Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has not occurred for 2 decades

a reply to: Cinrad

Are these the same mainstream scientists that are flying to Rome to explain to the Pope why he is so stoopid?

:-)

"you don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with you is and idiot or a criminal"

Do you think maybe this conflict is the result of low self esteem and ego? That sounds like snark, I know...

Do you trust that scientists are experts in other categories? Biology, physics, astrophysics...too many to choose from actually

There is a conflict of interest involved here. A great deal of time, effort and loads of money has gone towards making it possible for you to consider that people are looking down on you, and that you can't trust science

Im not saying we should just burn all the coal and oil on the planet

You're not saying it - but somebody sure is. You trust them more than you trust scientists?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: Cinrad

You seem a little off on this....

The article says...

The near two-decade long "pause" in rising average global surface temperatures was a "distraction" that did not change long term model predictions of a much hotter world this century

www.pressreader.com...

I think the fact that their model did not predict this pause speaks volumes about their 'research'. .

We have imperfect science that models tornados and lightening...and yet they can not predict the next tornado touchdown or lightening strike.

This does not mean that tornados and lightening does not exist.

The demand that scientists must predict phenomena with near term precision or the phenomena does not exist ...has to be the most ignorant and desperate rhetoric surrounding this issue.

Because a weather man can't tell you if it is going to be 73.2 degrees or 75.8 degrees at noon in Miami tomorrow does not mean that they can not do a fair job of predicting the weather. It doesn't mean that weather prediction is a hoax either.

Because a scientist can only narrow a dinosaur fossils age down to a + or - a thousand years...does not mean the dinosaur never existed.

The way in which deniers abuse their own intelligence to continue to follow their commitment to a falsehood is not healthy for either themselves or the country at large.

You have to love conservative Christians. They will believe anything that backs up their personal opinions and nothing that doesn't...

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Cinrad

Are these the same mainstream scientists that are flying to Rome to explain to the Pope why he is so stoopid?

:-)

....

You're not saying it - but somebody sure is. You trust them more than you trust scientists?

Dont know what you are referring to above.

If you trust scientists then you are gullible. Scientists can only study what can be studied in the x number of years they have been studying. Also they are subject to the same personality facets as you are, greed, generosity, avarice, contentment, laziness, over working etc. What I am saying is the there is a camp of loud mouthed, opinionated, doom porning scientists, which the mainstream media like to put a microphone and camera in front of who believe they know everything there is to know about the climate and that they cannot be wrong and everyone who questions them is stupid. There is also money for legislators to make money out of what they were saying, and so they have been encouraged by the people who hand out money. This is not an attitude that should be in science, the universe has a long track record of proving these people wrong. It has already proved their models wrong and only now are they admitting what the data really says. They also are saying that global climate change warming will start again, soon. How soon? Very soon.

originally posted by: Entreri06
You have to love conservative Christians. They will believe anything that backs up their personal opinions and nothing that doesn't...

The same can be said about anthropomorphic global warming proponents.

originally posted by: Indigo5

We have imperfect science that models tornados and lightening...and yet they can not predict the next tornado touchdown or lightening strike.

This does not mean that tornados and lightening does not exist.

The demand that scientists must predict phenomena with near term precision or the phenomena does not exist ...has to be the most ignorant and desperate rhetoric surrounding this issue.

Because a weather man can't tell you if it is going to be 73.2 degrees or 75.8 degrees at noon in Miami tomorrow does not mean that they can not do a fair job of predicting the weather. It doesn't mean that weather prediction is a hoax either.

If a weather man claims to have undeniable evidence that there is major rain coming Saturday, and that all sporting events, carnivals, outings etc. should be cancelled and a collection taken up for the flooding victims that will undeniably happen and that the government should impose a new tax as of today for fixing the damage that will happen and that all local government workers and emergency workers should start sand bagging operations and mobilizing as of now, how would that weather man be viewed when the rain does not eventuate on Saturday?

