Fear and loathing in DC

[rushmc 23]

I accept the fact that people are paying attention and know what a farse AWG really has become

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/17/Australia-repeals-its-hated-carbon-tax

Quote

Australia has become the first country in the world to abolish its hated carbon tax - in fulfillment of an electoral "pledge in blood" by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>I accept the fact that people are paying attention

They are indeed. Which is why 97% of scientists (and more than half of the general populace) accepts the basics of AGW.

Of course, some people can't separate politics from science, and thus believe whatever their leaders tell them to. Thus we have the climate change deniers. Short on facts, but very long on ways to misspell Al Gore's name.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I accept the fact that people are paying attention

They are indeed. Which is why 97% of scientists (and more than half of the general populace) accepts the basics of AGW.

Of course, some people can't separate politics from science, and thus believe whatever their leaders tell them to. Thus we have the climate change deniers. Short on facts, but very long on ways to misspell Al Gore's name.

Bogus stat
But then you dont care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I accept the fact that people are paying attention

They are indeed. Which is why 97% of scientists (and more than half of the general populace) accepts the basics of AGW.

Of course, some people can't separate politics from science, and thus believe whatever their leaders tell them to. Thus we have the climate change deniers. Short on facts, but very long on ways to misspell Al Gore's name.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Bogus stat

The 97% has been verified independently. And every Gallup poll done in the past five years shows the same pattern - Americans understand that there is scientific consensus on the topic, and they agree that human pollution is causing global increases in temperatures

From Gallup's summary:
===========
Gallup trends throughout the past decade -- and some stretching back to 1989 -- have shown generally consistent majority support for the idea that global warming is real, that human activities cause it, and that news reports on it are correct, if not underestimated. However, those views have shown significant variability.
============

[billvon 3,116]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[rushmc 23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/03/global-temperature-standstill-lengthens-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months-since-sept-1996-214-months/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Some very interesting facts here

Quote

Key facts about global temperature
•The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
•The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
•The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
•The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
•Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
•The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
•In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
•The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
•In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.
•Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
•The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
•The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
•Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.
•Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the
>mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.

Warmest year on record: 2010

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the
>mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.

Warmest year on record: 2010

Using manipulated data?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Using manipulated data?

No, using the actual data, not the right wing "de-skewed" data.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Using manipulated data?

No, using the actual data, not the right wing "de-skewed" data.

Isn't Hansen one of your heros?

Quote

Climate Depot Response: This is pure politics, not science. The “hottest year” claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA’s James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agencies tasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. “Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.”

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the “hottest year” rankings and Hansen’s admission that it “was not particularly important” which year was declared the “hottest.” “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto,” Maue demanded in a January 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/01/14/oh-my-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-relax-it-is-purely-a-political-statement-even-nasas-hansen-admits-it-is-not-particularly-important-prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Isn't Hansen one of your heros?

No, he's just a scientist. And what he says is accurate - 2010 is the warmest year on record, but only by a few hundredths of a degree.

What this means is the planet is still warming, but more slowly than it was 20 years ago.

(And if 2014 somehow becomes the coldest year on record by only a few hundredths of a degree, I have zero doubt that you would be screaming about how it is "hard proof" that it is the "final nail in the coffin of climate change" for the next ten years.)

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Isn't Hansen one of your heros?

No, he's just a scientist. And what he says is accurate - 2010 is the warmest year on record, but only by a few hundredths of a degree.

What this means is the planet is still warming, but more slowly than it was 20 years ago.

(And if 2014 somehow becomes the coldest year on record by only a few hundredths of a degree, I have zero doubt that you would be screaming about how it is "hard proof" that it is the "final nail in the coffin of climate change" for the next ten years.)

You can have zero doubt if you wish
but you would be wrong

Why?
Because this is a common sense issue to me and a religion to you
There is the difference

But at least on the plus side,you seem to admit 2010 temps do not make any points

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Because this is a common sense issue to me and a religion to you
>There is the difference

RushMC - "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" Not true, but I guess you have faith.

>But at least on the plus side,you seem to admit 2010 temps do not make any points

I didn't say it made any "points." I just said it was the hottest year on record. That's a fact.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Because this is a common sense issue to me and a religion to you
>There is the difference

RushMC - "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" Not true, but I guess you have faith.

>But at least on the plus side,you seem to admit 2010 temps do not make any points

I didn't say it made any "points." I just said it was the hottest year on record. That's a fact.

Ya
This is when it really ended

Quote

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>This is when it really ended . . .

So you're changing your line to: "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1996!"

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>This is when it really ended . . .

So you're changing your line to: "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1996!"

As before I am only posting what others have said but, given current observations over the last 200 plus months, they've got more than you do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>As before I am only posting what others have said but, given current observations
>over the last 200 plus months, they've got more than you do

As I use data that goes back more than 16 years - I am afraid not.

But I guess if you are very careful in picking your data you can make it say whatever you want.

See attached for a great way to do this.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>As before I am only posting what others have said but, given current observations
>over the last 200 plus months, they've got more than you do

As I use data that goes back more than 16 years - I am afraid not.

But I guess if you are very careful in picking your data you can make it say whatever you want.

See attached for a great way to do this.

NASA has been caught manipulating data (and then changed it back)
If you think your data supports your position you must be using pre-caught data

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Which is why 97% of social scientists...

FIFY, billvon. I really think you should stop quoting this. It's been widely debunked now. Too many sources to count. It's unbecoming of someone like yourself, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The 97% has been verified independently.

Please, pretty please, provide your sources for that. I for one would love to see it. Thanks.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

http://www.skepticalscience.com/...nsensus-advanced.htm

This is the "australian study" that looked at abstracts? Debunked. Not keeping my sources on this, but will start.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

No, he's just a scientist.

Have you read any of his papers? He's a salesman. Thank goodness there are real scientists working on this problem. He most certainly is not one of them, IMO.

We are all engines of karma