# Climate change: "You are among the last people that will ever walk the Earth." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096 "2013-02-22T18:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/81 "2013-02-26T20:10:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Kinda? > > I mean, even Frylock grants that it’s obvious a plateau of **some** length would suffice; he doesn’t know whether it’s three decades, or more, or less, but at some point it’d be fair to say warming has stopped. (I’ve been told that even a single decade is practically enough to do it: that the current prediction is for 2017 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer than 2007, and for 2027 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer still – and if 2027 is equal to or cooler than 2017, or if 2017 falls short of 2007, then it’s time to rethink a bunch of stuff. Strikes me as a weird and error-prone yardstick, but I didn’t come up with it.) OK. So your take is that global warming did stop in 1960. But then it started again. And global warming stopped in 1998 and until or unless it starts again, global warming is over and should be forgotten about. Is this correct? I ask sincerely; I have not had the bandwidth to read your posts above carefully and missed it if you expressed something different. **Ají** , is this what you think too? That global warming stopped in the 60s? [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg) is a graph for reference. Oops, and I guess that it was the 40s, not the 60s. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/82 "2013-02-26T20:42:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > … if 2017 falls short of 2007, then it’s time to rethink a bunch of stuff. Strikes me as a weird and error-prone yardstick, but I didn’t come up with it.) How about if 2018 falls short of 2008? Or 2019 falls short of 2009? Or 2020 … 2010? Et cetera? \*Because if each of ten such “failures” has a probability of, say, only 5%, the probability that **any** of them fail could approach 50% ! \* I don’t know the name of this statistical danger (which I tried to explain to you last year when you expressed confusion about an apparent trend after the unusually hot 1998). Here’s a very simple example, if you miss the point. The chance that I’ll deal myself a poker hand of _precisely_ Queen and Ten of Diamonds, Four of hearts and both Black Sixes is _less than_ the chance I get a Royal Flush! Yet that’s what I just dealt myself a moment ago!! Uri Simonsohn has recently made a name for himself demonstrating that the same sort of bias you risk isn’t uncommon in published science, [for example](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1850704). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/83 "2013-02-27T01:02:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > How about if 2018 falls short of 2008? Or 2019 falls short of 2009? Or 2020 … 2010? Et cetera? \*Because if each of ten such “failures” has a probability of, say, only 5%, the probability that **any** of them fail could approach 50% ! \* > > I don’t know the name of this statistical danger (which I tried to explain to you last year when you expressed confusion about an apparent trend after the unusually hot 1998). Maybe I’m not making myself clear; I’m not the one coming up with these bizarre yardsticks. Indeed, I think they’re incredibly stupid yardsticks. Let me further clarify: I think making everything hinge on a tenth-of-degree prediction from '07 to '17 is foolish for the same reason you do. I likewise think the tenth-of-a-degree prediction from '17 to '27 is foolish for the same reason you do. But _those are the falsifiable predictions I’ve been given._ I’m glad to see you deride them; _I, too, find them worthy of derision,_ and said so well before your post. But that’s where the goalposts were moved to, so they’re the only claims I can respond to. Before the goalposts were shifted, I placed focus on 1998; why? _Because it fit the incredibly foolish prediction I’d been given._ I’ve now been given a different incredibly foolish prediction, one which makes '98 irrelevant. I didn’t come up with either of those predictions; I wouldn’t dream of coming up with such astonishingly foolish predictions. But so long as they’re placed before me, I react accordingly. [QUOTE=L. G. Butts, Ph.D.] OK. So your take is that global warming did stop in 1960. But then it started again. And global warming stopped in 1998 and until or unless it starts again, global warming is over and should be forgotten about. Is this correct? [/QUOTE] Oh, good heavens, no. That’s not even close to correct. I’m not saying it should be forgotten about; I’ve said, repeatedly, that it should be taken seriously as of right now. 1998 is irrelevant, because the goalposts have been definitively moved; we should thus keep taking global warming seriously, so long as (a) that tenth-of-a-degree prediction comes true, and so long as (b) the other tenth-of-a-degree prediction comes true a decade later. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/84 "2013-02-27T03:15:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Global warming will probably be bad for humans. It might be very bad. And there’s a slim outside chance it might even be catastrophic, killing off a significant percentage of the population and/or ruining our current civilization. But there’s no way, no how, that it’ll drive us extinct. We’re just too numerous, spread over too many different environments, and with too many resources at our disposal, for that to happen. Warming will not be bad and mostly good for a majority. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is a need to repeat it as it is clear that your idea is to avoid mentioning that context to others. > > The problem is that then you say it again, the clear implication is that scientists \*\*never \*\*talked about these cycles: I love your “…the clear implication..”, when there is a simple phrase. That’s the problem when you go for a script. I’m sure that if I said “Pachauri has two lungs” you’d respong “the clear implication is that he doesn’t believe albedo is important”. > [@](#): > > Ah, The Daily Fail and the Torygraph.. > > Like if it not easier to go for the main sources: > > Once again, Peter Hadfiel shows how the retarded Daily Mail and how others continue to get it wrong. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ&index=6](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ&index=6) > > And once again the blogs just pulled “That report of the Met Office” from their ass. > > The Met office even told the Daily Mail reporters that there was a warming trend! As Peter Hadfield reported “The reason why this was not reported in other serious media before is that the tabloids pulled it from thin air” And then Fox and others followed it. > > “This is not superhuman, anyone could check for a few seconds at the Met office for that report, or to check if that report of the 16 year pause existed in the first place.” > > And no, it did not exist. > > The continuous “mistakes” from the Daily Mail and others are more than enough to conclude that fabrications are their way of life. > > [Archived blog posts - Met Office](http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/) Okay, so let’s go to the [Met’s own website](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc) "Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, **with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher** than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below). The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre **global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average**. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases." 2017 = 0.43° 1997 = 0.40° A difference of 0.03° in 20 years. The 90% confincdence can even get to 0.28°, 0.16° lower than 1997. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And, just like I found with very little effort, Skeptical Science also has noticed how sorry the source was and how unreliable they continue to be: > > [Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html) Did he say it? > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > OK. So your take is that global warming did stop in 1960. But then it started again. And global warming stopped in 1998 and until or unless it starts again, global warming is over and should be forgotten about. Is this correct? > > I ask sincerely; I have not had the bandwidth to read your posts above carefully and missed it if you expressed something different. > > **Ají** , is this what you think too? That global warming stopped in the 60s? [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg) is a graph for reference. > > Oops, and I guess that it was the 40s, not the 60s. Temperature rise lulls do not contradict GW. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/85 "2013-02-27T03:35:50Z")
Mostly useless pap, but once again there is the demonstrated constant avoidance that scientists look at the big picture to report that once again, the earth is warming. Of course as the arguments from contrarians have the consistency of baby poop many do not care that their arguments also include the contradictory point that it is warming anyhow, and it will be good. Oh well, at least their inconsistency grants it that we can get forward. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Warming will not be bad and mostly good for a majority. No. > **[Positives and negatives of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm)** > > \The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic. > [@](#): > > We’re not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that ‘danger limit’. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be faced with in the future. > > Realistically, based on the current political climate, limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc. But we’re not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. > > There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. > > If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/86 "2013-02-27T03:56:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mostly useless pap, but once again there is the demonstrated constant avoidance that scientists look at the big picture to report that once again, the earth is warming. > > Of course as the arguments from contrarians have the consistency of baby poop many do not care that their arguments also include the contradictory point that it is warming anyhow, and it will be good. > > Oh well, at least their inconsistency grants it that we can get forward. > No. > > [Positives and negatives of global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm) Still reading a script. No comment on the Met’s own website quote? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/87 "2013-02-27T04:16:35Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Still reading a script. > No comment on the Met’s own website quote? Just what the Met office continues to report: [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/6/warming\_goes\_on.pdf](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/6/warming_goes_on.pdf) > [@](#): > > Anyone who thinks > global warming > has stopped > has their head > in the sand > [@](#): > > Global warming goes on > The evidence is clear – the long-term > trend is that global temperatures > are rising, and humans are largely > responsible for this rise. Global warming > does not mean that each year will > be warmer than the last. Natural > phenomena will mean that some years > will be much warmer and others cooler. > You only need to look at 1998 to see a > record-breaking warm year caused by a > very strong El Niño. In the last couple of > years, the underlying warming is partially > masked caused by a strong > La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last > 13 years were the warmest ever recorded So, yeah, it is a script that you can not reply to, so you have to ignore it, never mind that it is the experts reporting it, and once again, the attempt at making the Met office say a contradictory thing is misleading, they look at the longer thrend to report how misleading is to concentrate just on the last years to claim the opposite of what is reported, of course the contradiction can not be avoided as reality is showing that indeed the earth continues to warm. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/88 "2013-02-27T04:37:53Z")
Even more from the Met office, with commentary from EarthSky: > **[EarthSky | Global warming still on, says UK Met Office](https://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago/)** > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. > > So … it is still warming after all. In fact, in a report released by the National Climatic Data Center this week, global land and ocean surface temperatures for the month of September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67 degrees Celsius (1.21 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average of 15.0 degrees Celsius (59.0 degrees Fahrenheit). It appears that the rate of warming has slowed slightly at this time; in other words, at the moment, it’s not increasing in warmth as fast as it was. Temperatures remain at all-time highs since records began, however, and our warming climate continues to break its own records. > > Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not contacted by the article’s author. According to the UK Met Office and tens of thousands of other scientists worldwide, global temperatures are still rising. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/89 "2013-02-27T05:13:38Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There isn’t going to be any more division among scientists in the future. Of the 14 warmest years on record since record keeping began, 12 have been the first 12 years of this century. If you can look at that and declare that warming isn’t occurring, you’re an idiot. Well, that is true assuming that the data you are reviewing is valid. Interestingly, the GAO did a study on the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) weather stations in 2011. The USHCN is the gold standard for climate information in the U.S What did they find? > [@](#): > > According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about > 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting > standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the > weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to > conduct annual station inspections and to update station records Link to [report](http://www.gao.gov/assets/70/68744.pdf). Just to make sure you know what this means. When sitting a climate station there are guidelines to ensure that the data being collected by the stations is valid and not impacted by local environmental interference. For instance, sitting a station next to a parking lot is a bad idea as the asphalt is a heat sink and will skew the data. According to the GAO, 42% of the stations failed to meet the guidelines for station sitting. In short, 42% of the data is worthless. Furthermore, the method used to adjust station measurements is to average stations with other near by stations. What this does in actuality is take data from good stations and artificially inflate it by averaging it with bad stations. The guidelines: > [@](#): > > not be sited on rooftops; > be installed over level terrain; > be installed at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved > be mounted 4 to 6 feet above the surface; and > be no closer than four times the height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction. From the previous link. I went to [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org), which is a website that tracks the surface stations used by the USHCN and picked a couple at random: [First one.](http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=86974) That fails three of the five criteria. [Second one](http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=27972). That fails at least two, possibly three criteria. Look around. The stations are unreliable. Read the whole GAO report, it is enlightening. Then ask yourself what the climate stations must be like poorer areas of the world. Next, what was the temperature in Fallon Nevada on May 1st 1900? Any idea? How about Lubbock Texas in 1940? New York in 1800? How accurate are the instruments that made those measurements? Guess what, we may have a temperature record but we have no idea how accurate that record is or how consistently they were made. Hell, we can’t even get accurate data right now. In the last week a station in Jal New Mexico reported the temp at 96 when the rest of the state was in the 60s. Someone did a typo but they don’t get caught and make it into the record. Next, lets look at the adjustments done by those helpful climate scientists. They ‘adjust’ data due to station sitting issues and also when they