this year begins with no cooling....hotest first five months on record

[mamooth]

kwc57, that's a weird conspiracy theory you just made up, one with zero evidence to back it up. You deniers now have nothing but your fraud, fakery and fudging. You're not even pretending to care about the science. Exactly like the Birther and 9/11 Truther cults, denialism is now only a paranoid conspiracy cult.

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here, not your fellow cultists. We demand evidence, and won't auto-believe your cult's conspiracy theories. All the evidence we see -- and we study it closely -- supports the mainstream science. The evidence also shows that any reputable scientist could double his or her salary by switching sides. But they don't. The reputable scientists take a pay cut in the name of telling the truth.

All the serious money available for the taking is on the denier side. That gives those who don't take that easy denier cash added credibility, and it destroys he credibility of all the deniers who do take that money.

 

[kwc57]

kwc57, that's a weird conspiracy theory you just made up, one with zero evidence to back it up. You deniers now have nothing but your fraud, fakery and fudging. You're not even pretending to care about the science. Exactly like the Birther and 9/11 Truther cults, denialism is now only a paranoid conspiracy cult.

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here, not your fellow cultists. We demand evidence, and won't auto-believe your cult's conspiracy theories. All the evidence we see -- and we study it closely -- supports the mainstream science. The evidence also shows that any reputable scientist could double his or her salary by switching sides. But they don't. The reputable scientists take a pay cut in the name of telling the truth.

All the serious money available for the taking is on the denier side. That gives those who don't take that easy denier cash added credibility, and it destroys he credibility of all the deniers who do take that money.

It has been proven numerous times that the models and data have been manipulated to give the preconceived results desired. That isn't science. But go on, blindly believe on faith because a scientist said it. Do post one last time to the group before you go off the grid into your mud hut with candles. Lead the way, set the example. Get off of your oil fix. Moron.

 

[mamooth]

It has been proven numerous times that the models and data have been manipulated to give the preconceived results desired.

You mean a couple paid shills and party hacks made up that conspiracy theory, and you fell for it. That would account for the laughter.

That isn't science. But go on, blindly believe on faith because a scientist said it. Do post one last time to the group before you go off the grid into your mud hut with candles. Lead the way, set the example. Get off of your oil fix. Moron.

If you want to swear off modern technology and become a cave dweller, don't let any of us stop you. Just don't expect you'll be able to force us to go with you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The year 2015 is set to be a record-breaker, according to NASA’s latest global temperature data. This year’s temperature is 0.71°C (1.3°F) above the long-term average, and the first five months have been the hottest ever recorded.

NASA’s annual temperatures show a slight variation, where some years are cooler than others, but as John Abraham for The Guardian reports, “2015 is so far this year, simply off the chart.” Abraham suggests that the recent record-breaking temperatures put global warming critics in a difficult position—the evidence is simply not on their side. Temperatures for the last 12 months are at record levels. The idea that the rate of global warming is slowing down or ‘paused’ has been thoroughly refuted. Abraham points out that when surface temperatures and ocean heat content are combined, there is a clear pattern of warming increasing.

First Five Months Of 2015 Were The Hottest Ever Recorded IFLScience

You should stick with the flame zone.

I'm just sayin....

 

[Uncensored2008]

did you ask that on the thread about cooling .....i doubt it......why do conservatives hate science

You DO realize that "science" is not based on dogma and falsified data, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

More AGW Believer bedwetting from a 2008 ABC produced news special making predictions for 2015.

FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

ABC News Earth 2100 Note from the Producer - ABC News

'Earth 2100': Note from the Producer

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

 

[mamooth]

You DO realize that "science" is not based on dogma and falsified data, right?

Yes. That's why nearly the entire planet holds you and your denier liars' cult in open contempt.

Sucks to be you. Through decades of persistent fudging, faking and lying, deniers have made themselves into global laughingstocks. Be proud of that title. You earned it.

And no, don't try to correct your bad behavior. The cult says admitting error is not permissible, as only dirty liberal wimps admit errors. Instead, invoke a conspiracy theory about a secret global plot against you, because that worked so well for the Birthers and 9/11 Truthers.

 

[kwc57]

More AGW Believer bedwetting from a 2008 ABC produced news special making predictions for 2015.

FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

ABC News Earth 2100 Note from the Producer - ABC News

'Earth 2100': Note from the Producer

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

So you agree that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and supports a leftist agenda instead of reporting actual news? Thank you for your honesty.

 

[kwc57]

You DO realize that "science" is not based on dogma and falsified data, right?

Yes. That's why nearly the entire planet holds you and your denier liars' cult in open contempt.

