If in fact we are emerging from that ice age that means (ignoring for the moment all the armloads of scientific printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are in fact warming and have been for several thousand years deviations in climate history charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline ocean current anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, a natural function of desalinization due to glacial melting due to this natural "warming,"
The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are for the most part causing these Hot/Cold cycles creating significant variations in our distance from the sun. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. Providing a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 millions years tells the real story, but we are now faced with arguments based on data going back less than 10,000 years, the Gore fraud, obscuring the long term picture exposed by old accepted scientific climate history.
How can man have such a profound effect on the climate in only the past 200 years when normal climate cycles established 6 Million years ago are proceeding as scientifically predicted, the projected temperatures and Co2 values in the mean? That man may be contributing to this climate change is obvious, but the EXTENT to which he is contributing is most assuredly in question. No one to date has been able to address that issue with any degree of scientific certainty, just a lot of unfounded opinion and fear mongering. Several mainstream scientific sources set the percentage of mans contribution to global greenhouse gas at less than 3%, casting some pretty serious doubts that any changes we make in our energy usage will cause any major change in existing Climate conditions.
Also recent (independent) scientific studies have disclosed that Co2 level does not drive atmospheric temperature, it is in fact the other way around. Our Libtard futurists would have us reduce our contribution to greenhouse gas at least a percentage point, starving over half the world's populations.
It’s clear global warming/climate change is real. It’s equally clear the > current < warming cycle has been going on since the last ice age and that’s why the Sahara was grassland 10,000 years ago but is desert today + has been desert for centuries. The fact the current warming trend started long before there was any industry and when there were hardly any people is good evidence humans are not the cause. It also means humans are not the solution.
The Earth goes through constant climate change cycles and has done so throughout its history. The exact mechanism is not completely understood but appears to be related to solar activity and the axial tilt of the Earth as it orbits the sun - not human activity. Note that the Earth is apparently at the end of the current warming cycle and should begin cooling soon (“soon” in geological terms).
All of the carbon tax/carbon offset BS is just robbery or extortion disguised as science. Countries like China and India LOVED the idea of carbon taxes/carbon offsets – but only when they could pretend to be “undeveloped”. Once it was pointed out both are horrific polluters of > every type < they suddenly weren’t so keen on the idea. Only the global Left and countries like North Korea & Zimbabwe still love the idea of carbon taxes.
The Left loves the idea because they are dedicated to destroying the West in general and the USA in particular. Getting the developed world to wreck its own industrial base is something they want. Having the West simultaneously give free guilt-money to countries like North Korea & Zimbabwe would just make it better.
Unfortunately, scientific research has been compromised by the politics of the subject. The academic community leans far to the Left, so researchers who “prove” human-caused global warming (AGW) are rewarded with more grants, but researchers who don’t “prove” AGW find themselves cut off.
The politics of the issue are a problem because we really do need to understand how the Earth works so we can anticipate, predict, and adjust. We also need to reduce actual pollution that is poisoning our environment, and countries like China & India should not get a free ride.
Brilliant question! I thought it was just me that had these thoughts.
Yes, they are true but can be expanded upon:
2. "Higher" can be replaced with "lower".
6. Volcanoes can cause cooling but not warming. We can be quite sure of this without actually knowing how many volcanoes there are or how many are active at any time.
9. Uncritical acceptance of papers like Doran and Zimmermann (2009), Cook et al (2013), Anderegg et al (2010) and Marcott et al (2013) reflect badly on the supposedly sceptical scientists.
10. The IPCC has the job of highlighting the "approved" papers and hiding the "unapproved" ones. In fact, it has a mechanism for getting gaps in its logic filled in with unchallenged peer-reviewed articles at the last minute with the help of a complicit journal.
13. "Weather Cooking" used to be performed by witches. Now it is the fault of industry moguls.
17. AGW is the easiest thing in the world to measure. Everything in this list is a proxy: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...
18. Some disappearing islands are having the population moved to the neighbouring island because the sea level is not rising there!?
19. Some of the formerly obsolete models are being reinstated because they give better answers than the more recent, improved, ones.
20. "The science is settled" - "It is worse than we thought". Surely, if it is settled it can only be just as bad as we thought and no worse?
17 warmest years? Just be careful which data you look at. Never look at too much.
As illogical as most of the so called consequences of AGW such as more hookers on street corners to the earth exploding because the air warms up a few degrees.
The AGW peer review process has been proven to be incestuous to say the least. AGW peer reviews are done by the selection of politically correct AGW cultist peers. Even the IPCC is plagued with agenda driven by incredibly biased special interest groups. There is no such thing as objectivity in anything to do with the IPCC or AGW cultists because their agenda has nothing to do with the climate. The climate is just their latest straw man to push socialism, communism, and totalitarianism governments into power. It's becoming more obvious every day and the AGW cultists' reactions are becoming increasingly shrill out of desperation.
Try asking just one question next time. Since you didn't do that, I'll address just the first of your statements:
"1.AGW skepticism can be explained by invoking several psychological processes not far from mental illness. AGW belief is instead the only possible choice for an open and honest mind "
No, this not true. But unfortunately there is pretty strong evidence some of the people that deny AGW on YA are mentally ill. Generalizing from that is a logical fallacy, though.
