# Has the world actually been cooling since 2002? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728 "2014-02-19T19:32:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**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 26, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/241 "2014-02-26T23:32:14Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I only insist you don’t look these items. As I defer to the scientists and people that have more experience when dealing with pseudoscience, you are only grasping at straws. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > [snip] > > That’s a very short period of time, at least in terms of climate. Again, that just shows ignorance, climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > But there is a plateau there in the past 10 years, strangely coincident with a global economic recession. An interesting thought … Only interesting if one does not take into account the natural cycles and expected variations. And, it may turn to not had been a plateau. > **[By Request](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/)** > > I got a request for a revised form of some graphics. I do not intend to turn into everybody’s graphics monkey, so if you make a request don’t expect it to be fulfilled. But, this one se… ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/242 "2014-02-27T03:17:03Z")
How can it be warming? And getting colder? [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend) Also, the answer is in the OP ---
**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, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/243 "2014-02-27T03:56:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > How can it be warming? And getting colder? > > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend) Explained many times before over here: > **[The Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to “cherrypick” short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn’t it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Also, the answer is in the OP If you think [woodfortrees.org](http://woodfortrees.org) is helping you, you are an ignorant of the history of the origins of the now classic “escalator” graph linked here. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/244 "2014-02-27T04:20:46Z")
[The snow cover trend also supports the data](http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1), that clearly shows the NH winters have been trending colder. Which, the data shows, is actually the reason for the global mean dropping. THE SUMMERS ARE STILL WARMING! Don’t ignore that part. GIGO, or anyone else, will not find a counter to this on any blog, much less a way to deny it. Because it is simply the data, reality, what is happening. there is no theory, no conclusions, nothing hidden. Linking to the actual data, and letting anyone look for themselves, is actually the best counter to spin or bias. [You can simply look at it](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend). Certainly some people want to tell you WHAT IT MEANS and what you should believe and why it matters or doesn’t matter. But those are different issues than seeing what is actually real. ---
**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, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/245 "2014-02-27T04:23:30Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Linking to the actual data, and letting anyone look for themselves, is actually the best counter to spin or bias. > > [You can simply look at it](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/trend). > > Certainly some people want to tell you WHAT IT MEANS and what you should believe and why it matters or doesn’t matter. But those are different issues than seeing what is actually real. Yep, make the ignorance you have more clear for all to see, the original escalator graph is based in real data, and I will only say that (it is easy to figure where the data came from if one checks the one who proposed the idea for the escalator graph). We will check how deep you continue digging. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/246 "2014-02-27T04:25:14Z")
[You can see that summer NH temperatures are not cooling](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1980.5/every:12/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1980/trend). Why doesn’t Tamino know this? Show this? Because he is a believer, not a researcher. I am skeptical, but I will still show you what I just did. [Spring isn’t cooling either](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1980.25/every:12/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1980/trend). Of course all of this is in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/247 "2014-02-27T04:27:29Z")
So how the fuck do we get a global cooling trend, when it’s still warming? Answer is in the OP. Why do some people still insist the warming hasn’t slowed down at all? In fact, they will say it’s increased! Because they have an agenda, bias, and the scientific method seems to break down when you get too near the global warming. Of course the real deniers are worse. They confuse and belittle, rather than just remain ignorant. ---
**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, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/248 "2014-02-27T04:28:35Z")
Before you continue you do need to check \*\*where \*\*the data used by the Skeptical Science contributor that came with the escalator graph came from. Or don’t, and confirm to all the depths of ignorance that you can reach. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/249 "2014-02-27T05:06:45Z")
Skepticalscience is like a parody of itself at times. They complain about cherry picking data, by using a chart that starts at the coldest point in the recent temperature records, to try and show it’s all warming. If you try and educate this sort of blind prophet of doom, by using data, facts, and reason and logic, it will not work. ---
**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, 2014, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/250 "2014-02-27T05:59:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Skepticalscience is like a parody of itself at times. > > They complain about cherry picking data, by using a chart that starts at the coldest point in the recent temperature records, to try and show it’s all warming. > > If you try and educate this sort of blind prophet of doom, by using data, facts, and reason and logic, it will not work. And it is you who is not using logic, anyone (but you) can check the link to the escalator graph and click on the link from the Skeptical Science contributor: > [@](#): > > Note: the concept of the Escalator (as well as the term ‘going down the up escalator’) was first proposed by [Bob Lacatena](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=68&&n=1074#66528). And guess what data and source was used? The one FX is telling us that “it is simply the data, reality, what is happening. there is no theory, no conclusions, nothing hidden.” What follows then is simple logic: FX will either throw [woodfortrees.org](http://woodfortrees.org) under the bus, or claim that a longer view of the source he uses is a cherry pick or ignore this post. What is clear is that since he does not care that the evidence used by Skeptical Science came from his source and from other skeptics, like the Berkeley BEST group, it is clear that one should not rely on his conclusions that have no support whatsoever; when even the ones that manages the sources he claims to use do not support what he claims. