[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

lol! And "righties" *never* stereotype or resort to "name calling".

Not to the degree, and not as a method to deal with those who oppose their ideas, or ideology.

"Racist" "Teabagger" etc are the most recent and often used descriptions the MSM uses when characterizing anyone approaching conservative. I guess the MSM is too lazy or shallow to do the homework. They have a recent track record of repeating the false Limbaugh quote back n forth for 4 days without ever checking. Maddow, while trying to belittle the Capitol protest speakers claimed the Constitution had no Preamble, which she later fluffed off. A press conference, called by the same folks who had sent out a bogus press release from the US Chamber of Commerce had reporters trying to get quotes from the fraud speaker, even though he had been called on being such by the REAL spokesman for the COC. The reporters tried to tell the official COC speaker to shut up because they really wanted quotes that matched their agenda, not the truth. This looks more like sloppy 'journalism' with an agenda, and not some simple mistakes. Dan Rather would be so proud.

[Doofy]

I've still yet to see it adequately explained as to why climate change is bad.

It gets warmer, the chicks wear less clothes.
It gets cooler, the chicks go peanut smuggling.

Sounds like a win win to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Not to the degree, and not as a method to deal with those who oppose their ideas, or ideology.

They absolutely do.

Leftie
Nobama
OBomba
labeling those who opposed invading Iraq as "anti-American" or "terrorist supporters"
labeling those who criticized Bush as "anti-American" or "terrorist supporters"
calling those who want government funded health care "communist"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It does warm and cool, but it's warming on average.

Of course until it cools on average.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you don't buy oil from the ME, the ME doesn't denominate sales in US$, which essentially destroys the $ as the world's reserve currency, which means your economy would take a serious dive. You're sitting on huge amounts of oil on that North Shore, but you can't use it because to do so would destroy your economy.

... and our planet. We outsource torture and we outsource land usage for oil.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

They absolutely do.
calling those who want government funded health care "communist"

Healthcare is 1/6th of our overall economy. If we didn't cry communism when contributors to the stimulus bill were found to have been self-avowed communists, we didn't cry communism when the government bought into automobile manufacturing, we didn't cry communism when the government bought into banking, housing, and finally government funded healthcare all against the desire of most americans... when is it acceptable to cry communism? Name-calling is one thing and in that I can agree with you, but communism is an ideal that does exist and is only insulting to those who find the overall notion of it distasteful while somehow failing to acknowledge any of the means of it.

You'll have to pardon those who feel strongly that this would simply be too late to cry communism. You may thank them some day.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

They absolutely do.

Leftie
Nobama
OBomba
labeling those who opposed invading Iraq as "anti-American" or "terrorist supporters"
labeling those who criticized Bush as "anti-American" or "terrorist supporters"
calling those who want government funded health care "communist"

Bla-bla-bla...

The lefties seem to forget who had to vote for it in congress before we went, or that the previous admin(lefties) had damaged our Intel gathering ability to the point that we didn't have current info. Bush was hammered for 8 years without any defense from the MSM or the lefties - who remained safe from terrorists unlike our current leftie/radical 'president' who seems to kiss the ass of every dictator that will give him an audience, and who's admin has lots of radicals and communist admirers in it, and who, with the help of the libs in congress allowed the mortgage and banking industries go under while lying to congress about the health of these industries, which is why no investigations into Frank or Dodd has occurred. After allowing the financial collapse, they print so much money and create so many new taxes and regulations that businesses won't be hiring for decades. ACORN has been caught involved in voter fraud in several states, with new incriminating info coming to light from the discarded papers and computers as they fled from office space they failed to pay rent on. It doesn't look like isolated events, but coordinated efforts to corrupt our government even further.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bush was hammered for 8 years without any defense from the MSM or the lefties - who remained safe from terrorists

Oh wonderful, the old "Bush save us from terrorists" approach. Beautiful.

The only thing "anti-terrorism" did to your country was make it less free. And don't even try to dispute it, because you'll just look even more foolish than you already do.


And I say that, because of your absolutely stupid notion that the political spectrum you don't agree with somehow has a "more negative" name-calling trait than your side – and this despite the existence of one of the largest threads in the Pol Lounge, entitled "Al Gore - Convenient Liar - The Master of Hypocrisy," which was started by someone on your side of politics and in which you've posted oh, I don't know, dozens, maybe hundreds of times?

You give a new definition of "turn the other cheek" my friend – that is, be two-faced whenever it's convenient for you. So why don't you grow up and stop being a hypocrite, two-face.


greg

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh wonderful, the old "Bush save us from terrorists" approach. Beautiful.

