NASA GISS shows 2009 as tied for 2nd warmest year on record

You miss the point completely. Yes, there is a lot that isn't settled in relation to AGW, but the major underpinnings of AGW are not under debate among climatologists.

He has a PhD in meteorology and has been a professor at Scripps since 1979.

 

wow, a PhD w/o a writing course, who'd a thunk?

But, those who are still insistent on this whole 'global warming' farce seem to 'miss the point' on what has been exposed in the last few months and what continues to be exposed as more and more scientists in many fields related to climate come out of the woodwork and speak up. What they are saying has been adding more and more evidence of the scandal, not the opposite. And, at the same time, those scientists who have been blackballed all these years for defending true science are being exonerated in spades. Heck, even Algore is starting to see the handwriting on the wall and is preparing his next gloom and doom scheme.

 

From my earlier link:

Show me your published research and perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, good day!

 

I think they should just say it was the warmest year by at least 5 degrees, I would love to see the data. The credibilty is 0.

 

Sigh.

 

LOL, same reaction.

 

I would be happy and it would be good news if global warming were false. The only agenda I have is to do what I think is best for future generations. Even if there was only a 50-50 chance that I am right, I see no down side to taking the steps needed to reduce CO2 emissions. There is no down side, (except modest policy changes and modest costs now) and the benefits are potentially huge! Cheaper net/net energy, increased national security by reducing dependence on increasingly scarce foreign oil, better world security by making that oil less important in international affairs, potentially huge number of not off shoreable green jobs, both blue and white collar in Renewable energy. The only good news that I see is that technology is still our friend in this. Everyday there are advances that go towards (in small steps) solving the problem(s)

I don't know how the denial community is going to sleep at night in a generation. How will they be able to look their children and grand children in the eye and say, "We weren't 100% sure that it was true, so we thought it must have been false, and we did nothing. We didn't do the hard stuff, we didn't even do the easy stuff, and some of us stood up and deliberately go in the way. We're sorry"

I don't think that "We're sorry" is going to cut it. If you are wrong and I am right, the consequences going forward have the potential to be catastrophic. I hold out he possibility that I may be wrong, but he consequences of being so are slight, and may be non existent. The problem I have with the denial community is that despite considerable evidence confirm global warming, and small bits to deny it, they cannot admit the possibility that they may be wrong, inspite of the consequences. I think that attitude is just selfish

 

1. Please learn to use the "quote" function properly.

2. Please provide examples of this "considerable evidence that confirms global warming" that you say exists.

 

Thank you NvP,

I indeed do not know how to properly use the quote function. I am not by nature a computer person, and it is a victory that I know how to bold. It took me a while to learn that.

I will endeavor to try to learn so I don't risk offending anyone further.

As to your second question, I with all due respect suggest that you open your eyes. Perhaps you could start with trip to the library, or even a google search.

I typed into google "Is global warming real" Here is one answer"
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming]Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I could post thousands.

 

Oh my god tell me you did not just post a link to wikipedia as your "considerable evidence that confirms global warming." Post one peer-reviewed study that conclusively confirms that recent global mean temperatures are outside of what is expected by natural variations alone, ie, that humans are contributing to the accelerated warmth of the earth.

 

You really don't have a sense of humor do you?

Now, tell me about the quote function.

 

I think it's rather telling of your actual knowledge behind the issues judging by the fact that your first two sources were Google and Wikipedia. Yikes. Too bad you were speaking out of your rear about having "considerable evidence that confirms global warming."

 

Of course I know about Scripps, and I know they are a hot-bed of Climate Alarmism, but I was hoping to get the truth in a face-to-face context where they don't have to worry about loosing funding and grants. At any rate, I wasn't able to meet my friend today.

Yes, you forwarded a number of fine links describing ocean acidification. However, I'm skeptical of ones that say "this is solid settled science", it is far from settled!

Please permit me to offer some links offering alternative thoughts:

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/corals/coralreefs.pdf

CO2 Science

Ocean acidification

As you know, Google and Icecap.us are your friends, and there are plenty of additional references.

So don't worry, Drees, there's hope that the FUD of AGW isn't true. As you know, true science is never "settled". Only political science can be settled.

 

NvP,

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother since A, I don't think you will bother to read it, and B, you are going to ridicule it anyway,, but what the heck, I'm bored tonight.

The following is a pretty good summary of the issue published by the nearly controversy free Pew Research Institute. Not only that, they provide some real world suggestions as to cause/effect and solutions

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Complete-Jan09.pdf


While not peer reviewed, (because it is a summary) it does cite a number of peer reviewed studies.

 

Can you save us the trouble, and admit, again, that you were talking out of your rear end when you said that there existed "considerable evidence that confirms global warming"? This is the exact same as your other BS statement that global warming is based on "repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results."

Didn't you recently post that the definition of crazy is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results? Do you think that those of us who actually understand the science (and pseudo-science) are going to magically forget that there is no conclusive evidence of global warming?

You just linked an opinion piece. That is not considerable evidence confirming global warming. So first you start with google, then wikipedia, then some garbage PDF. Yikes. Please just admit you spoke from your rear and lets move on.

 

Once again, the very first sentence is: "The science is clear: climate change is happening, and it is linked directly to human activities that emit greenhouse gases." This first sentence reveals the bias of the rest of the work. Also, references include NOAA, NASA GISS and the IPCC. Thus they are referencing compromised sources as revealed in the Climategate data and subsequent investigations. How can you divine truth from lies?

 

Easy. If it supports global warming its a truth. Otherwise it is a lie.

 

Well actually 28% of the population seem to. You provided the graph. I'm guessing not everyone is all that good with percentages.

I wouldn't mind if 28% of the US population each gave me 25 cents, I'd be a happy man getting money from "no one".

Energy is at 49%, what do you propose we do about energy Mr RP1?
Maybe we can write a book about it.

Actually I just had a thought, the lack of interest in global warming will hit the sales of your book pretty hard hey?

 

You should post links to blogs, much better!