To which website are you referring? I've included multiple sources in all my posts. It seemed like the majority of your information was coming from one or two websites. Roy Spencer's argument has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community (at least one journal editor resigned after the backlash from the scientific community in response to his 'study') and, as my post highlighted, even the woodfortrees website you used info from has claimed that skeptics manipulate their data to get the outcomes they desire. If you look at the chart they used and compare to the charts in your post you will notice the 'cherry picking' of data they were talking about.

You sure are quick to dismiss the notion of the sun having anything to do with earth temperature cycles. Seems kinda closed minded since.....that's what controls our planet's temperature.

Your observation of the critics all being right wing goes along with a casual observation of most polarbearsbeswimingologists tend to be far left. I'm sure they wouldn't have an agenda. I mean it's not like they get huge grants or major funding for proliferating theories based on inadequate sample periods.

Can you blame someone for using data from the same period to refute your position? If anything that would give me more cause to be skeptical of your assumptions. If data from even the limited window in which you propose significant changes cannot even be consistent, how can you really believe in such data?

Have you researched the claim of pro-climate change scientists being far left? I'm assuming this claim, as your lieing for grants theory, has no actual evidence to support it.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to. I've never proposed a 'limited window' for significant change. Where have I posted information that has as short a sample period as most of the charts 1engineer posted. Some of them only go back as far as 96.

That aside, the reason you often see information only going back as far as 1978 is that is as far back as we have satellite data. See my previous post for how satellite data was interpolated leading to some incorrect conclusions.


Also this graph and the one below it are showing the same thing. A warming trend.

One hundred years of climate monitoring is judging an Olympic swimming pool based on a drop of water.

How about my graphics posted earlier?


Here's some great reading material from the prodigal son of climate change. Priced a little high, just wait till it comes down a tad more.

Good Luck JD.

Good luck? Good luck with what?

You're obviously a shill for these research scientists to get rich with grant money, bro. Not to mention all the money and power liberals stand to gain from proving man is causing climate change. Those conservatives will be in the poor house in no time!

Some of them will sell their soul, to hell with being good or not.

Al Gore: Supporting Corn-Based Ethanol Subsidies Was A Mistake

"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central
to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying
data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather
than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other
that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data

Huh, this article feels vaguely familiar.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

Good luck with your position is all. I think it's naive to take either side in an argument as complex as this. As I said I have been researching it for 6 years and am still no closer than when I started.
In my previous posts I explained what I thought was wrong with the Warmists argument that CO2 was the cause of warming. You answered with a ocean temp graph. We are talking about climate not water!
In another post I showed how the temperature and CO2 rise was not the same for the past 17 1/2 years. Their models did not show that at all. You responded with a canned quote from a website stating how data could be manipulated. Of course data can be manipulated, that's why it's hard to get any definitive answers out of either side! I even said statistics can be presented any way you want to make either side look bad.
You then washed your hands of @dorton for mentioning the sun. The sun is MOST responsible for our climate...and our life! Don't you think it plays a little part?
Again, the earth has not warmed in the past 17 1/2 years. CO2 has risen in that time. Why? Where is proof? Why even is the earth warming at all? I know it is but why? It's not CO2. The side you picked is making stuff up. The other side is making stuff up. Both sides manipulate data to suit their argument. Why? Because NEITHER SIDE HAS PROOF ON WHY THE CLIMATE DOES WHAT IT DOES. They have speculation, they have consensus but they have no proof. You mentioned skeptics having ties to right wing politics. That's true to a point. just like Warmists having ties to the left wing and green groups. Again, politics and science don't mix. I have noticed that for warmists this has become a cause, or religion. For the skeptics it is just about proving the other side wrong instead of coming up with an alternate explanation.

In any argument as complex as this I don't blindly pledge allegiance to either side. I try to understand as much as I can first and beliefs be damned. And lastly, much of the data I would like to have is behind paywalls so I get it where I can. What I showed in previous posts is what I think is most accurate based on info from both sides of the argument. Believe me, I go to Skeptical Science as much as I go to Watts up With That.
@ndcent I wish it was that simple and I wish one side or the other would quit postulating and show some real proof so we could maybe predict the short term future with some accuracy! Neither side has come close to current observations and that goes for all temperatures and pole data. Hell, the Farmer's Almanac is the closest so far! I'm pretty sure I can go out and sniff the air and wet my finger and hold it up and get as close as the climate scientists on either side so far.

