Global Warming is over.

[Schnitzer318is]

and with a belated Happy Earth Day, with a track record like the following, why is it anyone listens to scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...h-day-in-1970/

Stop focusing so hard on surface temps and start looking more at ocean temps. That will give you a more realistic view of global warming. Anthropogenic climate change is a thing. How alarmist you want to be about it can be debated... but that it is a thing that is happening... really should not be.

Besides, the article is not arguing against the validity of climate change at all. Only that cooling cycles are not discussed as heavily as warming ones, indicating a media bias. Which, even if true, has no affect on climate change the phenomena.

From your reference,

"None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it's also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling."

[z31maniac]

AHHHHHHHH hahahahahahahahaha.

NEMESIS!

[gwb72tii]

apparently these scientists didn't get the memo regarding settled science either.
and to satisfy the alarmists, the science is peer reviewed. further, the scientists performed more than one experiment, and all results point to CO2 having little effect on global temperatures.

LOL

http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4369

[Massive Lee]

"...all results point to CO2 having little effect on global temperatures."

LOL

Looks like George claims he knows better than NASA ;-)

Yeah. I know. Stop feeding the troll. But...

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."

[gwb72tii]

"...all results point to CO2 having little effect on global temperatures."

LOL

Looks like George claims he knows better than NASA ;-)

Yeah. I know. Stop feeding the troll. But...

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."

i have never held that I am smarter than climate scientists, although you appear to. I pass along research from those that do in fact know more than you or me about climate. You and others insist on peer review and criticize funding sources. The linked research in fact meets both of you criteria. I must say I am not surprised you'd discount research that challenges your warming bias.

NASA is NOT a good source of unbiased climate opinion or data. NASA in some ways is the tip of the alarmist bullshit we are all fed daily.

[Massive Lee]

My dear George.

What if a study from the KKK claimed that Africans came to the New World on their own to take vacations and loved it so much that they decided to stay and work for free to refund their expensive and luxurous boat cruise. And that study was reviewed by peer KKK colleagues. Would it have any legitimacy? Well. Your study is at the same level. Peers or not peers reviewed.

Do a little research on what/who is CarlinEconomics... And please unerstand their agenda... ;-)

http://uclimate.com/site.php?i=213

[mrsleeve]

^
You do understand that's exctaly how a great many of those immigrants got to the new world skin color was not a factor.. They were indentured servants for an agreed number of years in exchange for passage to the new world.

[mbonder]

Come on sleeve, everyone here knows he was talking about the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, not Indentured Servitude. None of the people from West Africa that came on slave ships came willingly, nor were they working for a defined period of time to pay back the cost of travel.

[Schnitzer318is]

Come on sleeve, everyone here knows he was talking about the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, not Indentured Servitude. None of the people from West Africa that came on slave ships came willingly, nor were they working for a defined period of time to pay back the cost of travel.

Exactly.

No reason to point out that indentured servitude was a thing as that is not what he was referring to. Which everyone understood.

[mrsleeve]

I am not so sure that Lee knows the difference

I know extacly what he was getting at, and for his "satirical" attempt at equivocation of the dutch slave trade to questioning the "settled science that is AGW". Why use the very method in which half or more of the immigrants to the Americas got to the new world pre revolution as his "example" ????? Other than ignorance or just trying to be as pompous as possible

Just thought I would point on how backward his thinking was on this......

[Schnitzer318is]

just trying to be as pompous as possible

I think a large number of the posters in P&R are guilty of this. It comes as a result of frustration with the cherry picking of sources that align with predetermined opinions. Not very many who post in here are willing to read articles (and then check the sources for bias) with a mind that is open enough to accept new/differing information.

AGW is a thing. That really is not debatable. Unless you are just denying it on principle that is which, again, makes it not a debate. Now, what IS debatable... is how concerned we should be, or what should actually be done about it. The right keeps flip flopping all over depending on the wind. One day they'll admit it's real, but claim there is not enough data. The next they'll claim it's natural climate cycles. And still the next they'll claim it's a conspiracy invented so alternative energy companies can win government subsidy monies.

[z31maniac]

And still the next they'll claim it's a conspiracy invented so alternative energy companies can win government subsidy monies.

Which is hysterical on its own considering the billions in subsidies the oil and gas industry get.

[naplesE30]

Interesting research......https://www.manhattan-institute.org/.../R-JA-0518.pdf

Very short summary. ZEV vehicles are worse for environment than IC vehicles. ZEV are are also disproportionately subsidized by the poor, who cannot afford ZEV, for the wealthy who can.

[mrsleeve]

Buddy: Here you go again with the energy business subside Fallacy again but fail to understand they get the same write offs and breaks as any other big compoany. Yet in a 25 year span from the early 80s-2008ish remitted in total 2.2 or 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS to all levels of govt in the USA, which was 3 times more than all the energy companies profits for the same time frame..... Whos making all the money on oil again?????

Interesting research......https://www.manhattan-institute.org/.../R-JA-0518.pdf

Very short summary. ZEV vehicles are worse for environment than IC vehicles. ZEV are are also disproportionately subsidized by the poor, who cannot afford ZEV, for the wealthy who can.

Yes we have know this for a while..... ;) nice to see it coming around again though

[z31maniac]

Buddy: Here you go again with the energy business subside Fallacy again but fail to understand they get the same write offs and breaks as any other big compoany. Yet in a 25 year span from the early 80s-2008ish remitted in total 2.2 or 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS to all levels of govt in the USA, which was 3 times more than all the energy companies profits for the same time frame..... Whos making all the money on oil again?????

Just because they pay a 3:1 tax to profit ratio doesn't mean they don't still receive subsidies and breaks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-the-oil-and-gas-industry-still-need-tax-breaks-1479092522

Here's a good article that makes a case for both sides.