Americas Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

Yet according to the IPCC the CO2 induced warming is only relevant after the 1950's so what cause the warming from 1910?

 

Wasn't the question. Nice attempt at dodging.

 

The earth goes through natural cycles depending on sun spots and the tilt of the earth. 5,000 years ago the Sahara was green and lush, look at it today. Personally, I think mankind has much more to fear from another ice age than any global warming. Mankind can much easier adjust to the warmth. Fighting back those glaciers would be a bear. So what if the bread baskets move north a couple of hundred miles. In the large scope of things, that is pretty irrelevant.

 

Well the current CO2 centric hypothesis is filled with hubris. The agenda was set before the spending on the science, that is why you find little spending on natural variability and why the hiatus took all but the skeptics by surprise.

 

Have you been away lately? They're currently blaming Republicans for ObamaCare.

 

They have not had time to "adjust" the data. Give them a chance... Global Warming will be back!

 

Worse. Most of the measurement stations are now sitting on asphalt, when they originally were sitting in empty fields years before urban and suburban sprawl. So when they do get measured they are off by n-degrees due to the radiating heat off the asphalt and local buildings.

 

So.

Nothing.

 

It's a Fact that the study could be bunk?

 

America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend


If that doesn't prove global warming, what does?

 

As do I. Especially the arrogant ones who claim others are the ones least qualified.

Yep.

 

`
I think we have a winner here.....

 

And/or conservatives, who, in the words of the old Firesign Theatre. "never lie and are always rght"

 

Saw Firesign Theater in concert in the 70's. Firesign and Jimmy Buffett were lead in for Heart.

 

And whenever you hear "science" you reach for your gun, right?

 

I never saw Firesign until just few years ago. It made a LOT more sense when you could see the stage show, but the lack of coherency was what I had always liked about it.

....we'll name it after Nancy"

"You mean pushover?"

 

I chuckle at the folly of 'experts' predicting future calamity with a corpse pile of failed previous predictions. That alone should humble them yet it seems to do the opposite. They can't grasp the complexity and quixotic nature of nonlinear systems.

Science here needs to PREDICT and yet it seems to do so very poorly. And these failures embolden more 'certain' predictions.

 

I am in general agreement but I also think that it's impossible to halt at this point. My theory is that it's always much easier to destroy than to create and this Climate Change fanaticism is designed to destroy along the lines that you delineated. So I think that it's already too late to halt the damage and so one might as well poke fun.

 

Yes I noticed. That's a total giggle; especially since the idiots seem to be serious about it.

 

No it just means we built it in the wrong place.

 

Not at all. The contiguous US represents 1.5% of the globe's surface. It's entirely possible for the globe as a whole to be warming, even while tiny pockets are cooling. In this case, however, the "cooling" is not statistically significant, nor is it climatologically significant, with only 10 years of data.

 

These are the responses to Doran 2009 a poll which asked scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

So what is your evidence that Doran 2009's numbers are incorrect? Until you post such evidence the claim that 9.8/10 climate scientists support AGW is a correct claim.

 

I can't recall anymore after all their flip-flops but was it statistically significant when the first Climate Change scientist began HOWLING about Global Warming or Global Cooling way back when collectively there was only one to ten years of poorly collected and conflicting data? You know, waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when all the Climate Change groupies simultaneously began shrieking about 'settled science' and how all of these (always flip-flopping) announcements from the scientific community were each and every one . . . etched in stone for all of eternity?

 

`
While I have my doubts as to the mathematical models used to hypothesize climate change, I will nonetheless err on the side of caution for the protection of the earths environment.

 

That would be nice and yet it so very often seems to be only when a scientist presents information running contrary to Politically Correct doom and gloom predictions that Climate Change advocates turn all cautious and then pointblank reject the data.