Sucks to be you. Through decades of persistent fudging, faking and lying, deniers have made themselves into global laughingstocks. Be proud of that title. You earned it.

And no, don't try to correct your bad behavior. The cult says admitting error is not permissible, as only dirty liberal wimps admit errors. Instead, invoke a conspiracy theory about a secret global plot against you, because that worked so well for the Birthers and 9/11 Truthers.

Is your computer candle powered? How do you do it?

 

[BlindBoo]

More AGW Believer bedwetting from a 2008 ABC produced news special making predictions for 2015.

FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

ABC News Earth 2100 Note from the Producer - ABC News

'Earth 2100': Note from the Producer

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

So you agree that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and supports a leftist agenda instead of reporting actual news? Thank you for your honesty.

All the paid for media news has a profit bias. They will happily scare the shit out of anyone with any agenda if that will lead to a jump in their ratings.

Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations.

Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist.

 

[kwc57]

More AGW Believer bedwetting from a 2008 ABC produced news special making predictions for 2015.

FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

ABC News Earth 2100 Note from the Producer - ABC News

'Earth 2100': Note from the Producer

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

So you agree that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and supports a leftist agenda instead of reporting actual news? Thank you for your honesty.

All the paid for media news has a profit bias. They will happily scare the shit out of anyone with any agenda if that will lead to a jump in their ratings.

Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations.

Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist.

"Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations."

Of course it does. How do you think the global warming message is being communicated?

"Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist."

Who funds the scientists and has the media in their pocket.

Climate change is about controlling people's lives. There is an eminent threat and we may already be at an irreversible tipping point of no return unless you comply and do this, this and this. Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help. Oh and ignore the "deniers" and other scientists who tell you different. They're just knuckle dragging, mouth breathers who believe in fairytales.

You've played nicely into their hands. Real science is always skeptical and continually questioning the conventional wisdom and testing the results. Science is never "settled".

I'm 58 years old. 40 years ago, scientists looking at the models and data said we had a fast approaching, man made ice age coming if we didn't do something. We didn't do anything and it never came. Now we have scientists saying that we have a fast approaching, man made global warming coming that could destroy the Earth as we know it if we don't do something. Given that the climate and the resulting weather has no discernible difference in my life span, pardon me for being skeptical of all the sky is falling rhetoric. I'd bet you a shiny new dime that 20 years from now, the health and state of the climate and weather will have no discernible difference. Call me crazy.

 

[BlindBoo]

ABC News Earth 2100 Note from the Producer - ABC News

'Earth 2100': Note from the Producer

The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world. These notes are just a glimpse of the wide and diverse sources used to develop this program.

It is important to add that not all of the scientists we interviewed would agree with each specific scenario we present, or with our exact time frame. For example, some experts think that the more catastrophic events we depict would be unlikely to happen before the middle of the 22nd century, while others, like Jared Diamond, think that they could happen much sooner.

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

So you agree that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and supports a leftist agenda instead of reporting actual news? Thank you for your honesty.

All the paid for media news has a profit bias. They will happily scare the shit out of anyone with any agenda if that will lead to a jump in their ratings.

Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations.

Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist.

"Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations."

Of course it does. How do you think the global warming message is being communicated?

"Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist."

Who funds the scientists and has the media in their pocket.

Climate change is about controlling people's lives. There is an eminent threat and we may already be at an irreversible tipping point of no return unless you comply and do this, this and this. Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help. Oh and ignore the "deniers" and other scientists who tell you different. They're just knuckle dragging, mouth breathers who believe in fairytales.

You've played nicely into their hands. Real science is always skeptical and continually questioning the conventional wisdom and testing the results. Science is never "settled".

I'm 58 years old. 40 years ago, scientists looking at the models and data said we had a fast approaching, man made ice age coming if we didn't do something. We didn't do anything and it never came. Now we have scientists saying that we have a fast approaching, man made global warming coming that could destroy the Earth as we know it if we don't do something. Given that the climate and the resulting weather has no discernible difference in my life span, pardon me for being skeptical of all the sky is falling rhetoric. I'd bet you a shiny new dime that 20 years from now, the health and state of the climate and weather will have no discernible difference. Call me crazy.

Hyperbole mixed with a healthy dose of truthiness is all you have.

The Time magazine story is very similar to the ABC story you tried to use. It sold a lot of copies but it was not representative of any type of consensus among scientist at the time.

Although there is some cream in the middle.

"Real science is always skeptical and continually questioning the conventional wisdom and testing the results."

There is no completely accurate climate model. The climate models make a prediction and then the real world observations come in and when they don't match, and they hardly every match exactly, scientist have to adjust their models, make predictions and then get more real world observations....

