Slashdot Mirror

As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.

Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?

The problem for me is that a lot of denialist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies to get people to deny climate change. So much of the denialist FUD looks like a power grab by fossil energy companies to give to pet politicians and astroturfing organisations to funnel the money back to their coffers.

FTFY

The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.

Turns out that this is not true. Not that it matters. To avoid "significant negative impacts" to the global economy and environment from climate change, we need to restrict the change to a maximum of 2-2.5 degrees from pre industrial baseline. We have already observed a change of approximately 1 degree. Which means we are halfway there already. It doesn't take anything other than high school maths to figure that we need to do something, and right now. The models are certainly useful, in predicting a large number of parameters (sea level, glacial behaviours, changes in weather patterns, etc.) they will help us save money by highlighting areas where we can mitigate against the effects of climate change. But they don't really contribute to proving the underlying hypothesis - that happened long ago.

it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now

No, he didn't. https://www.skepticalscience.c...

The polar caps have melted and come back many times.

But not many times this has happened over a few decades. http://www.skepticalscience.co... while millions of people were living in coastal zone cities.

Yes, science is a bitch: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

That is also pointless. We also know that over the extended record, CO2 follows temperature

Wrong:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.

AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface.

You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways):

1. The Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) is a theoretical expectation of both natural and anthropogenic warming scenarios so it's not a key signature of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's also an expected result of natural global warming (for example from an increase in solar radiance).
2. Both the Satellite and balloon data both show actually do show warming in the TLT.
3. One satellite set (UAH) shows slower warming than the balloons and other satellite sets, your argument is based on assuming the outlier is the accurate data set. This runs contrary to all logic and any rational application of the scientific method.
4. There are identified (and uncorrected) errors in the UAH data set that biases towards colder temperatures.

The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.

Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.

Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2.

Actually the IPCC says between 1.5 and 4.5.

This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified.

Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.

The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.

Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it, that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.

LIke all conspiracy theorists I expect your defence will involve the evidence being part of the conspiracy. Have fun down that rabbit hole.

Rather than looking at individual years like 1998 or 2015 (soon to be 2016) it makes more sense climatologically to look at long term trends. Here is a graph showing El Nino, ENSO neutral and La Nina years from 1967 to 2011 and the temperature trends. The trend for all 3 categories have a similar upward trend. Since ENSO is not something creates heat but merely moves it around in the Earth's system it can't be the source of increasing temperatures. So arguing about El Nino this or La Nina that doesn't mean a thing. It's the long term trends that matter. The 2015/2016 El Nino is warmer than the 1997/1998 El Nino because the long term upward trend in temperatures that scientist tell us is mostly due to anthropogenic induced increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Solar in 2015 was 0.95% of total US generation in 2015

When you start from nothing and throw ten billion tax dollars at it, you can do that.

At current growth rates Solar is projected to be 5% of the power grid by 2020 and nearly 15% by 2030.

We shall see, but I think someone is smoking crack. The chances of either number happening are zero in my opinion.

Solar comprises 30% of the power grid in Hawaii right now.

Hawaii is a special case and doesn't carry over to the 48 states. They have extremely stable weather, a ton of sun, and sky-high power prices due to being the most remote islands on Earth. About 32 cents per KWh, compared to less than 12 cents for the lower 48 states.

And it isn't as good as you think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

There are significant portions of Texas where power after 9pm is free due to the excess wind production. With periods of free power there will be lots of companies that spring up and use that power to generate hydrogen that they reconvert to power with a fuel cell to fill in the lows.

Call me when that happens. There are many reasons why the above is happening in Texas, it would be rather hard to build a business depending on it for the next 20 years. You're confusing the issue of something being *technically* possible with it being politically possible and reasonable from an economic point of view.

ROI rates are so high most of the companies investing in solar are turning down investment money because they can't possibly spend it. Last round of construction bonding Solar city went after they turned down over $200 million. You would know this if you followed the market as it's been the talk of the market energy discussions for 4 years now.

That is because there are caps and limits on the Dept of Energy incentive programs to fund and subsidize solar. They don't want to install more than they'll get paid to install. I've looked at investing in solar. It has a nice ROI if you assume the government gravy train will never end, but it falls apart otherwise.