The only thing "anti-terrorism" did to your country was make it less free. And don't even try to dispute it, because you'll just look even more foolish than you already do.

Spoken like a true Canadian. And hows the "Global Warming experts" credibility today?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just as good as it was last month, or last year... unfortunately, your "Climategate" hopes seem to have ended in a bust once people bothered to actually read the umpteen-hundred gigabytes of data.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Just as good as it was last month, or last year...

So, no good at all then.

We wouldn't want the IPCC turning into the IPSWNTGNJ*, would we?

(* Invergovernmental Panel on Poo We Need To Get New Jobs)

[BadKosh]

Its perception driven, not fact driven. No matter what the cause.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Just as good as it was last month, or last year... unfortunately, your "Climategate" hopes seem to have ended in a bust once people bothered to actually read the umpteen-hundred gigabytes of data.

Here's a guy who read it. He's on your side. He thinks you are in denial. He's not alone. So do I and even a lot of respected climatologists who can see that the shenanigans that have been uncovered will be very damaging to the credibility of those playing the "peer review"/Consensus scam in the future.

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

Phil Jones explains why this is all exploding in their faces - the jig is up. It's clear that the "consensus" is on that is forced.

""I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!""

The sky isn't falling Greg. The clouds are just responding to the extraordinary heat we've been having.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*yawn*

More excited gobbling from the three of you who've never once bothered to read a scientific publication in your life. Luckily, your gut will get you through!

Wake me up when you've got a scientific paper to show me. Otherwise, keep yakking in the corner.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Wake me up when you've got a scientific paper to show me.

Would that be a real scientific paper, or one that's been through the peer review process and deemed to be "on message"?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's a guy who read it. He's on your side. He thinks you are in denial. He's not alone. So do I and even a lot of respected climatologists who can see that the shenanigans that have been uncovered will be very damaging to the credibility of those playing the "peer review"/Consensus scam in the future.

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And after reading this article – which you clearly didn't - I have to respond again.

He makes none of the claims you're attributing to him. Nothing about "peer review/consensus" scam. He's basically saying "this has turned into a media sensation, and unfortunately even though the scientists' didn't really do much that is technically bad, it'll still be seized on by the media and those too stupid to read further and understand otherwise. The scientists have to be almost perfect and pure as the driven snow, even though their opponents are scumbags."

So yeah, once again: yawn. And lol, because you never seem to learn about posting links that you didn't bother to read.

How does it feel, having your own link attribute the people you read, follow and listen to as "scumbags" that are spreading "outright fabrication, fraud and deceit... [and a] campaign of lies"?


greg

Originally Posted by Monbiot

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Would that be a real scientific paper, or one that's been through the peer review process and deemed to be "on message"?

Why would you care? You won't read it anyway.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Why would you care? You won't read it anyway.

Why would I want to read something which is biased towards helping the writer retain his job, rather than something containing real science?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And after reading this article – which you clearly didn't - I have to respond again.

...uh..yeah, I did.

He makes none of the claims you're attributing to him. Nothing about "peer review/consensus" scam.

That was my summarization of the scheme to only only like minded "on message" peers take part of "peer review" or simply move the goalposts as is the norm.

He does admit what I said - that this is damaging to the credibility of those who are part of the consensus and believe that those who do not think so are in denial. Should I quote him for you?

He's basically saying "this has turned into a media sensation, and unfortunately even though the scientists' didn't really do much that is technically bad, it'll still be seized on by the media and those too stupid to read further and understand otherwise.

Uh..no. He pointed out that they did things and engaged in behavior that was unethical and that has caused a "crisis" and believes that those in question have damaged themselves and their cause by engaging in really bad behavior - technically and actually in fact, even though he still believes in the science behind their claims.

How does it feel, having your own link attribute the people you read, follow and listen to as "scumbags" that are spreading "outright fabrication, fraud and deceit... [and a] campaign of lies"?


greg

I'd say we have a matter of the pots calling the kettles black, and to that I give a big yawn.

[BadKosh]

Again that silly credibility!

[Orion27]

How to Forge a Consensus:
How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd say we have a matter of the pots calling the kettles black, and to that I give a big yawn.

LOL.... so you agree with Monbiot, but only to the very small extent to which he agrees with your position?

Everything else he says, you discount?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You give a new definition of "turn the other cheek" my friend – that is, be two-faced whenever it's convenient for you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bla-bla-bla...

