Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!

And here you show to all that you did not read the thread, I already mentioned that the IPCC is conservative, the overall point remains that most contrarians still call what the IPCC does is “alarmism”

Sure, just tell everyone that there is no solution, actually we had this conversation before and your FUD remains the same.

Cite for that? This should be good, because as it is painfully clear you are still ignoring the huge bias your sources of information have against any solutions.

Yep, and where that push and spin is coming from are… the same sources you rely on. One of the larger points I make when climate change pops up is that this also shows clear evidence that, besides the usual big media suspects from the right, the mainstream demonstrates to all that it is not liberal (as most of the sources you rely on also tell you).

As I noticed, it is mostly MSNBC the one that I have noticed one could point as being liberal nowadays.

Let me guess, same sources you rely on told you that they are still looking for the data? I would not be surprised that in many cases what we have is contrarian reports spinning good science to claim the opposite of what the scientists report to fool many into the FUD.

Again, after more than 100 years of this and seeing that most of your points depend on ignorance, the ones I made stand; the contrarian sources of information are the ones that have made an industry of their selection bias, it is way pass the time that we all should ignore them and demand our elected leaders to stop using them to come with no solutions at all.

Well, back atcha: yes, that is a reasonable point. However, it is an indictment of politics, not of science. You can say, “The scientists are pushing for expensive and unpopular reforms, and we should resist these changes” is valid. To say “…therefore the climate isn’t really changing” is invalid. Yet this is a major part of the dissent from the reforms being recommended. “It would cost too much money to cut back on emissions…therefore the glaciers are melting because of natural causes, not man-made causes.” That’s hellishly illogical…and yet it is a significant part of the dissent.

I’m not accusing you specifically; you didn’t construct that syllogism. But it has been thrown out there.

Back around 1998, for the most part warmists were NOT claiming that the temperature was anomalously high. i.e. for the most part it was treated as confirming evidence of their hypothesis.

Anyway, how can you be so confident in the “noisy system” hypothesis and so dismissive of the “global warming has been exaggerated” hypothesis?

Looks to me like you are epicycling.

And another one that ignores the 70s when convenient. Suffice to say that back then an even longer slowdown was taken by popular media to be a sign that an ice age was coming, in reality most scientists reported that warming was coming.

Just another example of cherrypicking to make a lousy contrarian point.

1998 not mentioned even once.

Because it was pointed many times before that it was a strawman too, scientists reported how natural variability was a big factor for 1998 to be that warm.

Gee, what an evil thing to do, a data point that would benefit the “alarmists” was actually minimized by the “greedy” scientists.

So 1995 is ok?
What’s the non-Niña non–big-volcano year that is ok?

True dat.
1998 went from “the final proof on AGW the super-mega-hot year on all the world!!!11!” to “cherry-picked nonsense by oil shills”

I’m gonna print that quote on a t-shirt

As the escalator graph points out, you have to take many years into consideration,

And related to this, it is clear you never want to explain why is it that all previous La Niña years, that are the coldest years in the cycles, are getting warmer.

BTW an epicycle is an astronomical and mathematical term, I guess it is better than the denier republican politicians in one state that proclaimed that there was an **astrological **reason for the warming.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/25/205564/south-dakota-legislators-tell-schools-to-teach-‘astrological’-explanation-for-global-warming/

GIGObuster, you have the patience of Job.

And the faith as well.

As pointed before, when contrarians reach for the “you follow religion” point, it only shows that they don’t have any good points left, no easy pickings left too.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/10/207497/charles-krauthammer-global-warming-is-a-religion-gore/

And thank you for that compliment BlackKnight.

What’s the non-Niña non–big-volcano year that is ok?

(BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones)

Ok for what?

Since it’s been mentioned several times in several AGW threads that 1998 is a evil-oil-shill-denier-of-death cherry picked year to show the obviously non-existant pause I wonder, for the third time on this thread I ask:

What’s the non-Niña, non-big-volcano year that is OK? (i.e., the year that would show that temperatures have not increased or have decreased from THAT year to now and that would not be considered cherry-picked)
**
(BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones)**

Isn’t the sun’s energy (as it hits the earth’s surface) directly measurable? If the sun were suddenly dimmed, even by a fraction of a per cent, wouldn’t that be seen, directly and immediately, by any of a hundred solar observatories?

Have you ever heard of “it takes two to tango”? Well more than two years are used, and no, no serious researcher picks a year and calls it a day. :wink:

Besides being folly to stick to one **recent **year to get what you want, what climate scientists look for is the long term trend, of course the contrarian media wants to ignore what H. L. Mencken said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

One of the things I learned is that there are also calculations made of where the temperature would be if there was no human made CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere, as many past skeptics that looked at the evidence and got convinced can tell you, we should also had seen temperatures reaching the levels seen in the 50s

Instead, the surface “pause” seen recently remains higher than all the temperatures from the past decades. And when one adds the ocean heat, it is really fishy to tell others that the warming has stopped. This issue of the quest for an specific surface reading in a year to dismiss the whole thing is a red herring.

You are only repeating the same non-experiment that the entertainment media attempted to do in the 60s-70s during the long pause of those days, again, a super majority of the papers published then predicted that warming was going to come or continue. Today the climate scientists report that it is really foolish to be complacent in the current “pause” that is happening mostly in the surface. And they are telling us that with the help of better tools and resources than when they started reporting about this more than 100 years ago.

Of course. And it changes depending on where you are, when it is, what the clouds are like, air pollution, and of course with the seasons. From the surface of the earth there is no way to measure all the sun’s energy, as even with clear air and no clouds, most of the energy never makes it anywhere close to ground level.

Since 1979 satellite data has given us measurements of TSI, and before that the visible portion was measured by recording the reflection from Neptune and Uranus.

Best scientific data shows the visible portion varies by 2 percent, while ultraviolet can vary by much larger amounts. But it seems the magnetic field changes may be the real climate connection, and it’s influence on cosmic rays hitting the earth varies the cloudiness of the atmosphere, which really changes the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface.

Regarding the cosmic rays, I remember that there was a big brouhaha of them being another “final nail in the coffin” for the scientific idea that the current heat increase was being caused by human emitted CO2 and other gases.

There are so many “final” nails that it is a contradiction when they have to come with others; I mean, if they were the final ones, why it is necessary to make new ones?

The answer is that the so called “final” nails were not what the contrarian media told to their fans.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/

And of course, there is still the assumption that scientific reports and research like that are not seen by the IPCC, they are, as the latest report shows:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2535