Maybe you should study current rates and market trends.

I have, more than you know. Countries like Denmark and Germany are spending huge sums to accomplish things that look impressive in their own nations, but would never scale to the world. And the changes they make don't actually solve anything, since we all live on the same planet.

Frankly, I find most of the "wind and solar will save us all" people to be rather delusional when it comes to the future of this stuff. You're ignoring a number of non-technical reasons why your numbers won't happen.

Example:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

That is a perfect case study in why it WON'T happen. First, it assumes that we'll hit the target by cutting our energy consumption in HALF, even after accounting for a growing population. It also assumes that by 2050 we'll replace all cars with EVs. Except, that will be nearly impossible unless people have the money to buy a lot of cars, since we'll have to end all gas car production in the next 5 years otherwise. It would take, at current car production rates, 27 years to replace all the gas cars in the world with EVs.

It then also requires and assumes that all the natural gas used to heat homes, power cooking and cleaning, will all get replaced. So somehow there will be money to replace a billion expensive durable goods that use oil/gas/etc. in the next 25 years.

Allow me to quote:

"Accomplishing all of this will require a major effort, but Ecofys has a number of suggestions how we can start:
Introduce minimum efficiency

Earth's climate has never been particularly stable

The stability of the last 10,000 years birthed civilization : http://www.skepticalscience.co...

That doesn't mean we can count on that to continue. We know the entire planet has been covered in ice, and we know it's been much hotter than it is. We also know that it has changed very rapidly (much faster than what we're seeing now). We're probably capable of putting up with whatever it does without destroying civilization, but sufficiently large changes could be really hard to adapt to. Instead, we should stabilize it.

Well if we are using blogs as reputable sources of facts then... http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.

Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.

And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."

Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:

http://rankexploits.com/musing...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://reallysciency.blogspot....

https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...

We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...

Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.

Earth's climate has never been particularly stable

The stability of the last 10,000 years birthed civilization : http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Satellites have already been in use for decades, and show sea level rise on the high side of projections: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

This is slashdot, it's ok to change your mind based on new evidence

Roy Spencer is indeed a "climate scientist" and a specialist in creating misleading graphs and statements about that particular set of sattelite data (UAH lower troposhpere temps). He is well known as a religiously motivated climate denier and is quite likely the author of the red-herring you just posted. I have used scare quotes on the phrase "climate scientist" because IMO someone who signs the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming just doesn't have the skill set that Science requires.

Funny how our CO2 levels are about 1/6th that of the time of the Jurassic -- when insects, fish, sharks, crustaceans, and alligators were all doing just fine and haven't really changed since then, thank you very much.

Animals existed then, and animals exist now, and they will exist past the worst-case of man-made global warming. That doesn't mean they exist in the same quantity etc.. We want the Earth to support human civilization that is at least as good as it is now, not any old ecosystem that happens to include of alligators and sharks.

There have been no repeatable experiments that show that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Attributing all change to AGW, and then screaming that it's going to cause all future change is just stupid. You'd defend an idiot saying "Gold is running out due to Global Warming" just because he said "Global Warming" caused something. Face it. You're a brainwashed fucking zombie at this point.

Have you ever heard of the concept of a strawman argument? That's this paragraph. Here, we're attributing the fastest sea level rise in at least 2800 years to a global average temperature increases, which, btw, have been observed, and calculates that the expected rise matches observations. If sea levels didn't rise, you'd have to explain how the addition of water from previously-land-based glaciers like the greenland ice-sheet, as well as thermal expansion of water, didn't cause a rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

This climate change is caused almost entirely by the sun and the oceans.

But this isn't borne out by evidence. The sun has cooled very slightly, but the temperature has spiked up: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

The oceans absorb and release carbon dioxide in direct proportion to atmospheric carbon dioxide. They essentially function to reduce the impact of atmospheric CO2 changes that would otherwise happen, in either direction. The ocean doesn't just burp out CO2 on a whim.

