Back in 2011 when the pause in global warming was becoming apparent renowned scintivist Dr. Ben Santer took decisive action to address the issue. He moved the goal posts. Despite the AGW scare taking off in the last 80s after a meager 8 years of warming, in 2011 as the pause became more self evident Santer moved the goal posts to 17 years, double what scintivists had used to establish the scare in 1988. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract Well today the RSS released its October 2013 numbers and field goal is good. The above graph is of global temperature for the last 17 years and the trend is 0, actually ever so slightly negative. Now will this cause scientivists like Santer to rethink their position. Hell no despite them setting the goal posts you will hear cries of cherry picking, and the trend isn't long enough etc. etc. etc. Put facts like this are causing the AGW cult to shrink to just the true believers. The sensus fidelium is wining the day and the scientivists are the rear guard of a retreating army
It seems pretty obvious to me, but why is obama raising global warming taxes? http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=330194
What guy? There is no guy just data. The data is what it is. Science is at its core an attempt to remove human bias. The moment you start stalking about consensus and 95% of scientivists you are removing science and basing your conclusion on human bias. That is the exact opposite of science.
No. I am relying on the fact that almost all other data I read indicates the exact OPPOSITE of what the OP is saying. Why should I believe this data over other data, which has much more supporting history along with it, and directly opposes this? Give me a reason to believe in the data produced by the extreme minority over the majority?
Yes. You see, its about money and when it comes to corruption, academia has been leading the way for industry and politics since man discovered fire. If I want to get a grant to study the mating habits of squirrels, my chances of succeeding are one in a zillion; if I title the study "the study of mating habits of squirrels in relation to the effects of global warming" I'm set for life. It is that simple. That's why you've been seeing all this fabrication of data, cheating, hockey sticks.....and still believe simply because, as your post makes clear, everyone else does. "everyone else" believed Jews were inferior in Germany in 1939....didn't make them right.
I also remember it was Humans that also said that science had proven that bleeding patients was good for dysentery or even the common cold.
But that's not the point. Notice that along Canada's North coast there is no ice. Global warming scientists insist there should be and that the Polar bear population is dependent on it. These are scientists who visit for a month or two now and then. The Inuit who live there say "what snow?", sometimes there is ice, sometimes there is not. And the Polar bear population is thriving, so much so that Inuvit Territory has placed a bounty on them along the Hudson's bay.....it seems they have much more to eat and a much more varied diet when there's less ice. so like with the Obama White House, more ice is proof that there is less ice.
There are 4 data sets. The RSS (remote sensing systems), UAH(university of Alabama Huntsville), CRU(Climate Research Unit), GISS( Goddard Institute for Space Studies). So you argument of some extreme minority is flawed from the beginning as their are only 4. In short your claim is direct evidence that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You also claim that the other data is better which is again false. The RSS is satellite data which is the most accurate we have. Saying that surface records like the GISS and CRU are better than satellite data is like saying that an X-ray is better than and MRI. Its false and ignorant. Nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. While CRU and GISS may be useful for data before the satellite record existed to argue that they they are better than the satellite record for modern times is ignorant at best dishonest at worst.
Typical of the Denialists to try to pass off troposphere (high atmosphere) temps as the entirety of global warming. Sea temps, melting ice, changing, higher nighttime temps are all irrelevant for these guys.
So why have Republicans from George W. Bush to Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney said climate change was real and man-made???
And it was science that once taught absolutely that a new ice age was coming, that the plague was from bad air and that the human race was doomed unless we began sterilizing "inferior races" such as Hispanics, Jews, and Slavs...it was a "scientifically proven" fact called "Eugenics" and was supported by the likes of Henry Ford, Dale Carnegie, Charles Lindbergh and a few others. But this "science" is different....it's "settled" and anyone who disagrees with any aspect, even the length of the date/date/stream, is a rotten, lying, "denialist", traitor in the employ of the evil world destroying oil companies..... Settles, no debate, period, paragraph and if you doubt that you're a denilist.
It keeps my hands from cramping. - - - Updated - - - [video=youtube;Cwqh4wQPoQk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk[/video]
This makes sense to anyone who even remotely understands polar bears. They don't live on solid ice pack. They live and hunt on the ice flows. In the winter when the arctic freezes over they are forced on land to hibernate. More solid ice isn't good for polar bears.
Just to be clear (in case I'm misunderstood) I'm asking liberals why they choose to believe Republicans are being honest when they agree with them. I don't think Bush was lying about WMDs. It's just a reference to something liberals think is a lie.
Polar Bears are excellent swimmers too. [video=youtube;g7rZTZBOrqQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7rZTZBOrqQ[/video]
