Oh for fucks sake. You GW people are idiots. It’s winter right now. If there was GW then it wouldn’t be winter right it would fucking be summer but it isn’t summer right now is it bitches? No, it’s fucking winter. Maybe you idiots should go outside once in awhile.
Having a quick peek at NASA’s numbers this morning, I noticed that their global temperature for December is now posted and, due to the La Nina cycle, it was predictably cooler than the rest of the year – the colest December since 2002, in fact. However, that still makes 2010 far and away the warmest year on record and the first decade of this century the warmest decade on record.
Just sayin’ 
“Due to a moderate La Niña, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was well above-average with the most number of named storms since 2005. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season and 1887 for the second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[2] In addition, the activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time this event happened was in 2005. [3]”
Full stop. This is flawed thinking. Vastly different climates have occurred on Earth before the rise of man, and we thus we know that nature is capable of great variation in climate.
The null hypothesis (default assumption) in the case of AGW should be that “all climate change is natural (non man-made).” The next step then is to show that human activity is the cause of recent climate changes (i.e., 20th century warming.)
I should have mentioned that the prediction was for the United States. I could have sworn that it came from the NOAA or NASA but it very well could have been reported wrong, which is entirely likely given my views on news reporting in general.
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost Tied 2005 as hottest year ever. It was the wettest and wildest. That somehow proves Al Gore was lying.
Do you really think scientists have not taken that into account already, and for several decades?
The flawed thinking is to assume that they have not.
This was already mentioned BTW.
The emphasis of my post was more in the direction of my second requirement. There are certainly non-man made reasons why the climate may have changed, but you are still stuck with explaining why the greenhouse gases are disobeying the laws of physics and not causing the planet to heat up.
Sure Becky’s weight gain could be purely caused by a thyroid problem, but then you have to explain why her reducing exercise and eating ice cream didn’t cause her to gain weight.
Reminds me of a comedian I saw on TV saying:
“Look, dumbass, global warming doesn’t mean the weather where you are right now!”
At the end of the 2010 season, I remember reading that predictions had been pretty accurate; we take these storms seriously on the Gulf Coast.
The predictions generally estimate the number of serious storms throughout the hemisphere–then, their predicted landfall. The USA lucked out on the “landfall” part.
It doesn’t matter, does it? If we are responsible for 30% or 70%, there is not a lot we can do to reduce the natural component, so we had better work on ours.
And to add another cycle, La Nina years are usually dry in the Eastern Pacific, but this one is wet in parts (like California, especially southern California). But this seems to be pure chance.
Just out of curiosity, why do you want to believe that “the AGW hypothesis is false”? What interest do you have in believing that a scientific hypothesis is true or false?
It kind of does. If, no matter what we do we can’t do enough to shift the forces that are naturally occuring then in doesn’t make sense to bankrupt ourselves to do it, it makes more sense to plan for how to deal with climate change and invest our money there.
It’s important when judging the risk/reward of action or inaction to have all the information. The issue with climate change is that not only do we not have all the information, those who are responsible for gathering it are being bought and paid for by people who have a vested interest in the outcome on both sides of the issue.
So I play the odds. I do my best to reduce my own footprint within what I decide are reasonable financial impacts. From a national or global perspective that’s more difficult because decisions made on that level impact other people’s finances.
Yes, they really are that dumb. Average temperatures are up and continue to rise. That some days record cold temperatures are set would effect global averages to drop rather than rise if it weren’t true. If global temperatures rise 5 degress Celsius over the next 100 years as predicted, that does not mean that there will not be vicious cold snaps, but rather more hot days. This really sucks for cities on coasts, which must account for 2 billion people. 1 to 3 feet elevation rise is going to be really crappy on coastal communities and buildings. What really worries me is if all the stored methane in tundra and undersea traps starts off gassing into the atmosphere.
Are you stupid?
Ontopic: This answers the question in the OP, they don’t actually know. 
As predicted by who? The last I remember the IPCC was predicting something like a 2 degree Celsius rise over that time period. Have they updated this to 5 degrees C, or is this some other prediction?
-XT
Aside from arguing in bad faith or from ignorance, some people refuse to listen when they are informed (I guess we could bucket that with ignorance, if we wanted). Hell, the first response to your OP was eerily similar to a post the same person made in 2009, and it was thoroughly explained to them at that time. Are they lying, forgetful, or just not paying attention?
Because conservatives and libertarians hate the idea that regulation is necessary.
I should think anyone who has to live on this planet’s surface would like for it to be false. One less set of future problems to worry about.