Now half way through Saturday it is revealed that that weather man owns a sand bag factory and his brother sells fuel to the local government. But it did drizzle a bit in the morning, so maybe he is right and it is still coming. It is then revealed Saturday evening that other weathermen were disputing his interpretation of the data but this weatherman sent threatening emails to them and ridiculed them at the staff meeting on Saturday morning. So Saturday night comes and the rain didn't happen, but he says "trust me folks, it is coming tomorrow, I don't know why it didn't come today but I promise it is coming tomorrow and it is going to piss down". That is where we are now.

a reply to: Cinrad

The same can be said about anthropomorphic global warming proponents.

You mean global warming that looks human or global warming proponents who look human?

a reply to: Phage

Very funny. Was the word meant to anthropogenic? I get my Greek mixed up sometimes.

originally posted by: Cinrad


If you trust scientists then you are gullible. Scientists can only study what can be studied in the x number of years they have been studying. Also they are subject to the same personality facets as you are, greed, generosity, avarice, contentment, laziness, over working etc. What I am saying is the there is a camp of loud mouthed, opinionated, doom porning scientists, which the mainstream media like to put a microphone and camera in front of who believe they know everything there is to know about the climate and that they cannot be wrong and everyone who questions them is stupid.

If you cannot trust the people who actually study this stuff, then who do you trust?

The part a made bold is where you built a strawman. That in no way represents the vast majority of the scientists out there.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

Why not show it instead of asking the question.

Wait...I'm supposed to provide proof for a question? ........................ LOL .....................

You're the one with the maps man..

Imperial evidence you called it.. Really ? I mean REALLY?

What Skep sci calls Impirical evidence is nothing of the sort and everyone who claims to be a scientist should have known that.
Imperical evidence requires that the effect being described co2 being a greenhouse gas ( which it is) has x effect through y mechanism, the only problem with this being impirical evidence is that it's imperical evidence that co2 is a greenhouse gas (which no one denies) it is NOT imperical evidence that co2 causes global temperature increases it is evidence that it COULD not that is DOES.

Didn't you do a science major at all? I mean make your point and believe what you wish but please don't quote skep sci , they are not unbiased in their aims now are they? It's a fact that no-one under 18 years of age has seen or witnessed any global average temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) increases in their lifetime. Sure the last decade was the warmest on record but that is a statistical construct just like if you graphed the growth of a 65 yr old man it would show the last decade he was still the tallest on record...whoop woop big deal.
The issue is the models which are predicated on CAGW theory are diverging from the reality outside the window and the guys who were wailing doom and gloom don't have a scooby do why. This has been the case now on the satellite data sets for over 18 years. The co2 satellites that nasa launched to show co2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere don't actually show that and no-one has a scooby do why. The satellites they launched to monitor sea level rises don't actually show an acceleration and no-one has a scooby do why. The models showed that Antarctica would show a loss of ice but the opposite is occurring and no-one has a scooby do why.

I for one would like to know the answers to these issues and until someone does provide reproducible proof of why these things are or are not happening then I for one remain sceptical as all scientists should be.

One more little thing for your attention. Models are not evidence they are what is referred to in scientific circles as the best guess available. Bring evidence to the party not models.

a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Cinrad

Would love to hear from the people that think this article is backing what the title of the thread says.

Of course the article isn't. The article is trying to spin the facts that they can no longer hide. Pretty much every single AGW prediction has been wrong. How many failed prediction before you take a step back and say okay, maybe we need to take a fresh look at this? Or will you just continue to double down on false failed models?

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Cinrad

Would love to hear from the people that think this article is backing what the title of the thread says.

Of course the article isn't. The article is trying to spin the facts that they can no longer hide. Pretty much every single AGW prediction has been wrong. How many failed prediction before you take a step back and say okay, maybe we need to take a fresh look at this? Or will you just continue to double down on false failed models?

None of your post was true......

The big oil companies point to the wildest of the global warming predictions as proof it's fake. Like all the worlds scientists are in a vast conspiracy to influence American politics, which is ridiculous... The same people have convinced a third of America that ALL the worlds media sources have are in some vast conspiracy to discredit American conservatism, again ridiculous.