Every reputable expert on geologic evidence I can find suggest that geologic evidence actually indicates that current climate change is overwhelmingly from human activity, and unusually rapid. There will of course be error bars and overall trendlines from natural sources as well, although it's not even clear that trendline runs in the same direction as current climate change.

-the effect of el nino on the GLOBAL AVERAGE is tiny. even with el nino it still would have been the hottest year.
http://www.slate.com/content/d...

-the urban heat island effect isn't a factor. IE, remove all urban stations from the data and the trend still remains the same.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

-your continual pointing to the RSS satellites show only that you are ignorant of what that data is and what it is capable of showing, let alone its relation to the overall picture from all the data.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

-the corrections actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data, by ~20%.

-there are no observations which "falsify AGW all the time". there are only cranks like yourself who misinterpret the data (deliberately) in order to spread misinformation.

-the effect of el nino on the GLOBAL AVERAGE is tiny. even with el nino it still would have been the hottest year.
http://www.slate.com/content/d...

-the urban heat island effect isn't a factor. IE, remove all urban stations from the data and the trend still remains the same.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

-your continual pointing to the RSS satellites show only that you are ignorant of what that data is and what it is capable of showing, let alone its relation to the overall picture from all the data.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

-the corrections actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data, by ~20%.

-there are no observations which "falsify AGW all the time". there are only cranks like yourself who misinterpret the data (deliberately) in order to spread misinformation.

Nope, its not the Urban Heat Island effect: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend; the trend is the same for both urban and rural groups over any of the periods. Even in the case of developing urban areas, when averaged out over large areas, urban heat island has little impact on the warming trend.

IE, if you exclude all the urban data from graph, it doesn't change it. It still shows the same trend.

That's why it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about either topic. Fortunately, for evolution there is the talk.origins FAQ, where all the arguments against evolution are taken seriously and debunked carefully without calling anyone an idiot. For global warming there's no such resource - mostly because no one is actually interested in the topic, other than as a tribal identifier.

I'd have to say that the arguments page from Skeptical Science does a pretty good job of debunking arguments against anthropogenic global warming.

Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.

In cosmology and astrophysics getting a result that is within a few orders of magnitude is considered "accurate". In archeology a radioactive dating result with 10% is considered a "good result". Science isn't all about measuring the width of a proton, other than particle physics, there are actually very few scientific fields that "demand" eight decimal places of accuracy.

The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money. If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting. There are lists of rebuttals to these fake critiques on the web, skepticalscience is one of the better ones, I'm sure you will find a few of your favorite talking points torn to shreds on that page..

Myth: The predictions/models are always wrong.

Reality: Global surface temperature measurements fall within the range of IPCC projections. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

You seem to lack understanding of the relativeness or kinds of wrong.

IE, you seem to equate "wrong" with anything less than 100% accuracy and precision.
That's not how science works, particularly data driven science. A key concept here is the meanings of Precision and Accuracy, which are not the same thing:
http://withfriendship.com/imag...

You can be completely wrong (or 'not even wrong'): "gravity is from unicorn farts!"
You can be partly wrong but still on the right track: "we predicted of rise of 0.5, but found only 0.4"
You can be right, but for the wrong reason: "we predicted a rise of 0.5 because unicorn farts, but it turned out to be from CO2"
You can be totally right and have the perfect outcome.

You appear to only recognize last possibility, and demand that anything else be discarded out of hand.
But that isn't reality or proper scientific understanding.

Posts such as yours are not insightful, nor does it show any actual understanding of what takes place, let alone is it all reflective of reality and what the scientists have actually been doing.

I guess in summary what I mean is: you're an idiot.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://www.latimes.com/science...
http://climatenexus.org/debunk...

Myth: The predictions/models are always wrong.

Reality: Global surface temperature measurements fall within the range of IPCC projections. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

You seem to lack understanding of the relativeness or kinds of wrong.

IE, you seem to equate "wrong" with anything less than 100% accuracy and precision.
That's not how science works, particularly data driven science. A key concept here is the meanings of Precision and Accuracy, which are not the same thing:
http://withfriendship.com/imag...

