And bigger government. Somebody's gotta police those new policies the legislation created just for this.

Clearly.

So uh, my bad

JD,
We agree on many things but not on some things lol. I implore you to do a little research before quoting that 97% figure. Seriously take a look at how that number was derived truthfully. If anything based on the three questions that were asked and the number of "scientists" that got deleted from the percentage the data should have been 100%! Just look into it please.

It would be strange if we DID agree on EVERYTHING.

Over the last decade or so that climate change has been an issue I have been drawn into countless debates and reviewed as much evidence as I've had time to. At this point I feel there is more than enough consensus on the issue and the onus is on the deniers at this point to prove their case.

Do you disagree that we are putting more CO2 in the air than humans ever have before?

Do you disagree that measurable CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing?

Or do you disagree that this CO2 is causing a warming effect?

The question I always ask to deniers is what would it take to convince you?

Yes, the onus is on the "skeptics" (deniers is a word I associate with the Holocaust - don't use that word as it has severe implications for a lot of people not even involved in this debate) but the warmists do not want to debate it at all. How can anything in science not be debated? That is a question for later though. I will say this: The warmists have not proved that CO2 is heating up the earth. In the last 17 1/2 years the PPM of CO2 has continued to rise. The "heating" has not. So:

Yes, humans have put CO2 into the atmosphere
Yes, the CO2 levels have increased
Yes, I disagree CO2 is the main cause of warming

The climate is extremely complex. The 97% figure of consensus is a farce that is quoted by governments and politicians. It's funny, if that survey had been sent to me I would have agreed! One of the questions was, and I paraphrase, "Is the climate changing?" Of course the climate is changing! It always has and always will!

JD, consensus is NOT proof of anything. That's the problem with this debate. Scientific proof is the only way to settle this debate. When I started this "quest" for knowledge I was not a skeptic or a believer. I was non committal. I did not have enough knowledge to form an opinion either way. I have spent 6 years studying and learning as much as possible and you know what? I know a lot more about the subject but if anything, I am still not convinced either way. What I HAVE learned is this:

"Big Oil" is NOT driving the skeptics. What is? Data. Lots of data.
The "Alarmists" like Gore, Hansen and Mann have fudged a lot of information and data.
Politicians are driving this bus. Not scientists. That's a big red flag.
Severe weather has not gotten worse or "more" severe.
And a lot more but that is the gist.

What started me on this journey was a memory. I was a teenager in the 1970's. I have always had a science bug and I read everything I could about science even back then. The big science news I remember from then was "We are headed for an Ice Age!" Yes, back then the science was telling everyone the history and projections say we are getting colder and will continue to get colder. I remembered that. There was even an article in Time magazine about it and that's where I read the article first.

Now, history has not changed. Ice cores, analysis of gas bubbles and temperature trends have not changed. They still do it the same way now as they did in the 70's and 80's. Computers have changed the way we analyze data, although there were models being generated way back then. Bottom line, we went from believing we were headed for a long cooling period then and now we are headed for a warming trend. Why the change? That is the million dollar question. I really don't know. It could be anything but I will bet you a beer it's politically motivated on a global scale.

Again, I would be a believer if the earth had continued to warm as the CO2 continues to rise. We have not for almost two decades now, even as CO2 has reached that imaginary threshold of 400 ppm temperatures have flattened. Also even when the temps rose they were nowhere near what the models (I only looked at 90 different ones) projected. I would also be a believer if the data presented by the advocates of warming were non biased. The hockey stick? Please. What happened to the Medieval Warm period on the Hockey Stick? Closer to modern times what happened to the 1930's? That was a super hot decade but looking at some of the presented data is is gone! Yes, there is still some good accurate data out there but you have to hunt for it.

So, in reality and after studying this for a long time I am back where I started. I have and never will be convinced either way though by consensus. That is the way to decide if a dress or a color looks good. Not if science is settled.

Why do I get the feeling a whoooole lotta angels now have mullets after going through this thread?

Consensus is how science works. Peer reviewed studies.

I was hoping for some actual information or data. As far as I've read temperatures are rising. Here's a great graph showing ocean temperatures (Considered a more accurate source of data due to their 'thermal mass')


You suggest this is all 'politically motivated'. What is the motivation? evidence?

Again, if you are going to assume political motivation without naming a motive isn't it also reasonable to assume that the oil and gas industry, one of the wealthiest and most powerful groups in the world, could have some interest in the outcome of this debate and perhaps they are the ones motivating the few reports that disagree with the scientific consensus. Personally I find it more likely that a multi billion dollar industry is trying to protect itself than I do that there is some sort of world wide conspiracy involving many of the worlds governments and the majority of the respected scientific community. Conspiring because of some unknown motive.

@-JD- first, let's get a few things straight:
1. I believe that the climate changes. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
2. I believe that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.
3. I still am neither a skeptic nor a warmist, even after a lot of research.


My premise:
The global warming "scare" and debate has morphed into climate change throughout the years. I agree with that, no problem.

The following is what I disagree with:
97% of scientists have reached a consensus the the earth is getting hotter and it is due to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Severe weather is the same as it has always been. Climate change has not made it worse or better.[/B]These are my main points of contention!

Now, a definition: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.

The climate is not the ocean. The ocean temps can influence the climate but it is not the climate. So, posting ocean temp data is great and all but it means nothing. This is about climate. We can debate ocean temps later as that is another whole can of worms.

