The harder the Alarmists try ...

[skierinvermont]

Thank goodness we have kind and helpful people like you protecting us from the meanie deniers...

The truth though is that the title of this thread is perhaps too provocative. Seems that there is too much back and forth.

There is no such thing as too much back and forth. The problem occurs when people stop reading or thinking.

Such as Sunny and Warm refusing to accept CO2 increases are driven by man, despite the fact that the oceans have gained huge quantities of CO2, as has the atmosphere. The only place on earth losing carbon this century is deep underground oil deposits. Nobody denies this. Not taco, not ORH, not WUWT. Any reasonably intelligent person who takes 3 minutes to consider the facts quickly understands that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. Anybody that doesn't understand this should not be taken seriously.

[valkhorn]

Thank goodness we have kind and helpful people like you protecting us from the meanie deniers...

The truth though is that the title of this thread is perhaps too provocative. Seems that there is too much back and forth.

There's going to be back and forth when people don't listen. I've tried telling you several times that we are not undergoing global cooling, but you still keep adhering to that in spite of the data which shows otherwise.

[valkhorn]

This back & forth nonsense is nauseating to the reader & makes everyone look like a bunch of little kids trying to prove they're right when no one on either side can do so. Both sides have some truths that need to be heard; however, the objective reader can't help but notice the exaggeration going on with the AGW crowd. It happens on the natural variation side also by some but I've found that there are actually more open minded folks on the natural variation side while on the AGW side it's "This is it!! Book closed!! No other studies or hypothesis allowed!!" That's what irks me with the AGW side. Anyone that is not on board is considered a non-intellectual retard.

Why do you say in the exact same post that we can't know anything and yet the AGW is automatically wrong?

The truth is the AGW side is very open. Science is very open. If you have contrary evidence, it will be listened to. Unfortunately, it has to be SOLID evidence. Blog posts, straight lines drawn on graphs, misleading and incorrect data, etc. are going to be shaved and sliced away by Occam's razor because that's what science does. Faulty conclusions and faulty data are usually found out and summarily dismissed.

It is not the AGW crowd which is saying "the book's closed", in fact it is the 'skeptics' side. Every time I ask a 'skeptic' what would change their mind, they never mention anything.

What would change your mind?

What would change sunny and warm's mind?

What would change strongbad's mind?

What would change BethesdaWX's mind?

I tell you what would change mine - if the increase in global temperatures could be attrubted to some other natural phenomenon. However, since the CO2 is increasing due to man and isn't being sequestered away, it would be very difficult to shoo the effect away. So at best, it would still be minimized. Now if you showed me another source of CO2 that matched the current isotope ratios, or found out that the Earth started cooling, etc., then I'd be open to that too.

However, it has to be extraordinary evidence, since those are extraordinary claims.

[gracetoyou]

There's going to be back and forth when people don't listen. I've tried telling you several times that we are not undergoing global cooling, but you still keep adhering to that in spite of the data which shows otherwise.

Okay, I'll chime in here. The fact is the temps have leveled off since 1998 & on average there has been neither cooling nor warming since 1998 per peer reviewed paper titled "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008" approved on June 2 of this summer. It begins with the admission:

Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming

between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore, global surface

temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although

temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase

in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1),

combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and

other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators

(2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship

among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface

temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why

the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate

change (4).

[valkhorn]

Okay, I'll chime in here. The fact is the temps have leveled off since 1998 & on average there has been neither cooling nor warming since 1998 per peer reviewed paper titled "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008" approved on June 2 of this summer. It begins with the admission:

Did you read the abstract at all?

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

A few points:

1. They acknowledge man is warming climate
2. The temperatures are only surface temperatures - and do not include atmospheric temperatures
3. The period is only for 1998 to 2008, there has been significant warming since 2008 and before 1998
4. The conclusion is that a declining solar cycle and cycle between La Nina and El Nino OFFSET manmade global warming
5. They also conclude that global temperature records are consistent with our understanding of climate INCLUDING manmade global warming

A clearer picture of surface temperatures is needed:

Notice in the grand scheme of things there are times when the solar cycle drops and creates a minor dip. However, overall over the long term, surface temps are clearly rising.