You can be completely wrong (or 'not even wrong'): "gravity is from unicorn farts!"
You can be partly wrong but still on the right track: "we predicted of rise of 0.5, but found only 0.4"
You can be right, but for the wrong reason: "we predicted a rise of 0.5 because unicorn farts, but it turned out to be from CO2"
You can be totally right and have the perfect outcome.

You appear to only recognize last possibility, and demand that anything else be discarded out of hand.
But that isn't reality or proper scientific understanding.

Posts such as yours are not insightful, nor does it show any actual understanding of what takes place, let alone is it all reflective of reality and what the scientists have actually been doing.

I guess in summary what I mean is: you're an idiot.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://www.latimes.com/science...
http://climatenexus.org/debunk...

With solar 6x the cost of standard electricity, you're just shifting (and increasing) pollution further down the supply chain.

I think that logic only makes sense if you're looking at prices that include all of the externalized costs of the generated power, rather than just the direct costs. Otherwise, for example coal-based electricity seems cheaper but actually isn't, because the nominal price does not include the expenses incurred by the resulting pollution.

Here are the adjustments on satellite data: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Here is a graph (similar to the one you presented) showing CO2/temperature correlation over 400k years: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

1) Notice how the CO2 never goes over 300ppm.

Now here is a graph of what CO2 levels are doing today: http://photos1.blogger.com/blo...

2) Notice how the CO2 has shot way past 300ppm and is still climbing to the fucking moon.

Now please explain again why there's no difference between today and the historical "spikes"?

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.

So are you saying that the claim by the AC about people cherry picking 1998 today is false because no one cherry picks 1998 anymore?

Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.

Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.

Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all?

I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.

Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?

I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point. I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.

You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".

The article on that site is 8 years old. Notice the first comment at the bottom is from 2007. So, eight years ago one person was shown to use 1998 as the starting point.

Except, wait a second. The claim being disputed is specifically warming for the years 1998 to 2005. It seems there was some significance for those dates. Since 1998 was a strong El Nino year, I wonder if 2005 was another. Looking around the net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., it seems almost every year from 2002 to 2010 was either going into or coming out of El Nino conditions. Let's look further.

Here's a link, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear..., that says those two years were tied for the warmest up until then. So, hey, a valid reason to compare temperate in 2005 with 1998. The conclusions of the comparison may be wrong, or the refutations of those conclusions may be faulty. But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.

Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.

Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all? Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".

Volcanoes (http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html)

We already know that humans create, on average, orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism.

Termite mounds generating methane gas (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html)

Not even close to what we are releasing by fracking, then storing it under Los Angeles, then letting it leak out.

Penguins pooping on the Antarctica ice sheets

A rounding error.

Evil climate heaters at the Trilateral Commission

hee hee

Tarps used by the UN that absorb sunlight too well

The story doesn't actually say anything about tarps that absorb sunlight too well — and the UN tarps are highly reflective.

Meteorites and asteroids polluting the atmosphere

Rounding error

Ancient Romans

...were making a lot of concrete. We're making a lot more. Nobody claimed that AGW didn't start a long time ago. The claim is that it's increased by orders of magnitude. Straw man.

People against increased food supplies

Only total fucking idiots who don't understand plants think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to be beneficial to them. It isn't. The maximum amount of CO2 they can use is tied directly to their maximum rate of photosynthesis, which is in turn capped by the number of photons they can receive in any given period of time without being damaged by ultraviolet radiation. As atmospheric pollution actually harms the ozone layer that filters UV, what it does is reduce the amount of CO2 that plants are capable of using. When most any plant gets over about 100 degrees, it "shuts down"; its stoma close, for example, which renders it unable to respirate. You know nothing about plants.

Aliens who are causing the sun to heat up [...] (except for the aliens part)

You must be a fucking alien. Go back to the planet of the chucklefucks and let us be.

From one AC to another:

Denialist research [wattsupwiththat.com]
If this is what you consider research, then I would tend to agree with the label denialist. The link provided is to a very short essay (read opinion piece) of one part of a presentation given at a governmental hearing on climate change.

Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done.
While I don't see where the OP stated that comparing actual data to predictions "can't be done," I do see where the OP asked for disproving research (see point 1).

No character assassination, I leave that up to you,
Irony meter overload, hypocrisy shock wave approaching.