The lefties seem to forget who had to vote for it in congress before we went, or that the previous admin(lefties) had damaged our Intel gathering ability to the point that we didn't have current info. Bush was hammered for 8 years without any defense from the MSM or the lefties - who remained safe from terrorists unlike our current leftie/radical 'president' who seems to kiss the ass of every dictator that will give him an audience, and who's admin has lots of radicals and communist admirers in it, and who, with the help of the libs in congress allowed the mortgage and banking industries go under while lying to congress about the health of these industries, which is why no investigations into Frank or Dodd has occurred. After allowing the financial collapse, they print so much money and create so many new taxes and regulations that businesses won't be hiring for decades. ACORN has been caught involved in voter fraud in several states, with new incriminating info coming to light from the discarded papers and computers as they fled from office space they failed to pay rent on. It doesn't look like isolated events, but coordinated efforts to corrupt our government even further.

All you're doing here is defending stereotyping and name-calling by conservatives while attacking stereotyping and name-calling by liberals.

[BadKosh]

And responding to your false assumptions and urban legends.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why would I want to read something which is biased towards helping the writer retain his job, rather than something containing real science?

Well the only things that seem to consistently fall under this rubric are papers by climate-skeptics. You know, like one of the ones that Jones said he'd keep out of the IPCC. Which contained such incredibly bad science that the editor-in-chief of the magazine resigned for publishing it.

Other than that, your logic is flawed. You can't show that research publications are biased in favour of climate change; even with these new emails, there's no suggestion of that. At best you can say that the interpretation of the publications as a whole is biased, but there's been nothing I've seen to suggest that the actual publications are.

greg

[BadKosh]

Greg,

Don't think I'm a pop science kinda guy. My interest is more toward astrophotography and planetary studies. I built my own telescope (8" reflector) and have been reading all the way through the astronomy and Sky & Telescope mags for several decades. I'm much more interested in Saturn, it's ring structure and the Jovian atmosphere.

My work at NASA allows me access to many types of scientists and covering lots of topics from those who are comfortable assuming that global warming and atmosphere change are linked to man, to the solar scientists who say it has much to do with the sun, and others who are designing the probes and tests to prove or disprove various theories.

The POLITICAL thrust and money is to buy into the man caused GW, but the solar and planetary scientists have very good technical arguments that the sun has a lot more to do with both the warming and the effects on the atmosphere. One friend (Planetary atmospheres scientist) says we really don't understand the effects of clouds, much less the effects of man on our own atmosphere. He was a critic on studies that didn't also track the drift of continents and the alteration of the jet stream that resulted. He and many scientist have unofficial doubts about the science.

I am a computer geek and not a PhD in the subjects. These people are friends and will answer my questions as to GW, and any other astronomy related questions because they know I just wanna know. They know that if I didn't understand I could ask more questions. They wouldn't waste the time on a complete beginner, and several have actually said so.

The bottom line is that many real day-to-day scientists think GW is sloppy science, but $ay otherwi$e for the financial and political $upport it might bring.

You should, in your own words explain why you think man-made global warming is true and explain the science in your own words instead of giving us millions of links to technical papers you have never proved you understood or read all the way through in your opposing arguments. You may be dealing with less educated people than you assume.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You may be dealing with less educated people than you assume.

Freudian? Awesome.

You should, in your own words explain why you think man-made global warming is true and explain the science in your own words instead of giving us millions of links to technical papers you have never proved you understood or read all the way through in your opposing arguments.

With very, very rare exceptions, I read every paper I post. Period, end of story.

And whether or not I think AGW is true is irrelevant – just as whether you or stupendous or Doofy think it's false is irrelevant.

This has been my point, time and time again over the last half-decade: no one gives a **** what you think. Or what I think, or what Doofy thinks, or what some scientists at NASA privately thinks, or what Al Gore thinks, or what anyone else on this board thinks. The only thing that holds weight is published scientific research.

Another period. End of story.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This has been my point, time and time again over the last half-decade: no one gives a **** what you think. Or what I think, or what Doofy thinks, or what some scientists at NASA privately thinks, or what Al Gore thinks, or what anyone else on this board thinks. The only thing that holds weight is published scientific research.

...and the unpublished scientific research which has been suppressed.

I know politics. I know how easy it is to suppress stuff.
Aside from music, politics has been my field for the last 15 years - and I know what a bit of political clout can do to massage "facts" into the direction you want them to go. And believe me when I say, "climate change" has most politicians frothing at the gash because it's a good excuse for unlimited revenue raising.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...and the unpublished scientific research which has been suppressed.

Got any examples? I'm guessing... not.

I know politics. I know how easy it is to suppress stuff.

I'm not saying scientific publications aren't political – because they are to some extent - but you keep mixing up "science" with "politics."

