These “people who are skeptical of climate skeptics” are engaged in propaganda not science. Anyone who wants to know what REAL scientists think should acquaint themselves with the following:
Ah, so you are just joking then. You had me for a while there. Carry on.
That means absolutely nothing; it is an fallacious “argumentum ad verecundiam” (argument from authority).
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:58, topic:593724”]
First time I see that a graph from the National Classifieds Directory is something that needs to be taken seriously, it is a bogus one BTW.
Lets look at the real data from NASA GISS and Solanki, 1979 to 2009:
that’s not a cite from NASA and the chart legend makes no sense.
Well, no.
You are swallowing the propaganda of the same people that worked before denying that tobacco smoke caused cancer. Doubt is their profession.
- That was such a softball of a post that it is like he is playing tee ball and at the same time we are playing baseball..
In the legend there are the direct links to the data sets from NASA and the Solar organization, the debunking is following the “logic” that the deniers are using. The point is to show that their own assertions are contradicted by the real data.
Here’s the source of the chart I showed, that GIGObuster claims is bogus:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
It’s simply astonishing the degree to which these climate alarmists will lie, but it’s been going on for centuries, ever since the first witch doctors told their flocks that the bad weather they were suffering from was a sign that the gods were unhappy with their sinful ways, and that their only chance to survive was to obey his orders. This current nonsense kind of retains that “religious” element to it.
The truth will be evident for all to see in the relatively near future, as earth heads into a prolonged cooling period. The truth always comes out in the end…
That was my point too! A flat or even cooling period doesn’t help us unless we know what’s causing it, and whether it will last. The thing is, we don’t really know what is causing the current slow down. It’s not just surface temperatures - ARGO has registered a flat ocean heat content since it was up and running, and the steric sea level has stayed constant over the same period. The sun may be quiet in terms of sunspots and flares but the actual heat and light energy it’s been putting out has been normal for the past decade, see TSI plots here: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant. El Nino and la Nina are cyclic fluctuations - they create no net trend, and the high temperatures of 1998 and 2010 are El Nino spikes.
Something seems to have changed around the turn of the millenium and we don’t know what it is. I’ve read various speculations about the excess heat going into the deep ocean through localised downwellings that aren’t picked up by the ARGO network, and a recent study suggests its all due to Chinese coal-fired power stations emitting sulphates - see http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/07/06/has-sulfate-pollution-from-asia-masked-a-decade-of-warming/. Neither is confirmed, and neither are particularly convincing to me. At least however there is now an acknowledgement that warming has levelled off, which is somehow seen as a victory by one “side” but gets us absolutely nowhere unless we figure out what is going on.
And it is still bogus, it is in reality missing the last decades showing that the the sun activity is no longer driving the current heath increase.
The bogus graph also appeared in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and this video shows why that petition graph is a fake one:
Indeed.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg
As the Skeptical Science explained in the comments:
Here’s what is perhaps the best overview on the BS that enviro-fascists like the one on this blog that I’ve ever heard: Enjoy!
GIGO ends his newest comment by saying:
I rest my case!
Use your common sense everyone!
:dubious:
That works only by removing the context, scientists are referring to the current increase in heath, the sun is still there and no it is not ignored when calculating the heath increase observed decade by decade.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you use terms like “deniers” when there are plenty of scientists who challenge “global warming” on some level.
I think you need to look at the definition of sarcasm, it is more likely that George was more for the Gaia hypotheses (itself something that most scientists do not go for either)
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20153859,00.html
Watch this one to get a bit of a different perspective on Carlin:
Give it up, it is the effort of trying to claim that the term denier “can not be used in this case” that can not be taken seriously. specially when I already pointed out that there are skeptics that do look at the science and deserve to be called that and then there **are **deniers. Let Brickmore explain: [sarcasm here just in case you miss it:]
Well I do not mind, that is a silly reason why one should not use it. 
I don’t rate that skeptical science article very highly at all. Firstly, the Levitus data and the Lyman data don’t remotely match each other, probably because the Levitus plot has a large step change where ARGO came on line around 2003-2004. Secondly, ALL SEVEN of the Lyman plots show a distinct inflection point and leveling off around the 2003 mark when ARGO came on line. Sure, some of them still have a slight upward trend but it is very much reduced compared with the previous trend. Saying “it’s still going up, a tiny little bit, so there!” as the article does totally misses the point and reveals the biases of skeptical sciences authors.
Anyway, there’s more involved than just ARGO. Steric sea level rise (the rise caused by thermal expansion of the water, and NOT by melting ice) has been practically zero over the same period, see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html. Taken with the surface temperature record, the ARGO data and steric sea level all reinforce each other. Something has changed, and if it hasn’t, why are people publishing papers on Chinese sulphates trying to explain it? Different link to same story: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332152/title/Sulfur_stalls_surface_temperature_rise_
Well, I’m just saying that the error here is to repeat the same apparent error made by concentrating on the last few years of surface temperature while ignoring the past decades, but this time with ocean temperatures.
I’m not ignoring the past decades, which have quite clearly shown warming. I agree that the time scale is small, but something seems to have changed. Ocean heat content is quite different from surface temperatures - it’s a lot less subject to weather noise, it’s an integrating measurement of energy accumulation, and thanks to the enormous heat capacity of the oceans, the measurements are significant in the short term. (Note that ocean heat content is not just sea surface temperature - it’s volumetric). Six years (more like eight, now) of little to no energy accumulation by the oceans is an anomaly, and a big one. It has only happened in the past when big volcanos erupted, but we have no such volcano in this instance. Maybe it will be shown to be due to Chinese coal-fired power stations, but at the moment it’s a missing piece of the puzzle.
Still, I do not think one could dismiss the Levitus or the Lyman data that easily, if they were not highly rated then the ones managing ARGO would not had put one of them** in the same page you linked too**. (One just needs to scroll down a little more to find also the other researchers the ARGO people are agreeing with here)