Just notice how things work. We hear that denier's predicitions are not based on science. This omits the other half of the coin. The IPCC does not make predictions either. It is another one of those we do but we don't things. The reports are full of the word "predict" but there is a disclaimer that says they only suggest "scenarios".
If you ever try to pin a scientist down here the replies are always: "We never said that." The IPCC does it by claiming future disasters in headlines but then it will add a get out clause to the footnote of figure 19 on page 1234. Surprisingly (!), most of the people who see the headline never stumble across the footnote so balance is never restored.
If we do get to the situation where they might suggest lower temperatures than sceptics you will find that the goalposts have moved - just as some have done with the pause in global average surface temperature anomalies. They were important for 30 years but now people have spotted the pause it is heat content that really matters. Remember the tropospheric hotspot? That used to be important. Remember the Medieval Warm Period. First we had one, then we didn't now it doesn't really matter.
4. Deny reality completely, is what you denialists are doing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
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, 2013 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
If you want to know how "warmers" think, take a science course.
And we had a 0.8C rise from a 44% increase of carbon dioxide.
Given that I am supposedly the alarmist, how come it is me that actually spells out "carbon dioxide."
A skeptic is willing to change his/her mind when confronted with evidence.
If by "skeptics", you mean deniers, nothing they "predict" is ever based on science, so only an idiot would believe them anyway. You might as well go with a fortune teller or Joe Bastardi.
EDIT: Skeptics care about scientific evidence, deniers don't. Deniers will latch onto anything they feel supports their denial, even if it contradicts something that supported their denial the day before. If you want examples: I am a skeptic, you are a denier.
"as the global warming pause continues or if there is only slight warming over the next few decades"
Both are extremely unlikely.
LMAO yes they do seem to be backing down a lot.
Anyone except 3
Deniers/skeptics predictions or opinions have no credibility
I'm sure the IPCC will continue to decrease climate sensitivity estimates in the future as the global warming pause continues or if there is only slight warming over the next few decades. Do you think we'll ever get to the point where most skepics on YA are predicting higher temps than most alarmists? What types of excuses do you think alarmists will make up if that does happen?
1. Accept reality and pretend they were never an alarmist: "I always said that man made CO2 emissions wouldn't warm the planet that much."
2. Accept reality but continue to fear monger about increased heat: "The temperatures haven't risen as much as I had thought, but that's because it's hiding in the deep ocean and all at once it will get released and fry us to hell."
3. Accept reality completely: "I thought the temperatures would have risen faster. I was wrong."
4. Deny reality completely: "Temperatures have risen faster than anyone has predicted. There has been no pause. The hottest 100 years on instrument record have all occurred within the past 200 years."