Good scientific publications that cast doubt on the current knowledge about global warming are published all the time.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm not saying scientific publications aren't political – because they are to some extent - but you keep mixing up "science" with "politics."

And will continue to do so until science isn't funded by politicians.

Let us suppose that there's no climate change at all. What does the IPCC then do? Call itself the IPnoCC and talk about how the lack of climate change? (In a similar fashion to how the "I've never been to Majorca" club used to talk about what it wasn't like when you didn't go to Majorca for your vacations)

I'll tell you straight, right now. There's no such thing as AGW. There may be climate change but none of it is man-made. The fact that we're being led to believe so is to do with a control convergence which TPTB are attempting. "Carbon Credits" will be the new gold standard, the new base currency. That's the top and tail of it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And will continue to do so until science isn't funded by politicians.

Let us suppose that there's no climate change at all. What does the IPCC then do? Call itself the IPnoCC and talk about how the lack of climate change? (In a similar fashion to how the "I've never been to Majorca" club used to talk about what it wasn't like when you didn't go to Majorca for your vacations)

I'll tell you straight, right now. There's no such thing as AGW. There may be climate change but none of it is man-made. The fact that we're being led to believe so is to do with a control convergence which TPTB are attempting. "Carbon Credits" will be the new gold standard, the new base currency. That's the top and tail of it.

not being a scientist myself, I can't say whether there is or isn't AGW. I can only pick the side that makes the most sense to me. unless you're actually gathering primary research on the matter, there's no way you can speak with any certainty on the subject. you're only repeating the political arguments made by the side you've chosen.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

But the IPCC has nothing to do with scientific publications. You seem to think the IPCC is publishing the science or something. It's not. It's definitely publishing conclusions from the published science, but no one's done a decent job of stepping up to show those publications should be interpreted otherwise.

As for your second question: easy. Climate change is happening, and it will have some serious effects human life all over the planet, just like it did that last time we had significant climate change. The IPCC has an important job either way, whether it's wasting its time trying to show a closer-to-100-percent certainty every time, or figuring out actually what this means, and whether we should bother trying to stop it, or spend money on reactionary measures instead. (In my view the more important debate.)

Either way, the IPCC exists, and it has an important job. Your logic is very faulty here.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll tell you straight, right now. There's no such thing as AGW. There may be climate change but none of it is man-made.

Another great example you're painfully ignorant about the chemistry behind how CO2 contributes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. There is man-made climate change. Period, end of story. If you don't "believe" this, then you're wrong. Simple. You're like a person who still believes the earth is flat.

The questions to be asked are:
How much of the climate change is man-made, as opposed to natural variation?
Can we do anything to mitigate its effects at this point?
Should we do anything to mitigate its effects at this point?

greg

[besson3c]

If we do, in fact, produce extra carbon emissions, and these carbon emissions do, in fact, trap in heat, is the effect of this trapped heat (if any, hypothetically speaking) not logically at least partially man made? This is not the same as saying that we are to blame, but to say that we are completely removed from the equation also seems silly.

[BadKosh]

And the earths climate will change and unless we can evolve into whatever kind of being can live and survive in the ever changing climate we will perish like many other species have and will continue to do. Expecting that we as a species will go on 'forever' is as stupid as the flat Earthers, creation 'science' types and the like.

Very little has been done to put high quality observation platforms in space to look for asteroids that could hit earth, which has happened before, like Ice ages. The guilt driven aspect isn't there like there is for the global warming is caused by 'mean old man', who is killing the whales, the forests, the snail darter, the spotted owls etc, etc, etc. The emotion driven tree hugger types want that cause to belong to as a way of repenting for whatever they feel guilty about. Those youngsters in GreenPeace, PETA, and other similar groups believe they are helping, and that is all that matters. Not the science.

The fact that so little CO2 is actually in our atmosphere, and that plants use it for photosynthesis seems to suggest we plant more trees, grasses, and the like. Your hockeystick graph seems to correspond to the massive burning of the forests in South America so they could grow more pot. Using CO2, that we exhale also makes it obvious to political types that we should reduce the number of people/animals by whatever means they can.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*facepalm*

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The fact that so little CO2 is actually in our atmosphere, and that plants use it for photosynthesis seems to suggest we plant more trees, grasses, and the like. Your hockeystick graph seems to correspond to the massive burning of the forests in South America so they could grow more pot. Using CO2, that we exhale also makes it obvious to political types that we should reduce the number of people/animals by whatever means they can.

And, just like that, BadKosh becomes a tree-hugger.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Another great example you're painfully ignorant about the chemistry behind how CO2 contributes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. There is man-made climate change. Period, end of story. If you don't "believe" this, then you're wrong. Simple. You're like a person who still believes the earth is flat.

