If you are devoted to truth, you should actually be skeptical. Don't be to quick to believe what you see on the internet. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
If global warming even has slowed, which is questionable
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Such a slowdown can easily be explained with from the Asian Brown Cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown...
And the Sun.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
The Asian Brown Cloud and the Sun will not mask global warming forever.
Sagebrush
James Hansen knows a lot more about climate than you do.
And now we know that is the reason why you ridicule James Hansen and the YA realists. But it has one weakness. The opposition only reacts to your advantage when they fail to act rationally. We protect our selves from such reactions by recognizing that ad homenim arguments are irrelevant in science.
The BBC always was one of the most pro-global warming commentators there are.
For them to run and article like this really is significant.
They have turned the usual format upside down in that the headline and opening paragraphs and the photo illustrate how new research suggests global warming apparently isn't such a big deal, then in the last paragraph they acknowledge that there are people in the scientific community with a contrary point of view.
The article states the following, "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly." and "But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C."
They are specifically talking about short term weather variation are it relates to changes in the natural climate due to things such as changing ENSO, PDO and so on. Of course I'm fairly certain that many of the people who are incapable of understanding what they read are going to pounce on this and agree with you. I see Kano has already chimed in with his impressive reading comprehension skills.
Sagebrush: You honestly have to be one of the stupidest people I've come across in a long time. If you READ the article they states that, int he short term, the climate may not warm as much as previously thought but in the long term the trend is unchanged. This is, obviously, because natural oscillatory cycles and such are masking the warming that can be attributed to increase energy retention. Why do you find it so hard to understand what you read? I did not 'quote the IPCC' I quoted the article. How long will it take you to actually attempt to learn something for once? Your usual 'scientific' response to me in the past has been "God will take care of us!"
The link you provided is to HadCRUT3 which leaves out large parts of the poles. Particularly the Arctic. This has been pointed out to you. The reason why measurements are 'adjusted' is because of changing weather stations, changing data types, orbital decay, and so on. If you take the unadjusted format you are measuring the difference between the the changing measured data due to changing stations and real temps. This has been pointed out to you numerous times as well. Yet, for some insane reason, you continue stating the same exact things.
Human Beings 1
Global Warming 0
Suck it weather!
Now I'm thinking in another 15 years they will then say "opps looks like we were wrong about the long range forecast of global warming. It is not going to be anywhere near as hot as what we thought."
There's absolutely nothing in the article you link to which even claims that 'global warming is over' as you state.
In no field of science, climate science included, does a single peer-reviewed Letter to the Editor of Nature lead to either victory or defeat on whatever issue.
You've claimed victory way too soon.
Edit @ Sagebrush:
<
Thanks for confirming once again that you do have problems reading basic English. Let me copy-and-paste what I wrote above:
"...does a single peer-reviewed Letter to the Editor of Nature...".
Edit @ Sage:
<
God, you ARE delusional, you are now also seeing things which are simply not there. I specifically checked whether Nature's Letters to the Editor are peer-reviewed and when I found out that they are, I decided to incorporate this info in my answer.
I am convinced that the journal Nature has an excellent peer-review process which did a thorough peer-review process of this particular letter. That's NOT the issue. My whole point is that single Letters to the Editor on whatever subject, do NOT all of a sudden turn around 60+ years of climate science because that is simply not how science works.
Why don't you just admit that you misread my first answer?
Do you even know the difference between an article and a letter to the editor, which this is Not only that but they are using a mosel and incorporating the lie about no warming in 14 years What a crock of ****
Finally.... Now I can go outside and still be cold!
Come to Oregon and bring a coat.
global warming never happened
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
When you learn to read you will find that being simpleminded does make you knowledgeable.
Take this part of the article to your parents and have them read it to you and explain what the words mean:
>>The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates.<<
======
kano --
Maybe his parents will read the article to you, also.
=======
Sagebrush --
>>Gary F: Alynsky's Rules For Radicals Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.<<
Gary's Rule 5: Ridicule those who deserve it. Scientifically illiterate liars' only weapon is intimidation. They are faux-intellectual bullies; Cowardly Lions who fear knowledge.
CR:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
When you look at this it is 'unadjusted global mean'. Tsk. Tsk. When you have to use 'adjusted figures' to prove your point, I think that constitutes losing the argument, and Devoted it absolutely right.
And you use that tired old worn out hottest years garbage. We have debunked that so many times it is ridiculous for you to even mention it. But if that is all you got, I guess you have to go with it.
Then you even admit that the earth is cooling and blame it on Brown Clouds. Ha! Ha! That is real scientific.
Jeff M is still blaming ENSO. And before that he quotes the IPCC, run by a railroad engineer. Jeff, psst, the IPCC's existence depends on GW being true. No GW and the IPCC goes away. So naturally they will not give up. They like to fly off to conferences at Club Meds and support the local prostitutes on our dime. Just look what they would have to give up.
And I see Andrew has the most intellectual response, but I will wait to see Dork's answer before I finalize that judgement.
I see Gringo is uttering his typical 'not peer reviewed' response. He is a broken record and all that means is that they didn't give his commy buddies a chance to corrupt the article.
Again I point you to wood for trees:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
James Hansen has admitted GW is over. Phil Jones has admitted the same. Mother Earth, herself, has displayed this to you, as the Wood For Trees shows and you intellectuals still cling to your evil agendas. And you fellas still have the guts to call US deniers!
The Earth's temperature has declined and the CO2 level has increased! GAME OVER!
Gary F: Alynsky's Rules For Radicals Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
If you don't want to be referred to as a commy, don't act like one. We see right through you.
>Gary's Rule 5: Ridicule those who deserve it. Scientifically illiterate liars' only weapon is intimidation.> You have to admit, that is not only self serving, it is unintellectual and unscientific. And furthermore, you assume that I am lying, Prove It!
Gringo: Basically the same thing. 1. Not peer reviewed. 2. Not peer reviewed enough. Give it up Gringo, you are losing in the science category.
Don't post ridiculous things. There's no game here to be "won."
Twit!
so many humans so many cars so many factories...I don't think so
No I didn't, because it isn't. You lost.
You would look less foolish if you did not constantly lie
Wow that's a huge U turn I never thought that the BBC would ever air anything that wasn't in favour of climate change.
OMG when the BBC changes their tune, that must be the death of climate change.
It says warming is slowing, but up to now the BBC would never admit that or a pause (big changes)
We haven't won until all the funding has been cut off for this SCAM. The United States alone is pouring about two billion dollars a year into it. When that stops, we've won.
-----------------------
won what...?