homogenize the data. This [link](https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/pcm/ghcn/ghcnreyk.html)shows the adjustment to a station in Reykjavik Iceland. Note that the temp in 1900 is ~4.5 with the unadjusted data. The temp series is then adjusted by an algorithm. After the adjustment the beginning temp in 1900 is, TA DA!, a bit under 4. Then it pops back up. Read the article, it explains what seem to be the issues with the adjustments. Note, the adjustments consistently cool the past. The question is, of course, why do you think we know the past temperatures with any degree of accuracy? We don’t and anyone who tells you we do is either lying or fooled. There are serious problems besides those listed above. Dodgy statistical methods, a concerted effort to keep contrary papers from being published in journals, incomplete and lost data, extremely bad and undocumented code, blackballing researchers if they don’t toe the climate change line. Climate science is a mess. On a side note, > [@](#): > > Though it’s also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming). When the error bars are larger than the trend, you have a problem. Slee ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/90 "2013-02-27T05:26:54Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Climate science is a mess. That was the point of Muller and the BEST Berkeley team funded by skeptics, what hey found was in a nutshell that even with the issues reported the corrections employed were proper and they found that indeed the earht is getting warmer, and that we are the most likely cause of the current warming. > [@sleestak](#): > > On a side note, > > When the error bars are larger than the trend, you have a problem. > > Slee On aside note, the previous times you came to post silliness like that you were also shown to post just regurgitated misleading information. This is no different. The Met office and others look at a bigger picture to report that uncertainty is not your friend. And once one looks at the previous decades the errors bars are not much of an issue. > **[Trend and Noise](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/)** > > A commenter recently linked to a post by Steve Goddard claiming that “GISS Shows No Warming Over The Last Decade.” > [@](#): > > I’ve done posts like this before, many times. The reason is that this is one of the most common techniques used by fake skeptics to give a false impression — exploit noise to give a false impression of the trend. It’s not just one of their favorite techniques, it’s one of their most successful because most people don’t have the statistical savvy to see through it. You could even write a book about it. It seems that they do this whenever any global warming indicator dips because of noise, but when a global warming indicator peaks because of noise, the silence is deafening. Cold winter in England? Proof! Hottest ever April in England? Silence. > > Last but not least, I’ll tell you why Goddard chose to start with 2002. You might think it’s because it has been almost 10 years since then, and 10 years is a nice “round number.” The truth is — whether Goddard will admit it or not, even to himself — that he did so because he’s cherry-picking. He’s deliberately starting with a year which had extra-high temperature due to noise rather than trend, so he could paint a false picture of the trend by exploiting that noise. > > I’ll bet Steve Goddard thinks he’s a skeptic. I think he’s a fake skeptic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/91 "2013-02-27T05:50:59Z")
A better explanation of why fake skeptics like the ones from WUWT are fakes by continuing to ignore that error bars are not really a deal breaker as they claim to be in short time periods: > **[Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/)** > > Clearly, David Whitehouse has enough rope. To hang himself. The WUWT blog has a post by David Whitehouse (of the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”) discussing global temperature data. … > [@](#): > > As for more recent temperature change, Whitehouse’s viewpoint is perhaps best summed up by this statement of his: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > So since 1979 we have has [sic] about 16 years of warming and 16 years of temperature standstill. > > > > ``` > > Really? > > First, Whitehouse is pulling an old favorite trick of fake skeptics: equating the lack of statistically significant warming with the lack of warming. If we look at global surface temperature according to the three main data sets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC), all three show warming over the last 16 years (2012 still has one month to go, but the difference won’t amount to a hill of beans): > > Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes aren’t statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not upward. It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. \*\*That always happens — always — when the time span is short. > \*\* > That’s why fake skeptics like David Whitehouse like to focus on short time spans. > > Whitehouse declares that we’ve had “about 16 years of warming and 16 years of temperature standstill.” According to Whitehouse, all the global warming earth has experienced recently was complete by 16 years ago (the end of 1996). Is that really so? Let’s take a closer look at the last 16 years, compared to what happened before that, starting in 1979 (Whitehouse’s choice). > > I’ll do a similar exercise to one I’ve done before. I’ll take the data from 1979 (Whitehouse’s starting point) up to 16 years ago (less one month, the end of 1996). Then I’ll fit a trend line with least-squares regression. Then I’ll extend that trend line to the present, to see what would have happened if that trend continued. > > If David Whitehouse is giving an honest portrayal of global temperature, then most of the data points from 1997 onward should be below the extended trend line, since the trend will keep rising but according to him, global warming stopped back then. > [@](#): > > Well well … Plainly, it is not the case that most of the data points from 1997 onward are below the extended trend line. As a matter of fact, for all three data sets, every year from 1997 onward has been hotter than expected according to that trend from 1979. There’s only one valid conclusion: David Whitehouse gave a fake portrayal of global temperature. > > Thats what fake skeptics do. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/92 "2013-02-28T06:03:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just what the Met office continues to report: > > [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/6/warming\_goes\_on.pdf](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/6/warming_goes_on.pdf) > > So, yeah, it is a script that you can not reply to, so you have to ignore it, never mind that it is the experts reporting it, and once again, the attempt at making the Met office say a contradictory thing is misleading, they look at the longer thrend to report how misleading is to concentrate just on the last years to claim the opposite of what is reported, of course the contradiction can not be avoided as reality is showing that indeed the earth continues to warm. See my second answer in post 61. Did the Met say 1997= 0.40° 2017 0.43°? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Even more from the Met office, with commentary from EarthSky: > > [EarthSky | Global warming still on, says UK Met Office](http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago) See my second answer in post 61. Did the Met say 1997= 0.40° 2017 0.43°? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > A better explanation of why fake skeptics like the ones from WUWT are fakes by continuing to ignore that error bars are not really a deal breaker as they claim to be in short time periods: > > [Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature | Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/) Could you give me ONE example of a true sceptic? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/93 "2013-02-28T06:52:43Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > See my second answer in post 61. > Did the Met say 1997= 0.40° 2017 0.43°? > > See my second answer in post 61. > Did the Met say 1997= 0.40° 2017 0.43°? > > Could you give me ONE example of a true sceptic? Not playing your game, the Met already replied to the misleading efforts. Deal with what they report, and never forget to stop relying on tabloid press for your sources, lulls on the temperature rise were expected and the current cycle remains higher than the past ones, so the warming continues and it continues to be irresponsible to do almost nothing to limit our emissions. As for true skeptics, they were already mentioned before, but we already know that you are never willing to learn, it is not my problem that you ignored what science reporters like Peter Hadfield reported on scientists that do propose alternative explanations for the warming do. Once again, fake skeptics just spew totally contradictory points and expect to impress many with their folly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/94 "2013-02-28T07:20:12Z")
And this video BTW was the one posted on a previous tread explaining what real skeptics do, they bring evidence for their skepticism, not tabloid pap or discredited “I’m having my cake and will eat it too” silly contradictory points telling all that warming is not happening… and at the same time claim that there is no denying that is happening and anyhow it be beneficial. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/PoSVoxwYrKI/hqdefault.jpg "2. Climate Change -- the objections") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI) Real skeptics do not ignore what nature’s thermometers are telling us, so to go against the idea that the current cause of the warming is human CO2 and other emissions, they do and come with alternative mechanisms for that warming, unfortunately, all so far failed to get confirmation and failed on their predictions, as pointed before, the most accurate scientists remain the ones in the super majority that faced already a few lulls in the temperature record in the past, **and still predicted that warming was more likely to come in the future**. Those predictions were confirmed, And they continue to be correct. The current effort here of using only a few recent years to claim that we should ignore what was reported and tested before is a very silly one. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/95 "2013-02-28T13:48:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not playing your game, the Met already replied to the misleading efforts. Deal with what they report, and never forget to stop relying on tabloid press for your sources, lulls on the temperature rise were expected and the current cycle remains higher than the past ones, so the warming continues and it continues to be irresponsible to do almost nothing to limit our emissions. > > As for true skeptics, they were already mentioned before, but we already know that you are never willing to learn, it is not my problem that you ignored what science reporters like Peter Hadfield reported on scientists that do propose alternative explanations for the warming do. > > Once again, fake skeptics just spew totally contradictory points and expect to impress many with their folly. Are you calling a direct quote from the Met Office’s own website tabloid? I give that tabloid/righ wingers/Heartland Institute /orphan rapists spin the news to their own evil purposes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Met office says clearly that the anomnaly in 1997 was 0.40° and that the most likely for 2017 is 0.43°. Do you deny that the Met office’s own website, [link again](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc), says that 1997 = 0.40° 2017= 0.43° and, therefore, expected warming per decade in those two decades is 0.015°? I’ll hold your hand and copy the first part "Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, **with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C** higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below). The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in **1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C** above long-term average. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. " It doesn’t matter where I got the info if I link to the original. As to the context, implications, and scientific assumptions behind the forecasr I submit my second answer in post 61. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this video BTW was the one posted on a previous tread explaining what real skeptics do, they bring evidence for their skepticism, not tabloid pap or discredited “I’m having my cake and will eat it too” silly contradictory points telling all that warming is not happening… and at the same time claim that there is no denying that is happening and anyhow it be beneficial. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI) > > Real skeptics do not ignore what nature’s thermometers are telling us, so to go against the idea that the current cause of the warming is human CO2 and other emissions, they do and come with alternative mechanisms for that warming, unfortunately, all so far failed to get confirmation and failed on their predictions, as pointed before, the most accurate scientists remain the ones in the super majority that faced already a few lulls in the temperature record in the past, **and still predicted that warming was more likely to come in the future**. Those predictions were confirmed, And they continue to be correct. > > The current effort here of using only a few recent years to claim that we should ignore what was reported and tested before is a very silly one. It’s clear that the only real scpetic is only real is they fully accept GW but have small, but always wrong, complaints. That isn’t the definition of sceptic used for this debate. Real sceptics, evil and ignorant as they may be, deny that 1. GW is going to be catastrophic and/or 2. CO2 is the main driver of climate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/96 "2013-02-28T14:09:43Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Are you calling a direct quote from the Met Office’s own website tabloid? > I give that tabloid/righ wingers/Heartland Institute /orphan rapists spin the news to their own evil purposes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Met office says clearly that the anomnaly in 1997 was 0.40° and that the most likely for 2017 is 0.43°. > Do you deny that the Met office’s own website, [link again](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc), says that > 1997 = 0.40° > 2017= 0.43° > and, therefore, expected warming per decade in those two decades is 0.015°? > > I’ll hold your hand and copy the first part > "Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, **with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C** higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below). > > The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in **1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C** above long-term average. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. " > > It doesn’t matter where I got the info if I link to the original. > As to the context, implications, and scientific assumptions behind the forecasr I submit my second answer in post 61. And somehow you only found a way to get more rope, once again, doubling down on a misleading cherry picked point is not my problem, suffice to say that the Met office looks at what other scientists reports to mention that looking only at surface temperatures is misleading as the heat is increasing on other places of the globe. The experts reports that indeed it is dishonest from outfits like the Daily Mail to come with such misleading nonsense and twist of words to come with a conclusion completely opposite of what the experts report. It is still like trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s clear that the only real scpetic is only real is they fully accept GW but have small, but always wrong, complaints. That isn’t the definition of sceptic used for this debate. > Real sceptics, evil and ignorant as they may be, deny that > > 1. GW is going to be catastrophic and/or > 2. CO2 is the main driver of climate. And then you rely on more straw men. The IPCC remains conservative in their predictions and likely outcomes, insisting that they are just pushing for catastrophes is not what they are. No expert also has said that CO2 is the main driver of climate, only one of the main factors present in the current warming observed, nature is still there as cycles still show, the problem for fake skeptics is to continue to ignore how the cycles are getting warmer and how that helps mask the global increase in temperature, it is really silly to claim that the current cycle is