Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

How does one, like you, with zero scientific background feel enabled to say that the people who study this for their careers are wrong?

Either quote me explicitly saying they are wrong or quit twisting "uncertain information".

But don't take my word for it.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Met Office also replied:

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.

[rwh11385]

Either quote me explicitly saying they are wrong or quit twisting "uncertain information".

So are you saying they aren't wrong? Your buddies joshh and gwb are ready to claim that the global warming people are wrong based on their expertise in the subject area.

You just don't like the incentives you just said are options for the government to use?

All those fools should go to jail and Nobel PP people should rethink their prizing strategy.
Gore should pay for all the false bullshit he's caused and raped taxpayers' wallets for, then have his globally-warmed nutsack publically cut off.

Seems to be a pretty strong statement that they are wrong 'in your assessment' of the science, according to your "research".

[Fusion]

I've stated multiple times in this thread that
1] climate change (up or down) comes as no surprise to me as a natural occurance
2] it is fine they are studying it, wrong to come to conclusions (see last post)
3] regulations, taxing and thus freedom being "stripped" based on a scientific field that obviously has a lot of work to do is wrong

They need to totally rehaul their whole claim, because consindering the information is "imperfect and incomplete" (scientist said that, not me), that means the whole connection that it is caused by humans is obviously also "imperfect and incomplete".

[rwh11385]

I've stated multiple times in this thread that
1] climate change (up or down) comes as no surprise to me as a natural occurance
2] it is fine they are studying it, wrong to come to conclusions (see last post)
3] regulations, taxing and thus freedom being "stripped" based on a scientific field that obviously has a lot of work to do is wrong

They need to totally rehaul their whole claim, because consindering the information is "imperfect and incomplete" (scientist said that, not me), that means the whole connection that it is caused by humans is obviously also "imperfect and incomplete".

So when is action "okay" to you? When it is already too late? Should we have held off on atomic research until someone else made it clear that nuclear weapons could be made? Should we wait until 100% of scientists agree that an asteroid will hit the planet, or should we start investing in solutions when someone has a good theory about it? How absolutely sure does the world have to be in order to take preventative measures? Do you hit the brakes after you drive off the cliff?

How is the research progress obvious to you? Was it obvious that second hand smoke didn't cause health problems because there were denial research?

How come cap & trade for sulfur dioxide acceptable based on science that it caused acid rain but global warming is villianized?


You want to cut someone's nutsack off based on "imperfect and incomplete" information?

[Fusion]

I thought you'd be smarter than to play the catastrophism card.

The bigger question I would ask is why some have ignored these factors or claimed they're insignificant considering that "Natural variability has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect."

Were they drunk and just "skipped" over it the past 20 years or was it intentional because it didn't fit their charts? You tell me.

[rwh11385]

You just avoided a bunch of questions. Before you get mad at people for deciding to take action before all the theories are proven, you should be able to state when you expect people to act.

[Fusion]

What makes you think we can take action? This isn't a nuclear bomb or smoking. It's the goddamn planet. You can't prevent earthquakes and hurricanes, what leads you to think some action could decrease(?) global temp? What if it decreases too far? Should we warm it back up?
You think this is an oven you can just turn the knob on? :D

[rwh11385]

What makes you think we can take action? This isn't a nuclear bomb or smoking. It's the goddamn planet. You can't prevent earthquakes and hurricanes, what leads you to think some action could decrease(?) global temp? What if it decreases too far? Should we warm it back up?
You think this is an oven you can just turn the knob on? :D

So your plan of inaction is to assume that man has no influence on the global temperature until 100% of scientists agree? Was it wrong to cut aerosol cans because it was only a theory that it depleted the ozone?

Is it wrong for the government to take action to warn people of the harmful effects of smoking or to add sin tax to cigarettes while there is still Phillip Morris research that denies such conclusions?

Was it wrong for the government to incentive plants to reduce SO2 emissions when it was believed that sulfur dioxide created acid rain?

You can predict a hurricane's path. At what level of certainty is it okay to force people to evacuate? Is it fair that the government isn't 100% sure of its course when it takes action?

Do you think that humans won't attempt to engineer the planet to enable sustained life, or just give up and die? At what point would deniers admit they want a solution if did it keep rising?