So, ban catalytic converters then.
No, thought not.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

We've already been over this.

Have you come up with a solution to what we're going to be doing with those nitrous oxides, carbon monoxides, or hydrocarbons yet? Or are you just repeating the same old argument, without having thought about it at all since the last time you made it?

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

We've already been over this.

Have you come up with a solution to what we're going to be doing with those nitrous oxides, carbon monoxides, or hydrocarbons yet? Or are you just repeating the same old argument, without having thought about it at all since the last time you made it?

Of course I haven't thought about it - I'm not getting government funding to think about it.

You're the one who's saying there's something wrong with the planet so it's on you to prove it - in easily digestible facts and evidence which the average rock star can understand. Onus is on you, not me.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"The climate is like a series of tubes..."

best analogy evar?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, just like that, BadKosh becomes a tree-hugger.

Except I don't want any government assholes mixed up in any solutions. If it were this simple why didn't the GW crowd jump on this? Could it be that government control was the real objective? Crap n Trade seems dead according to the talk on the street in DC.

They are still just guessing as to why. Their own data collection methods are still suspect, and the recent credibility issues mixed up in Climategate, as well as Bozo's like AlGore blathering and the political folks now beginning to backpedal seems to be a bigger lie than we first thought.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, ban catalytic converters then.
No, thought not.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

We've already been over this.

Have you come up with a solution to what we're going to be doing with those nitrous oxides, carbon monoxides, or hydrocarbons yet?

But yeah, your comment is disingenuous, but it shows that we do need to emit some level of "things harmful to the environment," in order to survive. You keep bringing up catalytic converters as if "banning them" should be the solution, but they perform another separate environmental function, and probably one that is more "immediate" than AGW in terms of health effects.

So it's all a balance – nothing annoys me more than hippies screaming to "end the tar sands" in Canada, as if cold-turkeying an enormous source of fossil fuel is somehow a good idea. There are logical absurdities on both sides.

But it'd be interesting to know how catalytic converters work on electric vehicles; they produce a lot less CO2 as I understand it, but what about these other chemicals?

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

LOL.... so you agree with Monbiot, [i]but only to the very small extent to which he agrees with your position?

Since the position that I took is what we were debating, that's not unusual. It's quite common to use as example those who would ordinarily disagree with you (but have commonality with the one you are debating).

It's to show that even people with disparate views on something can find common ground. On this point, a lot of people with differing views on what causes climate change have chimed in that the efforts to suppress information that have been uncovered is a really big crisis for the AGW crowd. It's not just me who thinks you are in denial, and not just people who disagree with AGW theory.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They aren't contradictory.

Things ARE always in a state of change. You can however determine if the change in question is within norms. If you've got a 4.6 billion year old planet and you decide to figure out if something is normal by just looking at a hundred years or so, you aren't going to be able to scientifically know the answer. It's no different than my analogy regarding children and growth.

It is very different, in fact, completely wrong—specifically, warming and cooling of the earth's climate has been historically episodic/cyclical and, while I can't speak for the rest of you, I've only gone through puberty once (and I would not consider it 'normal' were it to happen again).

If you want to understand the 'change' in the past with any kind of rigor, you need to look at the factors that contribute to that change—not just simply that it changed in the past.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The questions to be asked are:
How much of the climate change is man-made, as opposed to natural variation?
Can we do anything to mitigate its effects at this point?
Should we do anything to mitigate its effects at this point?

QFT—everything else is missing the point.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

...the recent credibility issues mixed up in Climategate...

It wasn't even 1 page ago in the same thread. You have the memory of a gold fish.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Earth has cooled over the past 10 years. That's really not in debate.

The earth has warmed over the past 11 years.

The earth has warmed over the past 9 years.

"However, since the earth has cooled over exactly the past 10 years, then global warming is not real."

lol?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The earth has warmed over the past 11 years.

The argument I've seen related to "cooled over the past 10 years" is in context of 1998. Are you suggesting there has been net-warming in 2009?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Don't think the data's available for 2009 yet (it's not over ).

Using 1997 or 1999 as a baseline, there's still a warming trend to 2008.

It's only when the artificial baseline of 1998 is used that one data set (and not the other I believe) gives a very, very slight cooling trend – and that's just because 1998 was an abnormally hot year. It's a statistical anomaly that's being used in a very underhanded way (by the people complaining about underhanded statistics, of course ).

Also: El Nino/La Nina. But no one wants to hear reasonable scientific explanations here, let's be honest.

greg