOAA sensors are lying about temps recorded the last 50 years or so?

[cale]

the whole point of the link to Cliff Mass was, in effect, climate alarmism is a political movement.

For the umpteenth time, what policy makers chose to do with it is in there wheelhouse. Making people aware that the climate is changing as a result of man burning fossil fuels is spreading knowledge.

He further states the actual temperature data shows no global warming at all and in fact shows global cooling.
He has been roundly criticized by the "man is warming the planet" movement for daring to speak the truth.
What else would you call it when truth takes back stage?

You call him wrong, because he's wrong. Poorly interpreting a graph, or misrepresenting it by not showing the trend over a long period of time is intellectually dishonest, and why these people are laughed out of the academic circles. Anyone with a high school science education can point out the flaw in their methodology.

[mbonder]

I don't understand the focus on a damn tree in Seattle...Looking at global warming on such a microscopic level is absurd and irrelevant.

I'm also in agreement with Cale here, there needs to be a distinctive separation made here between two topics:

1. Global Warming-Geological sensors around the world in many locations have measured a rise in the average temperature over the timeline of data collection. There is no refuting that average temperatures have risen, polar ice has melted, and oceans levels have risen as a result.

2. Man-Made Climate Change-This could be a potential cause of global warming but is obviously much more difficult to prove because it requires some measure of speculation at the present time, rather than defined data points (like you have in #1).

Obviously, it's much easier for politicians (and generally everyone that seeks to weigh in) to argue over #2 because there is no way to definitively explain the rise in global temperatures. Which I think is sort of short-sighted because it ignores the more important #1, which is the globe is getting warmer!! (except maybe in Seattle, haha) There are definitely consequences of rising global temperatures that will affect many different species, including humans. I'm not sure that focusing solely on CO2 emissions is the way to go, in fact, I think we should focus on as many possibilities as we can. That way, there's a better chance that we find a solution to the problem, but that's just how I feel about it.

Remember, the global atmosphere is alive in the sense that it moves and is affected by many different variables, so to focus on one spot rather than the average of all spots simply isn't good scientific observation.

[gwb72tii]

^
the only parts of your post in wide agreement among climate scientists are:
1. the planet temp is gradually increasing (has been for the better part of 11,000 years)
2. Sea levels are in fact rising (have been way before man made CO2, yet are not rising any faster than they have been according to peer reviewed science)
3. Man has some impact on climate but how much, if any, is unknown and within normal climate temp variation

and apparently you missed the point, along with Cale, about Cliff Mass. I'm not disagreeing with his data. I was not making a point about whether or not there is in fact AGW. I have no clue if he's right or wrong. It's the fact he can't point out an obvious error about a tree dying due to increasing temps when the data shows the opposite without being taken to the woodshed by the progressive left for not supporting the alarmist argument.

[gwb72tii]

for the umpteenth time, what policy makers chose to do with it is in their wheelhouse. Making people aware that the climate is changing as a result of man burning fossil fuels, without scientific proof, is spreading the faith to the ignorant.

ftfy

[gwb72tii]

we call that "gwb posting"

another intellectual master reply from the king of drive by criticism.
way to make a stand "brave"
and wtf do you call yourself "brave" anyways?

[BraveUlysses]

Its from a Cream song

god damn you are a boring old man

[mbonder]

^
the only parts of your post in wide agreement among climate scientists are:
1. the planet temp is gradually increasing (has been for the better part of 11,000 years)
2. Sea levels are in fact rising (have been way before man made CO2, yet are not rising any faster than they have been according to peer reviewed science)
3. Man has some impact on climate but how much, if any, is unknown and within normal climate temp variation

and apparently you missed the point, along with Cale, about Cliff Mass. I'm not disagreeing with his data. I was not making a point about whether or not there is in fact AGW. I have no clue if he's right or wrong. It's the fact he can't point out an obvious error about a tree dying due to increasing temps when the data shows the opposite without being taken to the woodshed by the progressive left for not supporting the alarmist argument.

Those are pretty much the only points that I was trying to make, not really attacking either side here. Honestly, your final point is correct, the original article was shit the rebuttal argument was shit, because they are focusing in on one small data point. Anyone that knows anything about scientific observation knows that looking at an isolated instance is not going to prove anything. Both of those articles are trying to add to both sides of the media circus surrounding climate change.