 

[flacaltenn]

who debunked it and its not my graph ....sillie bear

There were several "hockey sticks" and they all used the same deceptive tactic of tacking on the MODERN temperature record (accurate) to a 1000 yr or 10,000 year history derived from tree rings, ice cores and mud bugs that burrowed (sketchy and hard to get a "global" number) NONE of those are thermometers and the data processing that was done to "smooth and filter" those sparsely sampled data points to get a nice looking graph and "global" estimate -----

Never had the time resolution required to REPRODUCE a 50 or 60 yr fast spike like we are seeing now., So the "splicing" of 2 vastly different types of data was done PURPOSELY to make grandiose statements that "OUR CURRENT" warming was "UNPRECEDENTED" in the recent history of the planet.

When in fact ONE author was more honest and actually ADMITTED that the data used in the "flat portion" of the hockey stick would never show less than a couple HUNDRED year spike and that would be atttenuated until the warm period exceeded about 500 or 1000 yrs..

This isn't really hard --- but it's not as simple as saying that something was "debunked"...

 

[Stephanie]

Oh look, to the majority the sky isn't falling. Go bow to your religion of Globull warming AND Scientist you have made into G-ds, if you want. leave the rest of us ALONE

snip;
Only 45 percent of all Americans -- regardless of their political leanings -- believe that the Earth is warming
Poll: Majority of Americans Don’t Believe Human Activity is Causing Earth to Warm

By Sierra Rayne -- Bio and Archives June 18, 2015


poll that examines the ideological divide over global warming in the United States.

Only 45 percent of all Americans—regardless of their political leanings—believe that the Earth is warming and that the warming is caused mainly by human activity. This is a decline from 50 percent in 2006.

The remaining 55 percent either don’t know whether or not the Earth is warming or what is causing the warming, don’t believe the Earth is warming, or believe natural changes are the dominant determinants of any changes in the global climate.

Just 22 percent of Republicans—and only 15 percent of conservative leaning GOP members—believe human activity is causing the Earth to warm, compared to 46 percent of Independents and 64 percent of Democrats.

Among Catholics, 47 percent believe that any warming is caused by human activity, down from 53 percent in 2006. A sharp difference exists between Catholic Republicans (24 percent) and Catholic Democrats (62 percent) on this issue.

By age group, 36 percent of the 65+ cohort believe global warming is caused by humans, increasing slightly to 43 percent for the 50 to 64 age group, 47 percent for the 30 to 49 year olds, and a slim majority (54 percent) for those in the 18 to 29 year old bracket.

all of it here:
Poll Majority of Americans Don t Believe Human Activity is Causing Earth to Warm

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

Roy Spencer PhD

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 5 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27

OK --- show of hands.. Who thinks these NASA satellite temperatures says it's time to panic ---- OR that the first six months of this year are anywhere NEAR exceptional? StrollingBones?

Read the claims carefully.. They ARE more propaganda than science..

 

[Pop23]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

Roy Spencer PhD

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 5 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27

OK --- show of hands.. Who thinks these NASA satellite temperatures says it's time to panic ---- OR that the first six months of this year are anywhere NEAR exceptional? StrollingBones?

Read the claims carefully.. They ARE more propaganda than science..

What was the name of the satellite that took the readings 50 - 100 - 150 years ago? And who's up there running side by side calibrations on the current equipment?

This stuff just cracks me up.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

Roy Spencer PhD

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 5 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27

OK --- show of hands.. Who thinks these NASA satellite temperatures says it's time to panic ---- OR that the first six months of this year are anywhere NEAR exceptional? StrollingBones?

Read the claims carefully.. They ARE more propaganda than science..

What was the name of the satellite that took the readings 50 - 100 - 150 years ago? And who's up there running side by side calibrations on the current equipment?

This stuff just cracks me up.

Should crack you up sometimes. It's that comical how some of these wild claims are made and soaked up by the media.. That satellite data only goes back 45 yrs or so.. Go back 100 and we got great LAND records, Go back 1000 years and you start arguing about how deep in the mud some bug with a shell dug a hole or which tree to use as a thermometer..

 

[Pop23]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

Roy Spencer PhD

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 5 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 1 +0.26 +0.38 +0.14 +0.12
2015 2 +0.16 +0.26 +0.05 -0.07
2015 3 +0.14 +0.23 +0.05 +0.02
2015 4 +0.06 +0.15 -0.02 +0.07
2015 5 +0.27 +0.33 +0.21 +0.27

OK --- show of hands.. Who thinks these NASA satellite temperatures says it's time to panic ---- OR that the first six months of this year are anywhere NEAR exceptional? StrollingBones?

