Science was indeed on the side of the hole in the ozone problem - the science was right, it was listened to, and the correct actions were taken to alleviate the problem. The ozone layer problem is not an example of science leading us astray - it’s an excellent example of us doing the right thing in time, because science told us what was going on.
And **Starving **once again shows not only how inept he is at finding citations, what he ignores is that I do use citations as a test to see if the opponent at least understand and is capable of identifying the best evidence to demonstrate a point.
In this case he is choosing to avoid looking for them demonstrating to all that he is not even wrong.
No, that would be you.
I love the idea of a conspiracy-of-all-scientists to enrich certain members of the left though.
It has a very nice Illuminatus-like flavor to it!
I wonder what Al Gore offered the scientists in return?
But basically, we can all agree that just because it’s snowing in winter doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming, right? 
My favorite science reporter just came with a new report on the latest denialists and alarmists attempts to mislead people regarding the recent winter snow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY&feature=player_embedded#!
As usual, the popular press gets it wrong.
I resolve to be just generally disagreeable and not agree with anybody about aything anymore. :mad:
That way I’m pretty much guaranteed to be right about half the time.
Prior to this thread I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that snow in winter disproves global warming. Usually it’s snowfall or extremely cold temperatures in unlikely places that lead people to make snide or dismissive comments about it.
It is not that it was only on the internet, but those making snide or dismissive comments about it are on national radio and tv:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101110048
http://mediamatters.org/research/201012130014
And just in case there are some denier readers of below average intelligence over here :), the FOX commentators and reporters used sarcasm, that has to be mentioned as deniers do demonstrate having trouble following.
And as the Science Reporter in the video link always says, check the sources where the denier or alarmist website, media report or magazine article is getting their information from.
On a quick search the top relevant sites that are claiming that “It’s cold, so there’s no global warming bit” are several of the usual denier suspects:
Michelle Malkin
National Review
Newsbusters
myteapartychronicle
Yeah, it looks like the walls of the right wing echo chamber alright.
And just like the science reporter on the past link recommends; I looked, for example, at the source Michelle Malakin uses: a TIME article that finally does show that the reporter did his homework and made the proper point that a cold winter is no reason to dismiss global warming. So why is the right using an article that actually says the opposite of what they are insinuating or saying?
Easy, after years of seeing how they operate one can conclude that many right wing sources already “know” that scientists are wrong, lie or are criminals (based on the past “reports” the right wing media made about the issue recently and their viewers or readers continue to believe). Therefore, no matter if the science stubbornly continues to tell them otherwise, the right wing sources already know the “truth” and the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed as examples of the “mad scientists in league with Al Gore”.
And if the science stubbornly continues to tell your side – year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year – that “it stayed about the same, and near as we can tell it actually got a little colder”, the latest science reports are just mentioned to be instantly dismissed; warmists already know the “truth” no matter whether global temperatures level off or dwindle away.
Good heavens, man; is this the approach you use in any other context? Imagine you met a hundred-pound woman on New Year’s Eve in '98, and she told you her resolution will be to stop the weight-gain trend she figures she’s in for – and imagine you run into her on New Year’s Eve in '99, and ask how it went. “Well,” she replies, “I didn’t gain any weight, and near as I can tell I lost some. Called in the UN’s top scientists to confirm it, even – but one year isn’t a trend.”
And you run into her again on New Year’s Eve in '00. “Still haven’t gained any weight since I made that resolution,” she says. “Still down in the ol’ double digits, as far as the UN’s top scientists can tell. But two years don’t make a trend.”
And so '01 comes around – and '02, and '03, and '04 – and the scientists keep telling her she hasn’t gained any weight; she’s apparently lost some, even; but still she keeps on. “Three years? Not a trend. Four years? Not a trend. Five years? Not a trend. Six years? Not a trend.” You keep asking each time New Year’s rolls around, and she keeps giving you the same answer: the UN’s top scientists keep telling her she hasn’t cracked a hundred pounds, but she keeps explaining that six years ain’t a trend and seven years ain’t a trend and eight years ain’t a trend and nine years ain’t a trend. “A decade ain’t a trend,” she eventually explains, as the scientists keep telling her she’s long since plateaued or even gotten a bit lighter; she replies, in time, that “eleven years ain’t a trend either,” because strikingly similar results of course roll in again.