All the top scientist's predictions have come true. From the fact that all the hottest years on record have been in the last decade to the stronger storms. As well as countless others.....


I love conspiracies and conspiracy people!! But I will never understand why the conspiracy crowd will completely ignore the real life obvious conspiracy (such as the obvious way the oil lobbies have bought scientists to cast doubt on the real ones) and fall for the garbage they are feeding them?


Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed can see the truth if you watch both sides..

originally posted by: Deharg
Imperial evidence you called it.. Really ? I mean REALLY?

What Skep sci calls Impirical evidence is nothing of the sort and everyone who claims to be a scientist should have known that.
Imperical evidence requires that the effect being described co2 being a greenhouse gas ( which it is) has x effect through y mechanism, the only problem with this being impirical evidence is that it's imperical evidence that co2 is a greenhouse gas (which no one denies) it is NOT imperical evidence that co2 causes global temperature increases it is evidence that it COULD not that is DOES.

Didn't you do a science major at all? I mean make your point and believe what you wish but please don't quote skep sci , they are not unbiased in their aims now are they? It's a fact that no-one under 18 years of age has seen or witnessed any global average temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) increases in their lifetime. Sure the last decade was the warmest on record but that is a statistical construct just like if you graphed the growth of a 65 yr old man it would show the last decade he was still the tallest on record...whoop woop big deal.
The issue is the models which are predicated on CAGW theory are diverging from the reality outside the window and the guys who were wailing doom and gloom don't have a scooby do why. This has been the case now on the satellite data sets for over 18 years. The co2 satellites that nasa launched to show co2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere don't actually show that and no-one has a scooby do why. The satellites they launched to monitor sea level rises don't actually show an acceleration and no-one has a scooby do why. The models showed that Antarctica would show a loss of ice but the opposite is occurring and no-one has a scooby do why.

I for one would like to know the answers to these issues and until someone does provide reproducible proof of why these things are or are not happening then I for one remain sceptical as all scientists should be.

One more little thing for your attention. Models are not evidence they are what is referred to in scientific circles as the best guess available. Bring evidence to the party not models.

a reply to: jrod

What?!?!


Anly the most extreme models have deviated from what is actually happening. All the mainstream ones are pretty dead on.

B: how can you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas but not think enough of it will heat the planet?!?! That is literally the craziest thing I have heard in a week! It's a math issue x parts per million in ANY environment will cause y more heat them without it....


C: the ocean has been absorbing more heat then predicted, but that isn't a deviation.... It's still there and will release . Hopfully before it shuts down the ocean currents conveyor system.




Once again, how do you fall for the BS the oil lobbies are putting out there! That's your conspiracy, a real life one. Same as the lead industry did, same as the Tabacco industry did...

All this good energy wasted by falling for the very people your supposed to be against...

Don't be silly water vapour is the real GHG not co2. Science really isn't your strong suite is it.

Go do some research on what the phrase trace gas means..... Then go do some on infra red adsorption bands , then go so some on the missing tropospheric hot spot (Kevin trenberth)

As for the oceans 1 Argo buoy for roughly every 180,000 cubic km of ocean... Hmmmmm really great coverage eh ....

My god the stupid it hurts.....

a reply to: Deharg

Skeptical science has links to hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers, but I see you write that off as a biased source. Also, I do not rely on models for this, I rely on observations. You are trying to build a strawman with the models argument. The models are not off, you are simply cherry-picking the extremes so you can have a strawman that you can knock down.

I suppose any site or institution that sides with the 97% of the scientists will be written off as biased to those with your mentality.

Here is what I realize, pretty much nothing with change the deniers mind. You guys really believe the scientists are making this up to raise taxes, meanwhile big oil continues to profit, lobby, and even create propaganda that demonizes the environmentalists.