I've only presented factual data.
This was the part that had me saying, "OK, lets see this factual data." Unfortunately, after reading the essay, I was reminded of that old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" (see the next point)

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown.
I would love to debate the "data shown" except that there isn't any data. The essay only had one thing that even remotely might be considered data, a nice little graph with no references whatsoever to any underlying data it might have been based on. Try that in your peer-reviewed research submission.

The graph has wonderful labels like "Average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models" (which models, who knows?), "Squares - Avg 2 Satellite datasets," and "Circles - Avg 4 Balloon data sets." Wait! What! Balloon data sets!!!

Balloon datasets - that's when I decided to post a response to your post.

In the essay, the graph that has no references to any underlying data is about supposed climate models' predictions of temperatures in the lower atmosphere.

While you haven't provided any data to be debated, I will still call and raise you a link to a rebuttal of this specific claim - one that actually has several graphs with actual references to sources and data.

Please read at your earliest convenience

The evidence that humans are making a difference in the CO2 levels is found by checking the ratios of different CO2 isotopes. Plants have a different ratio of isotopes than fossil fuels. See this link for more info.

2015 is virtually certain to beat 2014's record as the planet's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880

Not according to satellite data cherry picked and misrepresented by well known serial climate liar Roy Spencer

FTFY.
Plus, unless you just have no clue how to read a chart, the chart at your link clearly does show warming.
which is probably the rest of the climate science community stopped taking Roy Spencer seriously a long time ago.

For more his greatest hits, check out:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

You made a claim, I've simply been asking for you to back up that claim. After MULTIPLE requests you finally respond with a single source. Something, but nothing near 'most models overstate climate change'.

So the content of this study is irrelevant ....but here goes -

The author Patrick Michaels has been pretty thoroughly wrong about climate for a while now
link 1
link 2

Here's debunking of your two authors climate change opinions

here's another posting by your authors Watts Up With That
And here's another debunking.

So no I don't throw out the paper due to any preconceived ideas, I do tend to discount it because MULTIPLE SCIENCE professionals provide examples of why it's authors have been full of shit on this topic and are paid shills for the CATO institute - a well known political entity with obvious agendas to push.

Unlike you, science doesn't have agendas. Perhaps individual scientists, or 'people', do but science is data and it rules above all else.

Note the deepclimate article above, where it shows your authors clearly cherry picking which parts of a study to quote and what they leave out is the part about how it's easy to be disingenuous if you cherry pick data. Just WOW.

And one more thing - you perhaps noticed Ted Cruz claiming there's been no warming at all for the last 18 years. Funnily it does pan out that 1998 and 2015 are very similar in temps. What's that 18 year period though, seems like a random number right? Well that's the ONLY date range that shows his claim because 18 years ago was one of the hottest on record.

You're mixing two different arguments here.

What allot forget is that our modern society exists because of cheap energy.

Nobody is forgetting that. But it is irrelevant to the point. The point being made was that the anti-science strategy used to cast doubt on climate science uses the techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and before that by the creationists to cast doubt on science.

So yes, it will take quite a bit of convincing for most people that oil is a bad thing.

nevertheless the strategies used to cast doubt on climate science are the same techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and creationists.

If you don't like those references, there are plenty more. The techniques used are the same, and in some cases, the actual people are the same as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.psmag.com/nature-an...
http://www.earthmagazine.org/a...

[It would be a problem if sea level were rising...]

but it's not.

to the contrary, it is.

http://www.tribune242.com/news...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
http://gizmodo.com/miamis-alre...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

The fact that sea level is rising is not even controversial; and it's not particularly new information. The harder, and more controversial question is, is that rise going to accelerate due to melting ice?

The problem is that they aren't "arguments" they are deliberately targeted very repetitive lies and attacks in bad faith. There are entire websites dedicated to showing these and have been for years. If he really wanted to learn he could go to them. Instead he's just repeating long discredited lies e.g. the effect of water vapour is a standard part of all climate models and is reasonably well understood. Water often acts as an amplifier of the effect of other greenhouse gasses since water evaporation is driven by heat. Of course, clouds also mean that water is much more complex and so to understand the effect of water you have to have at least graduate level physics. The choice to present water as a kind of competitor for other greenhouse gasses is a trick designed by someone who fully understands how important water is in the greenhouse effect designed to persuade people who don't have a strong enough science background. He knows that any counter-explanation will have to be at a simplification at some level (otherwise only the physicists would understand) and will attack it with something which sounds credible.

