Oh, it's the the most recent ten years.
What year had the lowest arctic sea ice on record?
Oh, it was last year.
If the polar bear numbers are up, good for them (although the seals might feel differently), but their numbers have NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW--that's a matter of physics, not population biology.
And politics may drive YOUR idea of science, but as a physicist and climate scientist I can tell you I've never noticed any party affiliation for Maxwell's equations, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, Stefan's Law, the Schrodinger Equation, etc. If you could explain where politics enters into climate models, theories or observations, I'm willing to listen.
EDIT for Tomcat: "On record" means since records have been kept, and unless you know something that the rest of us don't, I'm pretty sure temperature records weren't kept during the Cambrian!! Nice try, though. You're adding more fuel to my theory that many (most?) deniers have problems with reading comprehension.
EDIT for Sagebrush: Let's analyze what Sagebrush has said about me for accuracy (presumably his "Peggy" is refers to me):
>Then there is the school marm, Peggy. She has taken
WRONG--I am a he, not a she (and not a school marm either, although Sagebrush needs one)
>The Grifter's regurgitated response.
WRONG--I haven't the faintest idea what "The Grifter"'s response is, nor would I borrow anyone else's answer.
>That is correctly 'instrumental' record. That started around 1987 when all the satellites were in
WRONG--I used the NCDC data, which goes back to the 19th century
>place. These greenies are so lame they even use one another's crutches.
WRONG--I don't use other people's answers, and I examined the data myself.
So there you have it, not just one thing, but EVERY thing that Sagebrush said in reference to me was wrong. Let's see, what was this question about....ah yes global warmers and their supposed allergy to the truth. The readers can judge for themselves who is interested in truth.
Prico:
Alex:
Then there is the school marm, Peggy. She has taken The Grifter's regurgitated response.
then there is Elizabeth whose response was brought to you be the efforts of Pee-Wee Herman. "I know I am, but what about you?"
Not all the greenies have chimed in, as of yet, but those who have show that they fear the truth like a vampire shuns the cross. This is not just a lame comment, the proof is in the thumbs down on this cite. The greenies traditionally cannot stand the truth and thumb everyone down who writes it. It is very obvious.
In truth, I don't know if they fear it or are allergic to it. But one thing is for certain, they want nothing to do with it.
What's the truth?
All we know for certain is that there seems to be a shift in climate patterns. Cold regions are experiencing milder than normal winters, warmer climes are seeing snow for the first time in decades and we've seen some doozies when it comes to storms (hurricanes and the like).
But is this normal? Is it a shift in patterns? Is it a hiccup? We honestly do not know. This planet has done some weird stuff all on its own without man's help. Are we causing problems? Perhaps. Is this just the planet doing its thing? Perhaps.
The truth is that we have not been around long enough as a species to know what "normal" is and we have people getting into a global climate peeing contest over what the planet is doing to suit their agendas.
Liars are not reliable identifiers of truth.
The truth is that top scientists have had consistent conclusions about human-caused climate change since the late 1980s and that you are either an ignorant dupe of fossil fuel industry deceptions to the contrary, or a wanna-be copy-cat of the same.
The real science of the world's top scientists:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
What most informed business leaders and politicians around the world have also realized for decades:
No. I think skeptics and deniers are allergic to the laws of thermodynamics. The cure for them is to understand that if you trap heat, it gets warmer.
It seems that most of them think their ideas are the truth. But, it is as a religious faith; it cannot be questioned, and any who refuse to believe are evil (deniers).
One might properly as how we came to this state of affairs; the probable answer was Given by Gustav Le Bon. He described such belief system as a 'religious sentiment', within which the given dogma achieves 'prestige'.
The religious sentiment is created throu affirmation, repetition, and contagion.
“Great power is given to ideas propagated by affirmation, repetition, and contagion by the circumstance that they acquire in time that mysterious force known as prestige.”
"Whatever has been a ruling power in the world, whether it be ideas or men, has in the main enforced its authority by means of that irresistible force expressed by the word “prestige.”
“The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things as they are and to entirely paralyze our judgment. Crowds always, and individuals as a rule, stand in need of ready-made opinions on all subjects. The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth or error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige.”
“Prestige lost by want of success disappears in a brief space of time. It can also be worn away, but more slowly by being subjected to discussion. This latter power, however, is exceedingly sure. From the moment prestige is called in question it ceases to be prestige. The gods and men who have kept their prestige for long have never tolerated discussion. For the crowd to admire, it must be kept at a distance.”
An idea imbued with prestige is perfect, absolute, and undiscussible. Thus we get pronouncementsmsuch as 'the debate is over', 'it's been proven', 'overwhelming', and 'incontrovertible'. None of these are expressions of scientific validation, but rather are those of religious faith.
The faith is immune to falsification; no amount of contradictory data will penetrate the belief.
“One can win an argument against a belief any more than one can against a hurricane.”
“Crowds do not admit doubt or uncertainty, and always go to extremes. Their sentiments are always excessive.”
[Leaders of crowds are people in which] their convictions are so strong that all reasoning is lost upon them.” Gustav Le Bon
Its a faith thing, people who believe in something generally ignore logic. The truth is over 40 climate models predicted that global temperatures would rise significantly over the last 15 years. The facts are that every single one of those climate models failed miserably. There has been no statistical warming for 15 years. Those very same climate models also predicted more violent weather, accelerating sea level rise, Ice free Arctic Summers, spreading insects and disease and increasing droughts. However in reality, historical data tells us that the climate will cool for at least 30 years, and will bring more deadly hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods and a shorter growing season. A very serious outlook for the US over the next few decades. Any Climate Scientists that ignores the reality of this potential future based on their faith is guilty of malice.
No, they simply find truth subjective and irrelevant if that truth interferes with the narrative, humans are bad and doing unnatural things which causes unnatural things to happen. Fact is most warmons believe in AGW based on a lie that scientist said there would be extreme weather, this looks and feels extreme; therefore, AGW is real, line up the even ifs and you are not going to influence warmons opinion with something as trivial as the truth when they can simply turn on the news and see bad weather happening.
Yes.
We were taught at school debating: Do not make your mind up before the debate is over and attempt to make the known facts fit whatever conclusion you have previously reached.
The warmies want to believe in AGW, they therefore shut out any facts which do not fit their mind-set.
It's a bit like an unrequited love affair, the spurned lover will seek any sign that he will be back in favour, life's not like that.
Warmies are therefore not to be trusted.
I don't know if allergic is the correct term, but somehow they do not even have doubts.
Also I notice all of those who quote from skepticalscience are the worst, almost to a fanatical religious sense, they are also the most abusive.
John Cook has a degree in psychology I wonder if that is how he learned his brainwashing techniques.
In respect of global temperatures not showing warming, sea ice being at record highs, polar bear numbers being the highest for years, that politics drives agw not science, in fact assuming the opposite stance to reality in every aspect of agw.
This is a serious question, are they/you allergic to being truthful? Or does the greater good outweigh pesky little things like truth?
No, you are
No cite, so all lies
your puny mind is so full of lies
http://ncse.com/climate
no, they are religious cultists and are blind to the truth