I will say this ....

When I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" I thought it to be a well put together documentary.

But when I encountered serious skeptics and said "well hey lets check the references" and then I went and looked for them ... Al Gore's book (which I didn't buy but did view at Borders) doesn't list any of the major references to back up his points.

Now that doesn't mean that he doesn't have references but it would have added a lot of credibility if they had at least included them in the appendix of the book.

One interesting thing thought is that his movie claimed that climate change was going to change America's weather patterns over next 50 years, effectively making the west into a desert and the north east into a frozen winter land, at least temporarily when the major storms hit.

The movie never claimed it wouldn't snow again despite the jokes on Fox news about this topic.

Kind of a conflicting statement. The graph you posted (the UAH one) which also shows the same info that I posted in a later graph shows a warming trend (the UAH data also showed the least amount of warming compared to all the other satellite data). Not sure why you keep saying that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 17.5 years? Did you read the Royal meteorological society article link I provided earlier as to how that satellite data you posted was misinterpreted?


The point about data being manipulated was that the creator of the website from which you took data has said that people manipulate his data to make it look like what they want (the graphs you posted) and that when you look at ALL the data a warming trend is clear (the first graph you posted that was the same data as the one I posted shortly after). I guess this explains that arbitrary 17.5 years figure you keep mentioning. It makes the data suit your case when you start looking at an arbitrary point in time when it was recently really warm.

Throughout this thread I have provided data and numerous links to relevant articles. I've also demonstrated how the data you have posted was manipulated or biased. You have yet to make any real debate against any of the data I posted except vague statements about trusting certain websites or them being the 'msnbc' of climate change information. You are smarter than that. As a man of science you should know that you have to provide facts to back up such claims.

I would repeat my earlier question: what would it take to convince you? Hypothetically even, what would you consider concrete proof of climate change? To add to that, do you think its possible given our current technology? The phrase 'paralysis by analysis' comes to mind.

This is probably worth watching for everyone as he addresses most of what has been mentioned in this thread: A23A

Climate change research is politically motivated, and those who keep pushing it keep wanting to funnel billions of dollars to "invest" in green energy BS like windmills and solar panels--oddly their friends seem to own the companies that make it.

China and India, oddly enough who have almost 1/2 of the world's population don't give a damn about global warming. So we're only crippling our own economy and industry by adopting all of these idiotic standards.

One or two big volcano blasts can do as much damage as a year of human pollution. Or an asteroid or two.

The elephant in the room is that THERE ARE TOO MANY ****ING PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET AND THEY KEEP ****ING AND MAKING MORE ****ING PEOPLE. You will never get over the hurdle until the human population growth slows down.

Did you know that in the past few years, fertility rates in the US have dropped dramatically? I honestly don't know if that's true worldwide, but it's crazy how much things have changed recently. People are becoming more career oriented, it seems. (FYI I wasn't disagreeing with your point, just something interesting to point out.)

Not even gonna get into the warming debate, although there is a significant difference between global warming vs. climate change. And if you are one of the people who opts to invest in "green energy" tax credits, you might as well take that money and throw it out the window.

Back to the OP, I firmly believe what Thomas Jefferson said to be true. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

What kind of message are we sending to people when we say "You don't have to work"? And then parents wonder why they have a 30 year old boy living in their basement playing Xbox all day because "the economy is tough" and he's "holding out for a management position?" I'm sure everyone would like to make a 6 figure salary with benefits and vacation. But when you stop breastfeeding the kid for a second and realize that those jobs are not just handed out because you're "entitled" to them, it's time to get your hands dirty and dig ditches or do the unthinkable and work at McDonald's. Bust your @$$ if it's for minimum wage or an NFL salary. And I don't care what I do or who knows me, but I will never be too good for any job or look down at someone who works hard at any legal/ethical job.

A few things I wish everyone believed:

-Nobody owes you anything.
-You have to work hard with what you've got.
-Nobody cares about excuses. Sometimes you gotta own it even if someone else should.
-Taking careful, calculated risks is part of life. Hate your job? Take the leap and change.
-

Amen.


Plus, we're more likely to be wiped out by a random solar flare imo.