You seem to be missing the point on the ice extent data. The long term trend is down and the one year of data that you cite does not change the trend and it was not "unanticipated". As I pointed out in my last post, you want it both ways. You cling to single bits of data and inconsistencies to prove your point and discount my data if it does not follow a perfect linear path (i.e. cause and effect).
There you go again bringing up the "cooling trend". Despite being asked multiple times for this evidence of a cooling trend, no one has presented a reference. Back in post 93 you stated
For a final answer today, which is it? A cooling trend or a slowing down in warming? Why is 0.11 not significant? If it happens 10 years in a row, would that be significant?
I certainly agree that there has been a slowing in temperature change despite consistent CO2 increases. This does not change the fact that 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began.
You may find this article of interest. http://www.livescience.com/39250-glo...c-cooling.html
There certainly is a chance that some climate feedback mechanism would balance out the effects of increasing CO2 concentration (i.e. negative feedback). Unfortunately, there is also a chance that there will be positive feedback and an acceleration of warming (i.e. tundra thawing methane release, increased water vapor, etc). You seem to want to hedge on some negative feedback loop to solve the problem. If you are wrong, we are screwed (well, at least our children and grandchildren are). I will hedge that we need to change our ways. If I am wrong we will have a market-based approach to control carbon emissions and many new energy and technology innovations for the economy of the future.
The survey you cite is complete junk. You and I could have signed it. It is no more of a valid "survey" than is a Fox or MSNBC online poll. The facts are the facts.
The article you have cited twice is by Mr. Agresti, a conservative blogger. Not a scientist with any expertise in climate. You have not presented one shred of legitimate science ever among all your posts in this thread. Just ramblings from an opinion writer.
You can go along thinking scientists are making all kind of money on this stuff without producing any evidence. You can also keep ignoring the well documented fact that the fossil fuel industries are making record profits and are funding most of the few deniers and the professional skeptics that are out there.
Here is an idea, you posted stuff twice and I refuted it directly. Instead of the baseless accusations you posted in #173, why don't you tell us why the survey you cited twice now has some legitimacy and why the temperature data you copied and pasted makes your case?
Also, while you are at it, please present some evidence that the scientific data, methods, analysis, and peer review process is tainted. I know believing this fits your alternative version of reality, but it sure would be nice if you could also post and explain some actual science to support your position.
Typing slow just for you regards,
Then please do as you say and "FOLLOW THE MONEY" Independent science has overwhelmingly validated global warming. The few studies that deny it are almost universally funded by the Koch Brothers and their cronies
I will now put this question to you. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, scientists put forth a theory of the time requirements for nature to recover as to plant, animal and microbial life, all of which proved to be totally wrong. Time has shown that nature recovered in a far shorter time than predicted. Due to the much higher complexity of global warming, I do believe that all predictions either pro or against, is shear speculation.
This thread itself is in the right place, a political forum and not a scientific forum. It appears to me that those who believe(support) global warming are those who believe in income redistribution and those who don't, reject the idea of global warming.
I don't think I have ever posted on any of the Global Warming threads so, here is my first and last thought on the subject. First, weather patterns change naturally. Second, with the amount of fossil fuels that are burned daily, it has to have an affect on the atmosphere. Now I'm done! ;)