(Source, NCDC)

You're looking at a paper which discusses a small variation, still acknowledges AGW, and simply states that the recent leveling off is not only CONSISTENT with AGW, but is likely to be only temporary.

Temperatures have been increasing since 2008, so are you sure you know what that paper is saying?

[Sunny and Warm]

There is no such thing as too much back and forth. The problem occurs when people stop reading or thinking.

Such as Sunny and Warm refusing to accept CO2 increases are driven by man, despite the fact that the oceans have gained huge quantities of CO2, as has the atmosphere. The only place on earth losing carbon this century is deep underground oil deposits. Nobody denies this. Not taco, not ORH, not WUWT. Any reasonably intelligent person who takes 3 minutes to consider the facts quickly understands that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. Anybody that doesn't understand this should not be taken seriously.

when have I ever denied that CO2 increases are driven by man? In fact, most CO2 that enters the atmosphere does so though natural means, but man's component is increasing. When have I ever denied that increased CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect? I've said so in this very thread. Where we differ is AGW. I do not believe most of the warming seen is caused by man, but by the sun.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why do you say in the exact same post that we can't know anything and yet the AGW is automatically wrong?

The truth is the AGW side is very open. Science is very open. If you have contrary evidence, it will be listened to. Unfortunately, it has to be SOLID evidence. Blog posts, straight lines drawn on graphs, misleading and incorrect data, etc. are going to be shaved and sliced away by Occam's razor because that's what science does. Faulty conclusions and faulty data are usually found out and summarily dismissed.

It is not the AGW crowd which is saying "the book's closed", in fact it is the 'skeptics' side. Every time I ask a 'skeptic' what would change their mind, they never mention anything.

What would change your mind?

What would change sunny and warm's mind?

What would change strongbad's mind?

What would change BethesdaWX's mind?

I tell you what would change mine - if the increase in global temperatures could be attrubted to some other natural phenomenon. However, since the CO2 is increasing due to man and isn't being sequestered away, it would be very difficult to shoo the effect away. So at best, it would still be minimized. Now if you showed me another source of CO2 that matched the current isotope ratios, or found out that the Earth started cooling, etc., then I'd be open to that too.

However, it has to be extraordinary evidence, since those are extraordinary claims.

I think the problem is that the scientists and politicians lining up to support AGW are contemptuous and money grubbing at best, and sully the entire effort by their behavior. Take Mann for instance. He continue to fight a FOIA request to understand how he came up with his numbers. Why wouldn't a scientist acting in good faith freely give this information up if he didn't have anything to hide? Some of us cannot get by such antics. I'm glad to see some of you can stomach this bahavior. It speaks to your ethics as well.

[Sunny and Warm]

Did you read the abstract at all?

A few points:

1. They acknowledge man is warming climate
2. The temperatures are only surface temperatures - and do not include atmospheric temperatures
3. The period is only for 1998 to 2008, there has been significant warming since 2008 and before 1998
4. The conclusion is that a declining solar cycle and cycle between La Nina and El Nino OFFSET manmade global warming
5. They also conclude that global temperature records are consistent with our understanding of climate INCLUDING manmade global warming

A clearer picture of surface temperatures is needed:

Notice in the grand scheme of things there are times when the solar cycle drops and creates a minor dip. However, overall over the long term, surface temps are clearly rising.

(Source, NCDC)

You're looking at a paper which discusses a small variation, still acknowledges AGW, and simply states that the recent leveling off is not only CONSISTENT with AGW, but is likely to be only temporary.

Temperatures have been increasing since 2008, so are you sure you know what that paper is saying?

temps have been largely within a particular range for 13 years now. Not much of a trend either way. I like how you cherry picked a low in 2008 to then say, "temps have risen significantly since 2008". More shenanigans from the AGW alarmist side.

[LakeEffectKing]

temps have been largely within a particular range for 13 years now. Not much of a trend either way. I like how you cherry picked a low in 2008 to then say, "temps have risen significantly since 2008". More shenanigans from the AGW alarmist side.

When a 3 year trend is warming, it's strong evidence for AGW.....when there is a three year (or 5 yr., or 8 yr....etc...) cooling trend, it's deemed cherry picking, noise, weather (not climate) type hypocritical arguments......it's the new science! Everything is "consistent in an AGW regime!"

