So you guys are really saying the US Govt is actually paying all the climate scientist to lie and fake studies about their science. Is that correct?
Millions that were never before available are now available and fiercely protected by those that benefit from it. You will find that much of the skepticism is published by those that do no longer need to rely on that money.
Without reading a scientific paper or listening to the news, I know the globe is warming. I trust my own sense of touch and feel and I can read a thermometer. I also know that dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't helping to cool the globe.
Yet is hasn't been warming for going on two decades and numerous 'explanations' for it have been posited, 20 to be exact by now.
Two decades is about the period of time that I've noticed the globe warming. From the southwest to the Canadian border, the signs are there for anybody to see. If it ain't man-made, it behooves the right to come up with a supportable alternative explanation.
The right? It behooves the CAGW alarmists to explain the same warming from 1900 to the 1940's before CO2 became the issue (according to the IPCC) and the cooling from the 40's to the 70's.
Whether it was an 'issue' or not, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere was absolutely with us before 1940.
If by 'localized' you mean from Arizona thru Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and up through the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, well then, yes, I have noticed localized warming.
Personally, my favorite 'explanation' is that you don't know what you're talking about, unless +0.06 °C/decade is your idea of "no warming".
According to the IPCC it did not reach any level that would be warming the earth. The dramatic increase in CO2 began in the 50's. So how do you explain the warming that was just as much as now before that?
So, you are an hiatus denier eh? So, how do you explain the cooling from the 40's to the 70's and the actual temperature record showing the hiatus?
I don't deny the hiatus, just it's depth and duration. This one was significantly shorter than the one from the 40's to the 70's, wasn't it? And didn't it actually cool between the 40's and 70's? We've been down this rabbit hole before. Remember how natural variation can temporarily hide long term trends?
Well, well, well, now it is natural variability when the prediction was warming with continued increase in CO2. So which is it really?
The ideas of natural variability and increased warming from CO2 are not mutually exclusive. But if you understood the graph you would know this. Maybe you should go back and see what the predictions really said.
Maybe you should. The Hiatus took the AGW crowd by surprise and now there are 20 different explanations (hypothesis) for it.
I am impressed that you could read and understand all those polls/studies and then dismiss them in six minutes.
Hah, you evidently don't read much. The polls are not polls for one but mistakes like that are typical of true believers who do not looking past the headlines.
I notice that nobody has been able to post any details on any poll that shows that scientists disagree with Global Warming. I guess what we can safely assume is that the more knowledgable you are the more you support that Global Warming is at least partly due to man. People can pick and choose small issues in the overall thesis of global warming but this seems mostly a pastime of people with no science background rather than a problem that is important to scientists in the field. But maybe someone can find a poll of climate/environmental scientists to prove me wrong.
Once you get past the politically popular belief, you find other polls (actual polls and not reviews of abstracts) that do not line up with what is being funded to the tune of hundreds of millions from government. Of course you would know this if you dug a little deeper. http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
So tell me exactly which of those polls/surveys do you think supports your position that a majority of scientists believe human activities are not having an impact on Global Warming? Be specific.
LOL, just as I thought. Anything that is contrary to the political consensus is unreadable for a true believer. Blinders make fools of people.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