Read the claims carefully.. They ARE more propaganda than science..

What was the name of the satellite that took the readings 50 - 100 - 150 years ago? And who's up there running side by side calibrations on the current equipment?

This stuff just cracks me up.

Should crack you up sometimes. It's that comical how some of these wild claims are made and soaked up by the media.. That satellite data only goes back 45 yrs or so.. Go back 100 and we got great LAND records, Go back 1000 years and you start arguing about how deep in the mud some bug with a shell dug a hole or which tree to use as a thermometer..

Consider how easy it is to throw even moderately sensitive equipment out of calibration, then consider that this equipment is never actually side by side calibrated in any meaningful way if it is at all and ...........

The results are meaningless

 

[kwc57]

"The scenarios in Earth 2100 are not a prediction of what will happen but rather a warning about what might happen. They are based on the work of some of the world's top scientists and experts, as well as peer-reviewed articles from publications around the world."

Soooo, what it says is that we took the work of top scientists and experts and peer reviewed articles and made shit up to scaremonger people into compliance with the left wing's agenda........but please don't construe what we made up based on these scientists, experts and articles as real predictions. BOO! Haha! We got you.

Do they believe those things will happen as a result of global warming or don't they? Did this same producer create any other programs for the news division that took the worst case scenarios and presented them not as predictions, but what could happen? No? Curious people would ask why?

After watching a few minutes of the show, one would have to be reality impaired to believe they were making realistic predictions and not exaggerating simply for ratings. Bringing up that production as a source of facts in a debate about GW reduces your credibility to near zero.

So you agree that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and supports a leftist agenda instead of reporting actual news? Thank you for your honesty.

All the paid for media news has a profit bias. They will happily scare the shit out of anyone with any agenda if that will lead to a jump in their ratings.

Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations.

Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist.

"Has nothing to do with the science behind Climate Modeling or real world observations."

Of course it does. How do you think the global warming message is being communicated?

"Has everything to do with the world of politicians and opportunist."

Who funds the scientists and has the media in their pocket.

Climate change is about controlling people's lives. There is an eminent threat and we may already be at an irreversible tipping point of no return unless you comply and do this, this and this. Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help. Oh and ignore the "deniers" and other scientists who tell you different. They're just knuckle dragging, mouth breathers who believe in fairytales.

You've played nicely into their hands. Real science is always skeptical and continually questioning the conventional wisdom and testing the results. Science is never "settled".

I'm 58 years old. 40 years ago, scientists looking at the models and data said we had a fast approaching, man made ice age coming if we didn't do something. We didn't do anything and it never came. Now we have scientists saying that we have a fast approaching, man made global warming coming that could destroy the Earth as we know it if we don't do something. Given that the climate and the resulting weather has no discernible difference in my life span, pardon me for being skeptical of all the sky is falling rhetoric. I'd bet you a shiny new dime that 20 years from now, the health and state of the climate and weather will have no discernible difference. Call me crazy.

Hyperbole mixed with a healthy dose of truthiness is all you have.

The Time magazine story is very similar to the ABC story you tried to use. It sold a lot of copies but it was not representative of any type of consensus among scientist at the time.

Although there is some cream in the middle.

"Real science is always skeptical and continually questioning the conventional wisdom and testing the results."

There is no completely accurate climate model. The climate models make a prediction and then the real world observations come in and when they don't match, and they hardly every match exactly, scientist have to adjust their models, make predictions and then get more real world observations....

Soooooo.......you're good with changing how the whole world operates based on predictions from inaccurate climate models that constantly have to be adjusted? Really? You're going to give up cars, planes, air conditioning, electricity, etc. based on a best guess? You realize that the world has become much cleaner, more efficient and better feed because of harnessing petroleum don't you? Do you really want to regress 100 years, because that is really where the AGW/green movement wants to take you. As I said, I can tell no discernible difference in climate over the past 60 years and I doubt there will be any discernible difference over the next 60 or longer. I'm not willing to give up advancement on a possibility, but if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, be a man and go all the way.

 

[mamooth]

BTW: If anyone wants to see what NASA claims is the WARMEST six months. It's again not hard if you can read a graph.. NASA is hyperventilating again...

If any wants to see a classic pseudoscience tactic in action, watch flac using the heavily fudged and twiddled satellite data, taken at 14,000 feet, and even regarded by the satellite people as very unreliable, even though the much more reliable surface temperatures are available.

A sure sign you're looking at pseudoscience is when you see someone ignore good data so they can use bad data instead. All deniers do that. The good data contradicts them, so they ignore the good data.