[Strongbad]

Some people on these forums lazily suggest that all climate scientists who disagree with AGW being a dominant driver of our climate are not real scientists. While the assertion is most definitely only made by the laziest, I will post a list below of just some of the so called "deniers" and hopefully will put an end to the ridiculous notion that only AGW scientists are real climate scientists:

1. 1973 Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever,

2. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences,

3. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute,

4. Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

5. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

6. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University,

7. William Happer, physicist, Princeton University,

8. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada,

9. Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

There is also a list currently held by the U.S. Congress with over 3,000 scientists who disagree with the notion that AGW is the predominant reason for the past century's warming trend. I respectfully disagree with AGW, but when we hear the believers start trying to discredit and villify all opponents, it just makes AGW look worse to the public.

Source

[WeatherRusty]

When a 3 year trend is warming, it's strong evidence for AGW.....when there is a three year (or 5 yr., or 8 yr....etc...) cooling trend, it's deemed cherry picking, noise, weather (not climate) type hypocritical arguments......it's the new science! Everything is "consistent in an AGW regime!"

It is you who views it that way. A short term trend is NOT indicative of the longer term trend it its embedded in. You should look toward the entire record set. If you do you will notice ups and downs of several years duration which deviate from the general trend. It is fortunate for the skeptics current argument that we have been experiencing a slowdown in the general upward trend, but when viewed as part of the total record the current trend rate has occurred before and is not even the longest duration slowdown in that trend.

[LakeEffectKing]

It is you who views it that way. A short term trend is NOT indicative of the longer term trend it its embedded in. You should look toward the entire record set. If you do you will notice ups and downs of several years duration which deviate from the general trend. It is fortunate for the skeptics current argument that we have been experiencing a slowdown in the general upward trend, but when viewed as part of the total record the current trend rate has occurred before and is not even the longest duration slowdown in that trend.

True, but that also depends on the arbitrarily defined term "total record".....or similarly, "long term"....

BTW, it's not just a "fortunate" fact for us skeptics that there has been a slow down....if the AGW hypothesis and the proposed consequeses have a certain degree of merit, the fact that we have a slow down is "fortunate" for everyone, as it leads to a small increase in the possibility that the warmers are off a bit wrt feedbacks...

But I'm sure for the warmists, that isn't a possibility, and the first (more dire/doom thought) is that it's "worse" because of the "heat in pipeline" line of thinking....

Sooner or later, AGW'ers are going to have quite a conundrum on their hands. The longer we go without finding the decade or so "misssing heat" that currently is dismissed as being "offset by noise, or Nina, or Solar min. or PDO, etc." the more difficult it will be to ascribe such missing heat to those attributes of climate, simply because doing so then inherently demonstrates a higher historical vaule in such attributes that the warmists have tried hard to dismiss as potential major factors for the current (warm) state of our climate.

[PhillipS]

I think the problem is that the scientists and politicians lining up to support AGW are contemptuous and money grubbing at best, and sully the entire effort by their behavior. Take Mann for instance. He continue to fight a FOIA request to understand how he came up with his numbers. Why wouldn't a scientist acting in good faith freely give this information up if he didn't have anything to hide? Some of us cannot get by such antics. I'm glad to see some of you can stomach this bahavior. It speaks to your ethics as well.

Your statement is simply not true. The FOIA is for Mann's emails, not his research notes. It is simply a fishing expedition to harass Mann for his past work. Are you saying that it is unethical for Mann to try to preserve his privacy? And if releasing emails is the ethical thing to do - why haven't Anthony Watts, D'Aleo, the Heartland Institute, CEI and all of the other denialist community released theirs?

[LakeEffectKing]

Your statement is simply not true. The FOIA is for Mann's emails, not his research notes. It is simply a fishing expedition to harass Mann for his past work. Are you saying that it is unethical for Mann to try to preserve his privacy? And if releasing emails is the ethical thing to do - why haven't Anthony Watts, D'Aleo, the Heartland Institute, CEI and all of the other denialist community released theirs?

Subjective biased conjecture.

When the released emails spoke of the potential for "deleting emails", ergo destroying public information, then there should be scrutiny placed on prior, tax payer owned information.