Temperatures have risen but have stabilized to flat for the past 17 1/2 years.


Here is all the temperature plots from surface and satellites and the trends:


While CO2 has continued to increase.


If you go back several hundred thousand years you can see that temperatures actually rise BEFORE CO2 increases, not the other way around. I don't have a graph of that but if you want one I can get it for you.

So, you can see from the graphs that temperature rise does not follow CO2 rise in the last two decades.

Now, about the climate models. The warmists say temps are going to increase. They have built a lot of very complex models. The problem is they have built the models to fit the past and right now they are not fitting the current real observations:

The green and blue are recorded observations. The black line is the mean of the models. As you can see there are only a few models that even come close. That's a lot of wrong models! Unfortunately these models are the only thing we have to predict the future and so far they are wrong.

Lastly, severe weather has increased due to climate change. Here are some facts:
1. Hurricanes are not increasing in number.
2. Tornadoes are also at historically low levels.
3. Acres burned in North America from lightning strikes (severe thunderstorms) are at historically low levels.

Here is a global chart on tropical storms and hurricanes:


That's all for now.
There are websites out there that have good data but biased analysis. This happens on both sides of the argument. I would equate the "Skeptical Science" website as MSNBC and a website like "Real Science" as Rush Limbaugh. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We both know that statistics can be presented to favor any argument and that's been my problem. Neither side has irrefutable proof. That's why I go to the source whenever possible. Sure, your side claims "consensus" which only means agreement. Here in this post I have shown their models are wrong and their basis for argument, raising CO2 levels, is not valid for the past 17 years or so. So why are they still pushing so hard? I don't know. I do know they won't even debate the skeptics which I find it hard to believe. There are newspapers that won't even print any skeptic's argument! I would love to hear an actual debate from both sides.

The past 17 years could be nothing more than a "pause" before temperatures start to climb again. The warmists could be right. Unfortunately they did not predict this plateau of temperature and the scare tactics they use to inform the masses really pisses me off.

Personally I think the climate is way too complex for us to understand yet. Sunspots, La Nina and El Nino currents and many other things beyond our control and understanding all add up to natural variability, which is what controls the climate. I totally agree we should should be good citizens and watch what we put into the air, ground and sea. But I also think the Warmists should tone it down and continue to work with the other side to get their models and reasons for change better.

What about Milankovitch Cycles? It seems more plausible to me than man made global warming.
We've got this huge firey mass not so far away. At times, we get closer, and at times we get further.
This sphere of nuclear fusion is not regulated like these wonderful CFL bulbs we know are volunforced
to use. It's radiated power increses and diminishes, and it even wobbles in it's rotations.

We being here on earth recieve it's energy even when we are trying to save to polar bears.
We as the surface of the earth, being in it's radiation path absorb somewhere around
3.6490959132063×10 to the 18th power MBtu per year. The earth's total human energy
consumption is approximately 4.7390856015666×10 to the 14th MBtu per year. The rest
of it is reflected back up, and away to be absorbed, or consumed. How much have we changed
it with CO2, how much with asphalt roads, and massive cities? Could we warm it up intentionally,
not as much as a minor shift in our orbit. Could we cool it down? Not as much as a purge of volcanic ash.





The Earth gets hot, the Earth gets cool. Don't like? Stick around for a while,
It will change again(since the Younger Dryas stadial was a while back, anyone interested might want to grab a Snickers).

Ever notice how most models supporting climate change, yes even NASA's, show a period of 60 years or so? No reasonable scientist would accept as fact an assessment using a 0.0000013% sample size.

1engineer, here is an interesting read on how satellite data, and in particular much of the data you cited (UAH, HADcrut4) has been interpolated and what most scientist think are the problems with how they extrapolated that data.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

We are never going to get anywhere with this debate when we can't agree on the basic facts.

I find it funny that some of you guys think that things like sun spots, El Nino or the Milankovitch Cycles are things that real climate scientists haven't considered yet. I also find it extremely suspicious that most of the leading 'skeptic' scientists always seem to have strong ties to right wing american politics. From what I've read your often cited Dr Roy Spencer is also a creationist?


^Well I certainly notice it in the information coming from the skeptics.

To reference the original topic, my family has been hurt by obamacare. Our premium has gone up when it would otherwise have gone down. Next year when our plan terminates and we have to switch to a different plan, we can expect another 20% or greater increase. Affordable Care, my ass.

Of course Jay Carney will tell you that my family is not significant and Harry Reid will tell you I'm a liar. Isn't it funny how these damn politicians tell you what a crisis it is when health insurance is expensive and people are having a hard time getting it, but after they pass a law that further increases the costs and kicks people off of existing plans, we don't matter anymore?

I think this ship has already sailed a few pages back, lol.

But, FWIW, one thing that annoys me about the ACA is that finally the one year I need to set aside a large sum of pre-tax dollars for flex spending (for a massively expensive dental procedure), I can't because it's capped at $2500. So now I end up paying the remaining balance with post-tax dollars.

I don't really follow politics or anything but how on earth does how much of my own pre-tax dollars I put aside matter? I guess the underlying message is that your pre-tax dollars aren't really yours, lol. Affordable care for who?

You are right: We won't solve anything here lol. One thing though: Please don't depend on that website you are quoting all the time. It tells one side of a two sided story. Go to the source when possible because you're smarter than that! Good luck, we will find something else to argue about!