Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[Tyrannical]

Are there even any "real" qualified scientists studying global warming? The funniest thing about this madness is just how unqualified these so called experts are.

[Pappa]

Are there even any "real" qualified scientists studying global warming? The funniest thing about this madness is just how unqualified these so called experts are.

[Randydeluxe]

Are there even any "real" qualified scientists studying global warming?

No, there are none in the entire world.

That would meet your standards.

Therefore, global warming is a hoax.

[mistermack]

I think that apart from scepticism about the so-called evidence that humans are the cause of warming, and the fact that the Earth hasn't warmed at all for the last ten years plus, the real reason that people aren't worried is that we now have confidence that if warming did actually become a problem, we could fix it.

And they are probably right. A REAL problem would get people moving and there are loads of techniques that could be employed. But nobody's going to bother, when there IS no problem. In fact the tiny bit of current warming is overall a benefit.

It is to me, anyway. I LIKE milder winters.

[mistermack]

Are there even any "real" qualified scientists studying global warming? The funniest thing about this madness is just how unqualified these so called experts are.

Oh they have their degrees.

But what they don't have, and what no branch of science has, is a track history of correctly forecasting the climate.
Climate science is new, unproven, and carried out on computer models that have yet to agree, or forecast anything.

You have thousands of different projects, running thousands of different scenarios. So the next big con will be to claim success in some forecast or other. What they will conveniently forget to mention is all of the wrong forecasts.
For instance, why is nobody pointing out how wrong the models were, ten years ago, when NONE of them forecast no warming for the next ten years.

And WHY didn't they forecast no warming? Because their operators didn't WANT them to.
That's the truth of the matter.

[Warren Dew]

I think that apart from scepticism about the so-called evidence that humans are the cause of warming, and the fact that the Earth hasn't warmed at all for the last ten years plus, the real reason that people aren't worried is that we now have confidence that if warming did actually become a problem, we could fix it.

My understanding is that, while no warming occurred for nearly a decade after 2000, it has started up again since Obama took office.

[Blind groper]

mistermack is presenting a misleading idea.

1998 was a very warm year due to a serious El Nino event. On graphs, temperatures spike up for that year. If you draw a graph from the tip of that spike to average temperatures for 2009, 2010, you get an almost flat line. However, that is seriously dishonest. If you make the graph show the average temperatures since 1998, you get a clear cut increase in temperature.

So the statement that there has been no warming for a decade is not just misleading and wrong, but downright dishonest.

[Warren Dew]

mistermack is presenting a misleading idea.

1998 was a very warm year due to a serious El Nino event. On graphs, temperatures spike up for that year. If you draw a graph from the tip of that spike to average temperatures for 2009, 2010, you get an almost flat line. However, that is seriously dishonest. If you make the graph show the average temperatures since 1998, you get a clear cut increase in temperature.

So the statement that there has been no warming for a decade is not just misleading and wrong, but downright dishonest.

Even if you remove the 1998 data and count, say, 1999-2008, as on the following graph, the best fit is still pretty flat for that decade. If you started in 1998, temperatures wouldn't be flat, they would be declining.



Of course in 1998, global warming alarmists were telling us that 1998 was the beginning of a "hockey stick" of accelerated warming. That clearly hasn't happened. We don't understand this thing as well as the alarmists want us to think we do.

[pErvinalia]

I think we should do nothing about it. Why take the risk that it is man-made?

[macdoc]

Warren you're such a sucker for crap designed for wishful thinking,
You take a peak global atmosphere year 1998 ( El Nino year in the Pacific ) and run a supposed "trend line" and then declare 100 years of established physics wrong....
try some science not a retired weatherman's crap

Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000

The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.

A separate report from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the average temperature for the United States in 2011 as the 23rd warmest year on record.
The global average surface temperature for 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 degrees C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline temperature, researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a statement. The institute's temperature record began in 1880.
The first 11 years of the new century were notably hotter than the middle and late 20th century, according to institute director James Hansen. The only year from the 20th century that was among the top 10 warmest years was 1998.
These high global temperatures come even with the cooling effects of a strong La Nina ocean temperature pattern and low solar activity for the past several years, said Hansen, who has long campaigned against human-spurred climate change.

The NASA statement said the current higher temperatures are largely sustained by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is emitted by various human activities, from coal-fired power plants to fossil-fueled vehicles to human breath.

Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceed 390 parts per million, compared with 285 ppm in 1880 and 315 by 1960, NASA said.

and this is before 2012 which is busting all records.......

There ARE consequences to our energy use - get over your childish denial and get on with mitigating the impact and moving toward a carbon neutral civilization.......AGW deniers are dunderheads of the first water these days......

Fuck just how much more idiotic nonsense will spew from the right....self willed avoidance of pregnancy after being "legitimately" raped the latest morsel of stupidity.....and a goodly proportion think evolution is wrong and the world is 6,000 years old.

What fucking collective bunch of out right idiots.......mass ignorance circa the dark ages.....and my right wing associate from Florida doesn't understand why the US is a laughing stock ....

[mistermack]

mistermack is presenting a misleading idea.

1998 was a very warm year due to a serious El Nino event. On graphs, temperatures spike up for that year. If you draw a graph from the tip of that spike to average temperatures for 2009, 2010, you get an almost flat line. However, that is seriously dishonest. If you make the graph show the average temperatures since 1998, you get a clear cut increase in temperature.

So the statement that there has been no warming for a decade is not just misleading and wrong, but downright dishonest.

Only on a global warming thread could facts be considered downright dishonest.

In 1998 the alarmists didn't pull any punches about how hot the world was going to get. The record 1998 temperature was just the start. Well, the fact is, it was the start of a plateau of steady, non increasing temperatures lasting more than ten years.
Not at all what the alarmists were forecasting at the time with their "models".

[Blind groper]

The problem, mistermack, is that your 'facts' are cherry picked. As macdoc pointed out, if you included 2012 rtemperatures, you would again have a very clear cut rising temperature. Several things happened in the period 1998 to 2010 which permitted deniers to make false claims.
1. A record year in 1998 due to El Nino.
2. A solar cycle of low intensity.
3. Several La Nina (cooling) years in a row.

All these are temporary effects, and are not having much impact any more, which is why 2012 is so warm. And in spite of those three effects, the period 2000 to 2010 actually showed warming - small but still warming. This warming was due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and was sufficient to overcome the temporary cooling effects.

If solar cycles revert to the normal, and if La Nina does not keep repeating (both of which are probable), then it is predictable that the next few years will be even warmer.

[Blind groper]

The problem, mistermack, is that your 'facts' are cherry picked. As macdoc pointed out, if you included 2012 rtemperatures, you would again have a very clear cut rising temperature. Several things happened in the period 1998 to 2010 which permitted deniers to make false claims.
1. A record year in 1998 due to El Nino.
2. A solar cycle of low intensity.
3. Several La Nina (cooling) years in a row.

All these are temporary effects, and are not having much impact any more, which is why 2012 is so warm. And in spite of those three effects, the period 2000 to 2010 actually showed warming - small but still warming. This warming was due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and was sufficient to overcome the temporary cooling effects.

If solar cycles revert to the normal, and if La Nina does not keep repeating (both of which are probable), then it is predictable that the next few years will be even warmer.

[Blind groper]

The problem, mistermack, is that your 'facts' are cherry picked. As macdoc pointed out, if you included 2012 rtemperatures, you would again have a very clear cut rising temperature. Several things happened in the period 1998 to 2010 which permitted deniers to make false claims.
1. A record year in 1998 due to El Nino.
2. A solar cycle of low intensity.
3. Several La Nina (cooling) years in a row.

All these are temporary effects, and are not having much impact any more, which is why 2012 is so warm. And in spite of those three effects, the period 2000 to 2010 actually showed warming - small but still warming. This warming was due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and was sufficient to overcome the temporary cooling effects.

If solar cycles revert to the normal, and if La Nina does not keep repeating (both of which are probable), then it is predictable that the next few years will be even warmer.

[Blind groper]

The problem, mistermack, is that your 'facts' are cherry picked. As macdoc pointed out, if you included 2012 rtemperatures, you would again have a very clear cut rising temperature. Several things happened in the period 1998 to 2010 which permitted deniers to make false claims.
1. A record year in 1998 due to El Nino.
2. A solar cycle of low intensity.
3. Several La Nina (cooling) years in a row.

All these are temporary effects, and are not having much impact any more, which is why 2012 is so warm. And in spite of those three effects, the period 2000 to 2010 actually showed warming - small but still warming. This warming was due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and was sufficient to overcome the temporary cooling effects.

If solar cycles revert to the normal, and if La Nina does not keep repeating (both of which are probable), then it is predictable that the next few years will be even warmer.