The rest of your post is vitriolic....thus pusillus

[Strongbad]

if releasing emails is the ethical thing to do - why haven't Anthony Watts, D'Aleo, the Heartland Institute, CEI and all of the other denialist community released theirs?

Yeah this really is too easy. Mann, East Anglia, et al. are using Tax Payer dollars, in other words Public resources, to fund their research. This is why they MUST produce their emails. Private operators use private funding and therefore only need to adhere to their clients. What are you trying to say here? Do you honestly think that it does not matter one side is funded by Public money, while the other is not?

[on_wx]

Climate change is still alive and well in Canada. Here in Ontario they are closing coal plants and replacing them with massive wind and solar farms. They've introduced compost to the garbage pickup and here in my Region they reward households once a month who use their green bins, carbon tax is near, communities are rallying together to reduce their carbon footprints with some receiving national media attention, and the school curriculum from elementary through secondary now include classes on climate change and how to make a difference with help from Environment Canada and world class Canadian universities and prominent figures in the fight.

No one is debating the science up this way because we all know its disputed. It's a "who cares about the difference in opinion let's still make change" approach.

[Strongbad]

Climate change is still alive and well in Canada. Here in Ontario they are closing coal plants and replacing them with massive wind and solar farms. They've introduced compost to the garbage pickup and here in my Region they reward households once a month who use their green bins, carbon tax is near, communities are rallying together to reduce their carbon footprints with some receiving national media attention, and the school curriculum from elementary through secondary now include classes on climate change and how to make a difference with help from Environment Canada and world class Canadian universities and prominent figures in the fight.

No one is debating the science up this way because we all know its disputed. It's a "who cares about the difference in opinion let's still make change" approach.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is? A mostly homogenous, white society of non-interventionists is making improvements with their carbon footprints. Canada taking the lead on the environment? When has anybody followed Canada?

[valkhorn]

temps have been largely within a particular range for 13 years now. Not much of a trend either way. I like how you cherry picked a low in 2008 to then say, "temps have risen significantly since 2008". More shenanigans from the AGW alarmist side.

I'm amazed by this statement.

GracetoYou quoted a study that examined surface temps from 1998 to 2008.

I did not 'cherry pick' that date. Even the study said temps had risen since then.

[on_wx]

I'm not sure what the point of this post is? A mostly homogenous, white society of non-interventionists is making improvements with their carbon footprints. Canada taking the lead on the environment? When has anybody followed Canada?

It's just what it is. Every tornado or every freak weather event up here is perceived as a climate change disaster regardless of hard science and history.

Many are spooked by climate change on this end. And Caucasians in Canada are a decreasing majority, projected to become a minority in some 20 years or so.

[valkhorn]

I'm not sure what the point of this post is? A mostly homogenous, white society of non-interventionists is making improvements with their carbon footprints. Canada taking the lead on the environment? When has anybody followed Canada?

I'm not Canadian, but I know people from Canada and this is a really offensive statement.

I won't even begin to touch the thinly veiled racism (what does their racial makeup have anything to do with anything?), but maybe you weren't aware of the fact that most of the US oil comes from Canada. We likely need them more than they need us.

[valkhorn]

It's just what it is. Every tornado or every freak weather event up here is perceived as a climate change disaster regardless of hard science and history.

Many are spooked by climate change on this end. And Caucasians in Canada are a decreasing majority, projected to become a minority in some 20 years or so.

The truth of it is that upper latitudes will see climate change (manmade or natural) first and usually more drastically. In fact, in Siberia, they are dealing with unprecedented levels of permafrost melt and it is causing quite a few problems.

[Strongbad]

I'm not Canadian, but I know people from Canada and this is a really offensive statement.

I won't even begin to touch the thinly veiled racism (what does their racial makeup have anything to do with anything?), but maybe you weren't aware of the fact that most of the US oil comes from Canada. We likely need them more than they need us.

You are accusing me of racism towards Canadians? Haha, whatever works pal.

[valkhorn]

Yeah this really is too easy. Mann, East Anglia, et al. are using Tax Payer dollars, in other words Public resources, to fund their research. This is why they MUST produce their emails. Private operators use private funding and therefore only need to adhere to their clients. What are you trying to say here? Do you honestly think that it does not matter one side is funded by Public money, while the other is not?

Mann and those that work at East Anglia are not very rich.

