Firstly - the average global temperature goes up and down every year. When you say "why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975" - you are referring to the graph of 5 year average temperatures. Yes - there were some anomolous years in that period, (MannieD has already explained to you about the impact or aerosols in that period) but the question you should be asking is "Why did the global average temperare rise between 1930 and 1980?

As so many people have already pointed out - there are many factors that impact on global climate: sun spots, solar intensity, ENSO, orbital variations, volcanic emissions etc, etc - all potentially having greater impact than anthropgenic emissions - but behind them, the anthropogenic emissions continue to increase and with them, the average global temperature.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

First - it is a lie.

There are not "thousands" of peer-reviewed scientific papers which argue that AGW is not occurring. There are about a dozen at the most. Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter - it simply is not true. Please try to prove me wrong if you wish.

Second - you are absolutely correct that "Science is about free exchange of ideas and finding the truth". Which is why the idea that there is some sort of political pressure suppressing the truth is ludicrous.

It is obvious you are not a scientist and do not understand how science works. A scientist who wants to make a name for himself must publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-review process allows other scientists in the same field to comment on the research. The best way to get a paper published is to challenge some existing orthodoxy - that gives the paper novelty value. If there was any, even the slightest, research carried out that in any way suggested that AGW was not occurring - a paper on that research would be published in an instant, and it's author would become an instant celebrity. This is not happening.

Instead - the only skepticism comes from professional skeptics like Lindzen and Singer. It is no accident that these blokes also just happen to be exactly the same scientists that the tobacco industry trots out for comment on health issues. These guys do not publish research - they only publish opinion in the press.

This idea you and others have tried to imply about some sinister conspiracy suppressing the truth is truly ridiculous - but of course you know that, don't you - otherwise you would have backed up your nonsense with some sort of evidence

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

19,000 credentialed scientists sounds like a consensus to me. The petition can NOT be signed on-line, it must be mailed in.

If this was just about science and the environment that would be one thing, but it's not. It's about an underlying multi-billion dollar commodities business based on CO2 trading. This business serves to make some wealthy, but will be a huge financial burden on the rest of us especially those among us who can least afford it. With that in mind human decency dictates we be certain of the findings that motivate action one way or the other. It is unconscionable to burden the already flagging economy and the people on one theory, based on incomplete evidence, while alternate theory's haven't been dis-proven. History has proven, remember the Global Cooling/New Ice Age scare in the 70's, that philosophy usually ends up in disaster.

Ahh, yes, the MMTS Temperature Sensors. Let's see where THAT data is coming from.



By placing these sensors near AC Units, Human Activity, Parking Lots, and too close to the ground, you tell me, how am I to trust the information coming out of this?

This is what a REAL MMTS sensor SHOULD look like, but they are few and far between.



John Stossel even did a report on how these guys are way off base AND how scientists are being threatened by the ones on the left for trying to speak out. Hell a couple people even had to threaten the IPCC with lawsuits to get off their list of Scientists that "Agree with the consensus" my question is, how many scientists disagree, but are afraid to say anything because the Wacko left doesn't ALLOW dissent. They're basically told, "Shut up, the debate is over".

What gets me is that even after it's been proven again and again and again that the models that all of this is based upon, which is "Carbon Dioxide drives Global Warming", has been proven to be false. You guys still keep going with it. The historical data has shown and SORRY BUT THIS IS IRREFUTABLE, that the climate got warmer FIRST, THEN Carbon Dioxide went up, not the other way around.

Oh and by the way, those nice little graphs you have there, as of April of 2008, we're back to the temperature it was in the 1930's.

__________________
http://www.nosocialism.com
-----------------------------------------------
America is not a Socialist country, this is why the only democrats who ever win, are democrats who SOUND like Republicans (Hello Bill Clinton - Low taxes, Free Trade, Welfare Reform, Era of Big Government Over - Sounds Republican).

Science is being perverted to suit a political agenda. People are too emotionally invested in the idea that they could save the world to think that a dissenting opinion is fantastic or clever.

__________________
People are called "human beings" when somebody is trying to make a moral or emotional appeal to somebody else. Why are dead people not called "human beens"?

My bold.
Those are the tactics used by most of the deniers. Same MO as the Moon Hoax believers and the 911 Truthers. Neither has a clue about science. Their reality comes from blogs. If you read it in a blog it must be true.

BTW, nice response to StW in post #642

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

How is labeleing data "flawed" not a dismissal? If you realy want to understand how modelling is used, read up on how it's done and don't just repeat something you've read in a blog.

"Ruining our economy" was the same argument the right wing used in the 1970's when environmentalists wanted to clean our air and water. "It's a socialist plot to destroy the US" was their mantra. Doesn't have to seem to have hurt us then and I know it won't hurt us now.

Because you and nosocialism are passing on the same misinformation, I'll respond to both of you in one post.
Both of you are conveniently ignoring the satellite data, which confirms the warming evidence of the monitoring stations.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

No - I don't remember the Global Cooling/New Ice Age scare in the 70's. I don't remember it because I was there and it didn't happen. I do recall one article in Time Magazine which gained some notoriety, but that was just the opinion of one journalist making assumptions about the bleeding obvious based on geological time frames - ie. yes - we are heading to a new ice-age eventually, some time in the next 10,000 or so years.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html


Please read this paper (THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
which described a literature review of climate science papers published between 1965 and 1979.

What was found was that in that time there were:

- 7 articles predicting cooling
- 44 predicting warming
- 20 that were neutral

That hardly looks like there was a Global Cooling/New Ice Age scare in the 70's, does it.

Please stop repeating this nonsense.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

I'm sorry - but your baseless opinions are really not worth much.

Do you have any examples of how "Science is being perverted to suit a political agenda"?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Could you show us where it has been proven false that Carbon Dioxide drives Global Warming? Or did you just make that up?

Yes - we know that historically that climate temperature increases have driven Co2 levels. Or as you put it, the historical data has shown and SORRY BUT THIS IS IRREFUTABLE, that the climate got warmer FIRST, THEN Carbon Dioxide went up, not the other way around. Nobody denies that.

But what is this "proof" you claim of Carbon Dioxide driving Global Warming being false?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P