Conclusions from suppressed EPA report on CO2 Endangerment

Tell me Tim, if one (Pielke) climatologist's criticism of RealClimate raise questions in your mind about RealClimate, what does a bevy of criticisms levied at Pielke by at least equally renowned climatologists raise in your mind about Pielke ?

What does Pielke's criticism of the Copenhagen summary conclusions -- by expert climatologists NOT attached to RealClimate in any way -- raise in your mind regarding Pielke ?

I'll answer my own question: nothing. Because you give a free pass to the handfull of remaining scientist denialists, but have grave doubts about the other 99% of the scientific community at the drop of a pin or personality squabble.

Whatever. You can expect "knee-jerk" responses to go read RealClimate every time you troll or bring up denialist drivel. Consider it along the same lines as being told to read the Toyota FAQ if you were to say 'worry' over Prius battery longevity.

 

Sorry, I lump all you deniers into a pile. Seems to me that a lot of you say there is in fact cooling going on.

By the way what you call minimal real climatologists call an emergency. I'm going with them, sorry.

 

Climate change may spur chronic hunger, Oxfam says

Deniers have no shame.

 

ok, this thread needs to be retitled "global warming debate part 2"

 

Probably best to merge it into the one trash denialist thread...

Giving a thread to every lamebrained denialist theory embraced by the likes of Tim seems a waste of electrons.

 

http://bit.ly/50Pb5

 

The question was answered. There is significant warming. You just don't want to see it. The same people that produce the data you present also publish a written report:

NCDC: Climate of 2009 - April

"Global Temperature Highlights
April's combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.06 degree F above the 20th century average of 56.7 degrees F. The most significant warmth occurred in northern and northeastern Asia, Europe, and much of the planet's southern oceans.

The global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 55.8 degrees F is tied with 2003 for the sixth-warmest January-through-April period on record. This value is 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average.

The global land surface temperature for April was 1.80 degrees F degrees above the 20th century average of 46.5 degrees F degrees."

This is the correct way to interpret the data.

 

I never said you did. But it is the logical implication of your thesis. The rest of the scientific community (the "warmists" as you call them) has acknowledged the global implications of increasing atmospheric CO2 in contradiction to your "evidence", which means that all the scientists involved are either a) all wrong, or b) all lying. Either way, the result is a massive international conspiracy.

Perhaps you should think your argument all the way through first before continuing.

Are they the warmists fears? My research suggests the 2-3 C is still the far more likely scenario. What sources to the contrary have you read?

First, it isn't my trendline. It's the same trendline used by those collecting the data. You'd have noticed similar trendlines in my links here, here, and here had you bothered to read them. So if it were deliberate deception (it's not), it would be theirs (so much for not being a conspiracy, huh?). Second, the only real deception here is in your ridiculous cherry pick, as I already pointed out, a common denier tactic used in this case in an attempt to equate weather fluctuations to climate.

I already did, but you apparently didn't read it. Since you're incapable or unwilling to do the reading and research on your own, I suppose I'll have to hold your hand and walk you through it...

And here's one via NASA:

So in short, short-term variability is masking the long term warming signal. Longer time frames sort out the weather from climate, which is why the trend was so prevalent in my graph but not in your "it was cold last winter therefore we'll never have summer again" analysis.

Right. It's a conspiracy... obviously... :der:

 

Many months ago I tried to explain to you that you can not pick or choose a point in time and use it for your argument. You also can't expect a linear or fitted trend out of a complex system.

If you can think of a complex system without variation over time I'd like to see it.

 

100-200 years is a pin prick in the time this earth has revolved. During that time the earth warmed, plant and animal life flourished, the earth cooled, plants died, animals either adapted or died, earth warmed, new species flourished, etc.

Man, in his total arrogance believes that he, and he alone can change the climate of this planet by spewing gasses into the atmosphere with fossil fuel burning vehicles and industry. Man, in his total ignorance looks at this tiny tiny picture in the window of time that humans walked the face of the earth, and believes it too.

In all honesty, there is not enough hard evidence going back far enough to accurately predict what the climate of this planet will be like in the near future, and not enough evidence that what is being sent into the atmosphere will have any long term affect. Based on just a few hundred years of scattered data, is not enough to get a good insight of what climate actually is like on this planet. Climate changes constantly, and it is a known fact that it does, there have been mini ice ages recently, we know there have been glaciers covering half of the planet, and that was before we walked the earth. We also know there were tropical forests up in the arctic circle.

Remember the hard known truth about computers, garbage in = garbage out. Anyone can program a computer to spew out what they want it to.

Bottom line, the climate will change, not because of what we do, but because that is what it does, it will change with or without any intervention from us.

I am all for a cleaner environment, but not at the outrageousness that the government is pushing upon us all. To me what they are doing is feeding on those who are gullible enough to believe in it. It is getting to the point of near religiousness, and we all know where that leads.

 

This used to be the common religious argument against AGW, since AGW was viewed as an attack on the presumed omnipotency of 'God'.

Is that where your predilections lie acdii ? Your parting remark that AGW is taking on a 'religious' fervor strikes me as a bit of freudian projection, typical republican tactics to attack using the same criticisms leveled at themselves, and an appeal to good old heresy.

I'll wager you are an evangelical christian. Am I right ?

 

You're right about that...A Condensed Look at “Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast?†- Scitizen

Way too conservative...

 

Bingo!