The Koch Brothers on the other hand are some of the richest people in the world.

Don't bark up the 'follow the money' tree when if you did the denialists would have the scientists beat.

By your logic, then all politicians should release their emails, all contractors who build highways should publicly release emails, and even the CIA should release all of their classified information because it was using public money. Don't forget making the military release all of their emails, including those from the highest generals and all past presidents.

I don't think you have thought your cunning plan all the way through.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm not sure what the point of this post is? A mostly homogenous, white society of non-interventionists is making improvements with their carbon footprints. Canada taking the lead on the environment? When has anybody followed Canada?

The post was a refutation of the inferences to be taken from this threads title. And maybe Canada isn't all that interested in being a leader. Maybe they are doing what is best for their self interest? Your final sentence and overall post is offensive and indicative of a dark side to your character.

[valkhorn]

You are accusing me of racism towards Canadians? Haha, whatever works pal.

When you feel it necessary to call out a countries racial makeup (and you are wrong bout the makeup of Canada) in order to make a point, especially when race has nothing to do with the thread at hand or the topic, then yes I am accusing you of that.

[on_wx]

The truth of it is that upper latitudes will see climate change (manmade or natural) first and usually more drastically. In fact, in Siberia, they are dealing with unprecedented levels of permafrost melt and it is causing quite a few problems.

The territories of Canada are dealing with major environment issues right now. Invasive species are plaguing the north devastating the forests and tundra. The ice shields are depleting opening the northern waters and that has prompted the government to build military bases to strengthen the claim for sovereignty. All I'm trying to say is up here things are progressing and people are rallying for change even though they know the climage change debate is up in the air.

Maybe three years ago bumblebees were first sighted in Iqaluit, Nunavut in recorded history. They are also dealing with progressively warmer summers in the city.

[valkhorn]

Yeah this really is too easy. Mann, East Anglia, et al. are using Tax Payer dollars, in other words Public resources, to fund their research. This is why they MUST produce their emails. Private operators use private funding and therefore only need to adhere to their clients. What are you trying to say here? Do you honestly think that it does not matter one side is funded by Public money, while the other is not?

In other words anything that uses private money can do no evil. Corporations always have the good of the public in mind. Corporations can never do anything wrong.

I've only got a one word response to all of that: "Tobacco"

[valkhorn]

The territories of Canada are dealing with major environment issues right now. Invasive species are plaguing the north devastating the forests and tundra. The ice shields are depleting opening the northern waters and that has prompted the government to build military bases to strengthen the claim for sovereignty. All I'm trying to say is up here things are progressing and people are rallying for change even though they know the climage change debate is up in the air.

Maybe three years ago bumblebees were first sighted in Iqaluit, Nunavut in recorded history. They are also dealing with progressively warmer summers in the city.

The opening up of the northwest passage is particularly troubling if you consider the amount of mining that is done in the NW Territories. Until recently, they were extremely remote and very inaccessible. Yet, those mines are a huge global resource. If they become more accessible then it becomes a national security risk.

[Strongbad]

When you feel it necessary to call out a countries racial makeup (and you are wrong bout the makeup of Canada) in order to make a point, especially when race has nothing to do with the thread at hand or the topic, then yes I am accusing you of that.

Consider what I said (which is true that a mostly homogenous culture like Canada will be more likely to agree over issues than one which harbors more ethnic backgrounds and cultures than all the world's countries combined aka the US.) I am not going to address this further. Pretending to be clever and accusing your opponent of racism is a lazy way of avoiding the point i made.

Anyhow, it is clear that the divide b/w AGW and reality is so great now, that the only chance it can ever be bridged is for one side to be proven unequivocably wrong. I do not anticipate that will be the case, even if the globe happens to Cool over the next few decades.

[Strongbad]

In other words anything that uses private money can do no evil. Corporations always have the good of the public in mind. Corporations can never do anything wrong.

I've only got a one word response to all of that: "Tobacco"

It's easy to not cite anything you accuse your opposition of. Namely being funded primarily by the Tobacco industry and the Koch brothers. Sadly, I have not seen this to be the case for many independent scientists not funded by the Multi-trillion dollar industry that is AGW. To even try comparing one side's funding with the other displays a complete lack of grasp or understanding or reality.