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/251 "2014-02-27T14:04:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No one is “speculating”. [This function](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_due_to_atmospheric_gas) doesn’t create a “sine wave”. Do you have a reference for this equation? The link is to Wikipedia and they don’t give one. Specifically, where did the scalar 5.35 come from? > [@wolfpup](#): > > You can also [continue to ignore my question about why you never post a straightforward temperature graph](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17144359&postcount=229) – I guess that would make the data too clear! [Here’s the data from NOAA](http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature), using the formula: (Average Global Temperature) = (The sum of all temperature readings) divided by (The total number of readings) The data you posted says that average temps are up a full 4 ºC since 1993 from GISS, but NOAA is only reporting a 0.2 ºC increase in that same time frame. Care to elaborate? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I defer to the scientists and people that have more experience when dealing with pseudoscience, you are only grasping at straws. Scientists include many components when considering climate change: biology, solar physics, orbital geometry, dynamics and many others. Are you saying these are all pseudosciences, do they have no effect on climate or are you saying these disciplines have to be ignored for you to grind your axe? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, that just shows ignorance, climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. > > Only interesting if one does not take into account the natural cycles and expected variations. And, it may turn to not had been a plateau. Amazing, you just claimed both man and nature are the dominant components in climate change … that’s no easy trick to flip-flop in just two sentences. ---
**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, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/252 "2014-02-27T14:44:33Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Scientists include many components when considering climate change: biology, solar physics, orbital geometry, dynamics and many others. Are you saying these are all pseudosciences, do they have no effect on climate or are you saying these disciplines have to be ignored for you to grind your axe? No, I’m saying and you are ignoring that pseudoscience is called that because **it uses actual data and science but in a misleading way**. In the whole tale of Andrew Wakefield and his pseudoscience about vaccines causing autism. He claimed for a long time (and he still does) that he had science on his side, but in the end it was found that he, besides cherry picking the data, he misrepresented and altered a lot of his research (here we have to point out that a lot of the “supporting” evidence from contrarians has been debunked and rejected by the vast majority of climate researchers). > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Amazing, you just claimed both man and nature are the dominant components in climate change … that’s no easy trick to flip-flop in just two sentences. No, **what you show here is what I pointed many times before what was supposed to be a joke**. But now we know it is more than just a joke or a theory: some people really have a huge blind spot regarding timelines (and they are mostly coming from the extreme right wing), you are ignoring the divisions in the timeline that keep in mind the “before and after” of when humans began to release all those gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are \*\*now \*\*the dominant forcing. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/253 "2014-02-27T15:39:57Z")
He can’t get it. It’s some sort of blind spot. He believes, on the one hand, “now man is the dominate forcing”, causing global warming, right now. At the same time, “natural variations are masking the global warming right now”. Or some say “the heat is going into the deep oceans right now,” , in any case, man is forcing the globe to warm. Except for when nature is preventing it. There is no getting through that belief system. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/254 "2014-02-27T16:00:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, I’m saying and you are ignoring that pseudoscience is called that because **it uses actual data and science but in a misleading way**. In the whole tale of Andrew Wakefield and his pseudoscience about vaccines causing autism. He claimed for a long time (and he still does) that he had science on his side, but in the end it was found that he, besides cherry picking the data, he misrepresented and altered a lot of his research (here we have to point out that a lot of the “supporting” evidence from contrarians has been debunked and rejected by the vast majority of climate researchers). Er … no … pseudoscience cannot be actual science, it’s either one or the other. I’m not sure what you mean about altering climate data to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. Are you saying NOAA’s data is wrong? Are you saying I posted this data in bad faith? This is the average global temperatures for the last 150 years, how does this mislead? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are \*\*now \*\*the dominant forcing. That’s an extraordinary claim, and you defer to other people for evidence. Okay, I believe you think this. I’d like to know where you think this extra CO[sub]2[/sub] should go. ---
**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, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/255 "2014-02-27T16:01:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > He can’t get it. It’s some sort of blind spot. He believes, on the one hand, “now man is the dominate forcing”, causing global warming, right now. At the same time, “natural variations are masking the global warming right now”. > > Or some say “the heat is going into the deep oceans right now,” , in any case, man is forcing the globe to warm. Except for when nature is preventing it. > > There is no getting through that belief system. No, I have no belief, I know for a fact that you got caught cherry picking data and sources that do not support what you claim. And I was right, your choice is to ignore the post and the egg in your face. ---
**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, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/256 "2014-02-27T16:26:23Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Er … no … pseudoscience cannot be actual science, it’s either one or the other. I’m not sure what you mean about altering climate data to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. Are you saying NOAA’s data is wrong? Are you saying I posted this data in bad faith? This is the average global temperatures for the last 150 years, how does this mislead? Once again, if the intention is to follow science and to not mislead this therefore should be accepted: [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/) > [@](#): > > NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend > > Posted Jan. 21, 2014 > > NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. > Maps of 2013 global temperature anomaly and trend > > Maps of the 2013 global temperature anomaly (top) and the 1950-2013 temperature trend (bottom.) (Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Earth Observatory, NASA/GISS) > > - View larger image > > With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. > > NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday on temperatures around the globe in 2013. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago. > > The average temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 degrees Celsius), which is 1.1 °F (0.6 °C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) since 1880, according to the new analysis. Exact rankings for individual years are sensitive to data inputs and analysis methods. > > “Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring.” > > Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous. > > Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and plays a major role in controlling changes to Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere presently is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Again, like the “scientific racists” out there, the pseudoscience comes from using real science articles, and sources but they typically omit the conclusions and a lot of context of the ones finding and curating the data, the result is here for all to see: We then see failed conclusions from contrarians, conclusions that cherry picks are meaningful and that scientists are into a conspiracy for not agreeing with that pseudoscience. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > That’s an extraordinary claim, and you defer to other people for evidence. Okay, I believe you think this. I’d like to know where you think this extra CO[sub]2[/sub] should go. It remains in the atmosphere and continues to warm the earth, as has been pointed may times before. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > The amount of fossil carbon that Suess saw added to the atmosphere was barely one percent, a fraction so low that he concluded that the oceans were indeed taking up most of the carbon that came from burning fossil fuels. A decade would pass before he reported more accurate studies, which showed a far higher fraction of fossil carbon. Yet already in 1955 it was evident that Suess’s data were preliminary and insecure. The important thing he had demonstrated was that fossil carbon really was showing up in the atmosphere. More work on carbon-14 should tell just how carbon was circulating in the planetary system.(30) > > Suess took up the problem in collaboration with Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. (Some other carbon-14 experts attacked the topic independently, all reaching much the same conclusions.) From measurements of how much of the isotope was found in the air and how much in sea water, they calculated the movements of CO2 (link from below). It turned out that the ocean surface waters took up a typical molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere within a decade or so. Measurements of the travels of radioactive carbon from bomb tests meanwhile showed that the oceans turned over completely in several hundred years (an estimate soon confirmed by evidence from other studies).(31) At first sight that seemed fast enough to sweep any extra CO2 into the depths. > > But Revelle had been studying the chemistry of the oceans through his entire career, and he knew that the seas are not just salt water but a complex stew of chemicals. These chemicals create a peculiar buffering mechanism that stabilizes the acidity of sea water. The mechanism had been known for decades, but Revelle now realized that it would prevent the water from retaining all the extra CO2 it took up. A careful look showed that the surface layer could not really absorb much additional gas — barely one-tenth the amount a naïve calculation would have predicted. > > As sometimes happens with landmark scientific papers, written in haste while understanding just begins to dawn, Revelle’s explanation was hard to grasp. Other scientists failed to see the point that was obscurely buried in the calculations, and continued to deny there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, when Callendar published a paper to insist once again that CO2 observations showed a steady rise from the 19th century, he noted Revelle’s paper but still confessed that he did not understand why “the oceans have not been accepting additional CO2 on anything like the accepted scale.”(33) Finally in 1959 two meteorologists in Sweden, Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson, caught on. They explained the sea water buffering clearly — so clearly that during the next few years, some scientists cited Bolin and Eriksson’s paper for this decisive insight rather than Revelle and Suess’s (only in later years was Revelle always cited for the discovery).(34) The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2, most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss. To be sure, the chemistry of air and sea water would eventually reach an equilibrium — but that could take thousands of years. Arrhenius had not concerned himself with timescales shorter than that, but geoscientists in the 1950s did. Once again, you only demonstrate ignorance by just following the lead of some that discourages you to check the most reliable sources and information regarding this issue. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/257 "2014-02-27T22:17:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, like the “scientific racists” out there, the pseudoscience comes from using real science articles, and sources but they typically omit the conclusions and a lot of context of the ones finding and curating the data, the result is here for all to see What on Earth are you talking about? Are you saying the raw data from NOAA is wrong? Who exactly are you calling a racist? Explain yourself … ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/258 "2014-02-27T22:36:29Z")
No, please don’t. ---
**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, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/259 "2014-02-27T22:43:15Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > What on Earth are you talking about? Are you saying the raw data from NOAA is wrong? Who exactly are you calling a racist? Explain yourself … Reading comprehension, those were examples regarding pseudoscience, you can’t figure out or are aware of how other pseudosciences behave. Astrology, for example, grabbed the planets discovered by science (astrology before science came along thought that the number of planets stopped at Saturn) for their own astrological purposes, you are really an ignorant of how they usually grab what science finds and abuse it. And now, I expect that you will think that I accused you of being an astrologer… 😃 BTW, before you continue look around on dictionaries of philosophy like the one from Standford University regarding what they also consider what is a pseudoscience. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/260 "2014-02-27T23:09:18Z")
What does pseudoscience have to do with trained profession meteorologists reading state-of-the-art calibrated thermometers? > [@](#): > > [The CO[sub]2[/sub]] remains in the atmosphere and continues to warm the earth, as has been pointed may times before. Between 100,000 years BP and 10,000 years BP, CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere went down, from around 300 ppm to about 100 ppm. So, CO[sub]2[/sub] does not remain in the atmosphere for very long … do you have any idea where it goes, and in what degree? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=14)