evidence that “global warming has stopped” that is a fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/97 "2013-02-28T15:38:50Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But really, what can we do about it? What are we willing to do about it? The big present contributors to global pollution are not in the West but in the East: China and India. I didn’t see where this has been challenged upthread, but it’s beyond stupid as an assertion if you are talking about AGW related to CO2 production. Not to mention that a lot of the stuff China is making is for us in the US, so it hardly seems fair to assign them a carbon footprint if the reason they are generating the carbon is to make new golf clubs for the Pedant here in Tennessee while I pretend that my geothermal energy for my house gets me off the responsibility hook. [Per capita carbon dioxide emissions by nation, 2009:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) US: 17.2 metric tons/yr China: 5.3 India: 1.2 I know everyone wants to live like me and Al Gore, but they aren’t even close in those two countries, unless you’ve got some sort of numbers I’ve never heard of. The general dilemma is that developing world populations are still multiplying, and everyone wants our lifestyle a lot more than they want to leave the room tidy for the next occupant. Power consumption to meet this immediate demand for stuff and lifestyle will far outstrip any efforts to swap over to a greener grid. Heck; Al has already bought most of the available green energy in the US, just for his own lifestyle. 😉 . Tragedy of the commons, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/98 "2013-02-28T15:58:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And somehow you only found a way to get more rope, once again, doubling down on a misleading cherry picked point is not my problem, suffice to say that the Met office looks at what other scientists reports to mention that looking only at surface temperatures is misleading as the heat is increasing on other places of the globe. > > The experts reports that indeed it is dishonest from outfits like the Daily Mail to come with such misleading nonsense and twist of words to come with a conclusion completely opposite of what the experts report. It is still like trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. So, still chickenin’ out on the direct link to the Met Office. You can never commit to yes or no. > [@](#): > > And then you rely on more straw men. > > The IPCC remains conservative in their predictions and likely outcomes, insisting that they are just pushing for catastrophes is not what they are. > > **No expert also has said that CO2 is the main driver of climate** , only one of the main factors present in the current warming observed, nature is still there as cycles still show, the problem for fake skeptics is to continue to ignore how the cycles are getting warmer and how that helps mask the global increase in temperature, it is really silly to claim that the current cycle is evidence that “global warming has stopped” that is a fraud. I think you are severly confused as to the meaning of strawman. I’m going to quote you on the bolded part. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/99 "2013-02-28T16:24:16Z")
[QUOTE=] US: 17.2 metric tons/yr China: 5.3 India: 1.2 [/QUOTE] Just so it’s clear, as you didn’t specify, these are per capita figures. China emits the most CO2 of any nation (nearly 24% of the worlds total…the US is around 18%), and saying that this is because they build us golf clubs sort of misses the point and is a bit of a handwave (it’s also inaccurate that they emit so much simply to make us stuff…they have an ever increasing energy budget, mainly due to domestic use which is increasing at a phenomenal rate, and they still have a lot of older and dirtier coal power plants, and are building more all the time). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/100 "2013-02-28T17:01:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, still chickenin’ out on the direct link to the Met Office. > You can never commit to yes or no. Once again, the idea is clear to all, get a cherry picked quote to dismiss then everything else the organization reports, once again, the idea is to mislead others by ignoring how deceptive it is to concentrate on surface temperatures when scientists are not just looking at that to report that global warming still continues, like the Met office themselves reports, your requests are only geared to stick the head in the sand. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I think you are severly confused as to the meaning of strawman. > I’m going to quote you on the bolded part. And before you do, read again for comprehension, the point was precise for a reason, climate depends on several forces, no serious researcher claims that CO2 is driving all, that is the straw man, the point stands, it is precisely by taking those other forces into consideration that scientists continue to report that the earth is warming, natural cycles are still there masking the human warming for a time on the surface, but as for the specific current warming (you see, the stupid point is to remove the warming brought by our CO2 emissions) we are taking control of one knob in the forces that drive the climate of the earth. The straw man is in declaring that scientists are claiming that CO2 is the single driver of the climate we have now. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/hWJeqgG3Tl8/hqdefault.jpg "Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Temp leads Carbon Crock") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=6)