EDIT: Sure, I'll comment on more--almost all of them are based on a failure to understand science and logic.
Another EDIT: It doesn't take arrogance to realize that your "statements" are just the ravings of someone that doesn't have actual evidence. If you (or any of your unethical comrades) actually cared, you could make statements that brought up real physical questions with AGW, but you chose not to. Instead you to make silly statements that don't even need to be answered. Look at your next 3 "statements":
2.Higher-than-average temperatures, easily and obviously explained by referring to weather patterns, are instead the fault of AGW
3.AGW is a grave threat to humanity, yet it can take the backseat when AGWers have to score their petty points (such as not sharing their data with the “wrong” people) or need to grab all the money they can (such as when journals hide important public policy articles behind paywalls)
4.Sea-level rates of increase are skyrocketing, yet it is a good investment to buy ocean-view villas
On number 2 you assert a claim that is vague and unsupported. There is nothing to refute because there is nothing substantive in the statement.
On number 3 you whine about paywalls at journals. This has nothing at all to deal with global warming science. Hey, I'd LOVE for paywalls to disappear. Any suggestions? Do you want to raise people's taxes to get rid of paywalls? It's not climate scientists making money from paywalls (probably no one is). On my last paper I paid hundreds of dollars of MY OWN MONEY to the journal.
I would guess on number 4 you were referring to Al Gore, whose home purchase was well above sea level in any global warming scenario. Depending on the coastline topography, you could be many tens of miles inland and be threatened by sea level rise, or you could be very close and not be affected by it. I used to have an office across the street from the ocean, but pretty much all of Antarctica and Greenland could melt and my office would still have been fine.
So the first 4 of your statements are all irrelevant to the truth of global warming. Virtually all of the rest could be taken apart in the same fashion. It doesn't take arrogance to say that--just an interest in truth. I see this time and time again among the deniers in here--you try to throw up everything you can think of, no matter how weak the argument, and think that dozens of poor arguments add up to something--they don't.
And as for physics, I have yet to see anyone in the denial crowd in here that I think could even pass a freshman physics exam.
Your question is illogical. It is not a belief that AGW is true. It is an acceptance of the peer reviewed, scientific evidence that AGW is true. What is illogical is the denial of the evidence just because it does not suit your way of thinking. If you deny the physics involved then all you need to do is to think your way through that brick wall that you are speeding towards at 70mph. Get back to us with the results. were you able to occupy the same space as the brick wall at the same time the brick wall exist there? Science is knowledge and not a belief system.
AGW is logical, it is reality and not believing is simply one shade of ignorance.The 17 warmest years ever globally have been within the last 18 That is no a coincidence, it is proof the planet is warming based on real time temperatures
Zip I don't see a link for this, so you plagiarized it?????
Your point sounds just like Peggy's. Only she's got a PhD in Climatology.
Your question is a Gish gallop full of straw man and ad hominen arguments.
Global Warming is a Religion.
Leftists don't like Christianity, so they've created a new religion: Global Warming.
1.AGW skepticism can be explained by invoking several psychological processes not far from mental illness. AGW belief is instead the only possible choice for an open and honest mind
2.Higher-than-average temperatures, easily and obviously explained by referring to weather patterns, are instead the fault of AGW
3.AGW is a grave threat to humanity, yet it can take the backseat when AGWers have to score their petty points (such as not sharing their data with the “wrong” people) or need to grab all the money they can (such as when journals hide important public policy articles behind paywalls)
4.Sea-level rates of increase are skyrocketing, yet it is a good investment to buy ocean-view villas
5.Flooded Roman-times fishtanks are evidence of AGW, whilst dry Roman-times ports are evidence of plate tectonics or local phenomena
6.Large undersea volcanic eruptions in bowl-shaped Arctic basin have no consequence whatsoever on sea-ice cover on top of them
7.Research indicates one in 8 decades of global warming will show no warming at all, and that decade just happens to be the one we live in
8.Weather features’ power mainly depends on heatand “energy content”, despite plenty of furious tempests and incredibly strong winds in Polar regions
9.Truisms are false unless they are peer-reviewed. Conversely, peer-reviewed flawed arguments are true.
10.Peer-reviewed papers mentioned by the wrong outlets such as the SPPI or Cato Institute automatically lose whatever importance they had
11.Unique among all sciences, climatology develops yet finds no surprise whatsoever, apart from when it’s worse than we thought
12.After centuries of failed predictions, all of a sudden scientists are capable to correctly depict the (climate) future
13.Like every generation before them, contemporary climate researchers claim the world’s weather patterns are changing in an unprecedented way. This time, however, AGW is involved, so it is true
14.Admittedly, natural variability does change the climate, however it can be distinguished from climate change
15.AGW is a solid scientific theory demanding for immediate action, even if nobody has figured out what if anything could ever falsify it
16.AGW is such an important topic, newspapers like “The New York Times” suddenly rediscover how to accept supinely whatever Higher Authorities tell them. Likewise for otherwise-skeptic people such as Phil “The Bad Astronomer” Plait.
AGW is illogical to begin with