He's saying CO2 levels do not effect temperature. In fact, it is temperature that effects CO2 levels. As it warms, CO2 increases and, as it cools, CO2 is reduced.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

He's saying CO2 levels do not effect temperature. In fact, it is temperature that effects CO2 levels. As it warms, CO2 increases and, as it cools, CO2 is reduced.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Perhaps not, but he's been debunked repeatedly. I find it amusing that slashdot would label a politician with no background in science as an "expert" on climate change and the best guys like you can come up to defend this guy are lame dismissals.

Since he's full of bunk, why would one debunk him? Does not compute...; )

Perhaps not, but he's been debunked repeatedly. I find it amusing that slashdot would label a politician with no background in science as an "expert" on climate change and the best guys like you can come up to defend this guy are lame dismissals.

I don't have any graphs plotted by lone-wolf indie climatologists to show you, but if I did, I'd have to prove to you that they weren't funded under the table by our evil government or maybe just misguided. Maybe I'll get lucky one day though. I guess this will have to do:

http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Summary:
CO2 levels are rising and it's our fault.
CO2 traps heat.
The planet is accumulating heat, especially in the oceans.
This causes bleaching in our dying coral reefs, hurting the ecosystem.
Hot oceans means bigger storms (in opposition to climate skeptic Dr. Matt Briggs claim tonight on Michael Savage).
Strong storms and rising seas erode islands and continental coasts.
Immigrants from these areas are an increasing issue because of that erosion and additional sea level rise(this article).

I believe that for you, this isn't about science, but about ideology. Savage for instance is calling us all Lysenkoists (I'm listening to it now), which is the biggest, most direct psychological projection I've heard yet out of the mouth of a so-called "conservative". I think people like him are more like communists they realize.

My first introduction to this concept was in the early 1990s, as a child when I first read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He explained why Venus was the way it was, how its hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun, and how we are at risk to succumbing to something similar because of our carbon output. The book was published in 1980. I'd learn this again later in elementary school.

Exxon knew about the subject and did their own research confirming it in 1981. This research factored into their decision making. http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Meanwhile, a caller to Savage's show explains how these cycles are normal and that the ice caps melted and caused the Biblical flood... suppose we should just let it happen then. GOD WILLS IT!

Your folks would get more respect if they were consistent, but commitment to the concept of no climate change seems to be waning. I just think the point is that your side wants us confused and divided over it long enough for the people you (knowingly or unknowingly) work for to get away with pollution as long as possible. I enjoy watching the slippage over time, but it is irritating to know the only thing in the way of meaningful action is a bunch of impressionable folks duped into the doing dirty work for a doomed industry.

If you actually read the news, you'll see that the organisation is still recommending that we reduce CO2 emissions further, and that we ban the worst-polluting types of coal-fired power stations ASAP.

And oh look, now you're bringing out climate denier argument #30 (without even giving any references). For a full rebuttal, see here.

You're making extraordinary claims, you're going to need some extraordinary evidence to back it up. And I don't believe you have it.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The Planet is not Recovering from the LIA

To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply "recovering" from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

know what happens when all data from sensors from urban heat islands are removed, in order to remove any possible heat island bias?

nothing.

which means that the idea that heat islands are biasing the data is a myth.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Neither the Arctic ice extent (area), nor volume, is roughly equal to the mean of the last few decades.
I really don't get what either of you is arguing, you're both making false claims.

The infamous death spiral graph, showing monthly volume from 1979 to 2015:
http://skepticalscience.com//p...

Summer ice extent from July to September (the minimum period) from 1870 to 2014 (as mention above, 2015 is the 4th lowest extent, in between 2011 and 2008):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...

Average monthly extent from 1979 to 2015:
https://polarbearscience.files...

ice volume trend graph 1979-2014:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...