(Of course, if she ever goes a tenth of a pound over a hundred, she’ll pounce on those results like a spaniel on a downed sparrow. But until that day arrives – if it ever does – she just keeps dismissing the latest reports, and railing against those who ignore the alleged evidence.)
What would you tell her if she now insists on regulating your life to mitigate the weight-gain trend in question? (And, if it helps, imagine she occasionally switches the terms from “weight-gain trend” to, er, “weight-change trend” – for reasons that elude you, since “plateaued” of course cuts against “weight-change” the same way it cuts against “weight-gain”.)
If I read that post right, you seem to not understand what the evidence for warming is actually showing.
This is a whoosh, right? Gotta be. No Doper is idiotic enough to use the word “warmists” in earnest.
:sigh:
This was explained before, you are indeed cherry picking a specific year to begin taking the “weight” into account, this is by now a very old climate denier tactic that has been discredited and debunked many times before.
If we use your example and take it to the times scientists began to notice that human CO2 and other gases accumulation were beginning to overwhelm the natural forcings, then that woman in the 70’s would had been anorexic, so lets assume she was also 100 pounds then, now lets move to the 2010’s, she has reached now 125 pounds and the doctors tell her that if she continues with her increased unhealthy diet she will reach 135 pounds in 10 years.
The doctors would have to contain their laughter if she insisted that she was losing weight because she just increased a few pounds from 1998 to 2010, tap dancing around the issue that doctors (for this example we assume a very short person) told her that it was unhealthy to reach 118 in the first place.
And what if doctors know that she will retire soon and then her unhealthy food intake will remain the same or **increase **when natural forcings (in this case less exercise=more weight) will increase the weight even more?
Because that is what the scientists see and people like you continue to ignore: the fact that this, still warmer than before, 10 year period of “apparent” no increase in warming is now happening when several important natural forcings are low, like solar activity or Milankovitch earth cycles.
The most likely forcing to increase soon is the solar activity, and unless you can put a stomach vise on that person :), the increase of the natural forcing will be added to the still present and increasing unnatural one.
Of course I’m cherry-picking a specific year! If I were arguing that the trend of having a President named “Roosevelt” was long since over, I’d say we haven’t had one since '45; I wouldn’t say “since '35” or “since '55”, because it’s only all been downhill since '45. If I were arguing that any trend of holding the Olympics in Germany long since ended, I’d say it hasn’t happened since '72; I wouldn’t say “since '62” or “since '82”, since it only ended in '72.
See, now, that’s an interesting prediction. Are you saying, by analogy, that “in ten years” the current temperature will go up that drastically? Or that, “in ten years”, it will go up at all instead of (a) holding steady for a decade, or (b) maybe even dropping a bit?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page: ten years from now, what hypothetical evidence could pile up to falsify your predictions about global warming? (And: back in '98, what were your side’s falsifiable predictions about global warming in the years and years and years and years and years and years to come?)
So who, on your side, was predicting a ‘10-year period of no “apparent” warming’ back when? And, again, what specific falsifiable prediction are you and yours offering up now? Could any plateau or drop over the last decade-plus have caused you even a moment’s concern? Could any plateau or drop over the next decade-plus swing it?
But would they have to contain their laughter if she decreased from 1998 to 2010?
We must of course at this point recognize that the climate change scientific community and their followers (especially those in the political arena) have likey attained preeminent groupthink status, and even in the face of damning evidence to the contrary, will continue to rationalize a position not supported by the facts.
She didn’t, check the scientific papers. And the prediction was adapting your silly gaining weight example, no real temperature estimates were mentioned, try to keep up.
And climate researchers like Latif warned about your misunderstanding, to no avail…
So ignorance or malice to ignore that variation does happen and can be misrepresented as no warming?
CITE? The reality is that you have not presented any. Just misrepresentations and misleading information, the citation you gave was a sorry one.
Dude’s a troll.
They don’t supply cites.