[rwh11385]

Basically, your argument is that as long as a slim minority of scientists with divergent views exist no action should be taken. The world's governments ought to be held hostage from doing anything because of deniers.

Congrats, you have underlined the strategy of denialism... the art of protecting existing industry by attacking science.

[cale]

What makes you think we can take action? This isn't a nuclear bomb or smoking. It's the goddamn planet. You can't prevent earthquakes and hurricanes, what leads you to think some action could decrease(?) global temp? What if it decreases too far? Should we warm it back up?
You think this is an oven you can just turn the knob on? :D

Argument from ignorance in its purest form, you don't fail at bringing the fail.

[gwb72tii]

where was it predicted by the doomsayers that we wouldn't have any more GW for the last 12/16 years, with that evil pollutant CO2 rising all along?

or where was it predicted years ago that one sure sign of AGW would be an increase of ice mass at the antarctic?

you see, part of the lack of credibility of the doomsayers suffer, other than manipulation of data, outright lies, conspiracies to hide non supportive data, conspiracies to ban divergent viewpoints from publications, etc etc, is that when faced with unsupporting events (thickening antarctic sea ice), somehow the inconvenient data is morphed, presto, into supporting data.

viola!

its like arguing with a girl, they're not wrong, they changed their mind.

this is all one sad long tragic comedy

[nando]

where was it predicted by the doomsayers that we wouldn't have any more GW for the last 12/16 years, with that evil pollutant CO2 rising all along?

or where was it predicted years ago that one sure sign of AGW would be an increase of ice mass at the antarctic?

you see, part of the lack of credibility of the doomsayers suffer, other than manipulation of data, outright lies, conspiracies to hide non supportive data, conspiracies to ban divergent viewpoints from publications, etc etc, is that when faced with unsupporting events (thickening antarctic sea ice), somehow the inconvenient data is morphed, presto, into supporting data.

viola!

its like arguing with a girl, they're not wrong, they changed their mind.

this is all one sad long tragic comedy

the worst part about your whole argument is none of this actually happened.

[rwh11385]

where was it predicted by the doomsayers that we wouldn't have any more GW for the last 12/16 years, with that evil pollutant CO2 rising all along?

or where was it predicted years ago that one sure sign of AGW would be an increase of ice mass at the antarctic?

you see, part of the lack of credibility of the doomsayers suffer, other than manipulation of data, outright lies, conspiracies to hide non supportive data, conspiracies to ban divergent viewpoints from publications, etc etc, is that when faced with unsupporting events (thickening antarctic sea ice), somehow the inconvenient data is morphed, presto, into supporting data.

viola!

its like arguing with a girl, they're not wrong, they changed their mind.

this is all one sad long tragic comedy

Who is not being credible again?

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/daily-mail-cherry-picks-antarctic-ice-data-(again)

edit: the ")" at the end was outside the [/url] oops.

Contrary to the Mail's claim that "there's more ice at South Pole than ever", this summer ice loss from the ice sheet dwarfs the gradual increase in sea ice that occurred this winter.

Not only cherry picking data to only consider and publish the sea ice versus total, but also ignoring the Northern hemisphere.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html

[nando]

link's broken

[Thizzelle]

The Fox arguement again, good job! I'm in Europe and don't have access to it.

Having a decent sense of ecological responsibility should be common sense, not regulation. You should have your window sealant replaced not because a political party made it legislation, but because you're not an idiot and know you're losing your own money. You should upgrade to solar panels, if you see a benefit and when you're willing to invest in it. Your neighbors should not have to have a higher bill because you were subsidized. Noone should be bullied and sanctioned into making decisions.
That is what the (pre 1990) eastern european socialism was. Let the goverment tell you where to take a shit, what countries to go to on vacation, what food you eat, what you can say.
Of course there were people who thought they were "just stripping away your self-centered freedom to do whatever the fuck you want". Like freedom of speach against the regime, like buying a fucking VHS player, like sitting in a goddamn Chevrolet and doing a burnout, just because you fucking want to.

I can't believe you people are seriously loosing touch with what freedom is. Freedom is not just having a fast food restaurant on every corner.
I guess it's because I'm "outside looking in" that I have the different angle of looking at this.

agree with this.
shitty thing is, there are alot of people who do want to be told what to do.
I think they are bat shit crazy and have no common sense, but that's just me.