The stupidity en-lies with those who believe the lies and propaganda the oil industry and think tanks like the Heartland Institute come up with, this and ignoring and denying what the vast majority of scientists are saying about this subject.

Incredibly stupid, but we know human stupidity can be considered infinite.

originally posted by: Deharg
Don't be silly water vapour is the real GHG not co2. Science really isn't your strong suite is it.

Go do some research on what the phrase trace gas means..... Then go do some on infra red adsorption bands , then go so some on the missing tropospheric hot spot (Kevin trenberth)

As for the oceans 1 Argo buoy for roughly every 180,000 cubic km of ocean... Hmmmmm really great coverage eh ....

My god the stupid it hurts.....

You really shouldn't call people stupid when you push water vapor as the real GHG. Which makes it sound like it is the GHG responsible for temperature rise. You would think that “skeptics” have discovered something hidden. Or highlighted an important truth that climate science is trying to hide.

Water vapor responds to climate – and therefore influences climate as a feedback. H2O does not lead to thermal runaway to claim it does is either incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous and I am putting that as nicely as I can.

Oh my god.....

Have you even read working group ones report in AR5..... From the total drivel you have written which warrants not one second of thought the answer is obviously no you haven't.

I suggest " as politely as I can" that logical phallacy determination is no more your strong suite than is science.

Water vapour reacts to climate..... Of course it does as does co2. Ever heard of partial pressure perhaps Charles law boyles law.... Le chatelliers principle....Please engage brain before writing anything further.

I do hope you are aware which of the many gases making up our nitrogen oxygen based atmosphere is responsible for radiating excess IR energy out to space....

When replying unless you are a mind reader of extra ordinary skill put no words in my mouth and make no assumptions as to what motivates me. I have been a professional scientist for over 28 years and I look at the science not the ridiculous summary for policy makers. All the BS is in there not the science working groups which by and large make good sense and are clear to those who bother to read them.


What I am saying is that the separation of science and policy has been blurred by politics. And the cost of adaptation to the consequences of the science has been corrupted by the use of low discount rates in the economic models used.

This is all a matter of public record and not my opinion, these are facts. The science is sound it just doesn't necessarily mean what the policy makers have decided it means. As for the 97% consensus give me a break if you read the paper ( I have) you will see the actual number of papers that actually specifically endorse the consensus view is less than 5 so in fact I fall into the 97% not the three.....go figure huh.....

Dear All

A while ago I mentioned the phrase trace gas, for those of a non scientific disposition here is the laymans explanation of the level of co2 in the atmosphere and how it has changed.

Recently announced by the NOAA CO2 concentration is 4 molecules of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace gases. We've gone from around 3 to 4 and only about 3% of that increase is caused by man. In other words, with no temperature rise of significance this should invalidate the theory that increased CO2 means drastic warming.

Add to this the fact that over 35% of that 3% was put there in the last 18 yrs when warming statistically indistinguishable from zero has happened. The so called pause......And was put there by non western nations principally China and India then add in that the U.S. Is actually a carbon sink of huge proportions and so from a scientific perspective there are some questions to ask about policy responses to science don't you think.....?

This is why I ask the questions I ask....it's called logic.....

a reply to: Deharg

Here is the logic:

There has been a 40%+ of CO2 increase since the industrial revolution. That is ~280ppm to 400ppm.

We can estimate how much CO2 is released by burning fossil fuels and guess what? It accounts for the rise of CO2.

That is what we call a smoking gun.

originally posted by: Acatalepsia
There is no global warming. It's also quite difficult to convince someone who lives up north who experiences record breaking lows that seem to break records each year that passes accompanied by long-term severe cold weather.
Also, I guess the massive snow storms on the east coast are most definitely signs of global warming.

Maybe you should come visit Las Vegas, where we just had the hottest winter ever recorded ...in history. I've been here off and on near 20 years and it's definitely hotter. Then perhaps visit the rest of the world. The cold snaps in the Northeast were an anomaly. Most of the rest of the world was hotter than normal. There is plenty of global warming.