Sure.
I admire your faith in that the ordinary political/electoral/legislative process can really glean deep scientific fact and find the right solutions.
Ok, not lost.
However, you can claim a moral victory of, say, changing to CFLs because the police came, smashed your bulbs and waterboarded you till you installed CFLSs.
There are still fickle (“swing”) voters, even in today’s polarised electorate. Think of how different the elections of 2006 and 2010 were, for instance.
It is actually a little bit worse than that for the Republicans SirGalahad.
I post for all the young moderate Republicans and independent people involved in science and technology that are finally beginning to notice how crazy the current Republican leadership is.
Of course not! What with the increasing confidence that GW is A, surely everybody is sold now that the confidence level is 95 instead of 90…
Gauntlet. Bam. Denialists: Ignorant of Science.
Unfortunately, I think the alarmists’ call is going to end up sounding like this:
“We are even more positive than ever that it’s our fault the sky is falling, although we now realize it’s not falling quite as fast as we thought it was.
PS: We still don’t have any realistic suggestions about what to do about it because the basic problem is too many people wanting to live too large. Our host Mr Gore will be jetting in to help us work through the PR of that little nitpick.”
Perhaps alarmists will eventually figure out their problem is not the Denialists. It’s the Living Largists. And we’re almost all (Me 'n Al Gore, especially) in favor of personally living larger while we turf costs to future generations.
Gore joke mentioned, got my Bingo! 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Global_Warming_Denial_Bingo
according to the op’s link: “The new report, Reuters says, offers only “medium confidence” that scientists understand the reasons for this slowing. Causes cited include the possibility that the oceans are taking up more heat, that volcanic eruptions (which tend to produce cooling) may be providing a partial offset to temperature rise, contributing too cooling, or that the climate itself has a lower “sensitivity” to greenhouse gas emissions than previously proposed.”
So they had no clue why their model was wrong but they were confident that there were some possible reasons for it. It could be volcanoes, Satan, or People flying from seminar to seminar to warn us of the impending doom.
Face is GIGObuster, Their predictions were wrong. But as long as they’re “real sure” we’ll just wait for the next round of possible reasons to explain it.
I’m 95% confident they don’t know why their models don’t work. I’m 90% sure the natural change in power consumption will negate the levels of Co2 we are releasing today without making ANY changes in policy.
So fuck Al Gore and his flying circus of impending doom.
Full stop, that is not accurate at all.
Even your followup points to the items that show that indeed they do have a clue. And you are skipping the explanations of scientists like latif that were made years ago.
What it was clear by many expert sites that report on this issue is that they did predict that many false skeptics would grab that “medium confidence” bit on the surface temperatures to misrepresent the science. They were correct indeed.
And your rant also omitted the more certain bits reported like the subject of the OP. False skeptics seem to live in a contradictory universe.
One nitpick: I see people here using “95%” as though it were equivalent to “100%” or at least “99.9%” when the chance of being wrong is 4,900% higher. I have played a lot of poker. And I know better than to think, when I get all in on the turn with a pair of aces vs. a pair of kings, that I can start counting the chips. There is about a 95.5% chance I will win the pot, yes. But seeing the king hit the felt on the river, while a bad beat to be sure, is not exactly some sort of legendary occurrence you can tell other players about without expecting a sarcastic response of “cool story, bro”.
But the Al Gore boogey man has been called once again, I do see it a Godwin in these discussions like the “it is a religion” accusation that virtually every pseudo science follower has launched against the scientists. It only shows that the “skeptics” do not have good ideas left.
And the political angle inferred by calling Gore does reflect on the bankruptcy of once again attempting to make this issue a political litmus test, not even conservative Republican scientists are falling for that one, in the cite I referred to that Magiver avoided we had Republican scientist Richard Alley.
And over here we have Conservative Republican scientist from BYU Barry Bickmore:
What’s not accurate? They didn’t predict the rise in temperature accurately.
They didn’t correctly predict the rise in temperature. What part of that did you not understand?
It’s not a rant if it’s true. They fucked up their predictions and they’re not even trying to take into consideration the natural reduction in co2 production because of the advancements on the Horizon. We aren’t going to be driving gasoline cars in the future. It’s a given. We’re already gravitating toward natural gas as a cheaper alternative to coal NOW. We already seek out high mileage cars and hybrids NOW and that will explode when battery technology catches up. When fast charging batteries hit the market it’s going to radically change how we consume power.
Only by willfully missing what the point was from Latif is that you can say that. Scientists did not predict a constant rice in surface temperature.
It was not the truth, it was incomplete and just the typical misleading bit that denier sources of information put forth.
It is the contrarians the ones that are so grossly wrong in their predictions that it is really silly to look at them for information on this issue:
Dude, don’t you get it?
There is always one model that at the end of a gigantic error/cofidence bar will include any temperature that happens short of a Thera-like event.
Look at all the charts. It doens’t matter that we’ve got now 200 months of no warming, even if they extend to 1996, before the boogey-man of the 98 Niño.
Isn’t it fun to see them circle-jerkin’?
This is inappropriate for GD and it’s insulting. Don’t be a jerk.
Ok.
(post shortened for clarity)
I’ll wait for the actual IPCC report to come out. Given the documented 25 year history of global warming “science” being unable to prove that the actual global temp is actually climbing at any of the rates they had predicted AND the fact that the IPCC “scientists” managed to lose their man-made inputs and computer modeling data before anyone else could verify their predictions, I see no reason to rush to judgement. When the actual IPCC report is released, I’ll look at it. Until then, any “leaked” and “un-verified” reporting isn’t worth the effort.
And thank you for showing all that you did not check the link in post #52, scientists did not predict a constant surface temperature increase, the evidence is overwhelming that the warming continues, and your sources of information already showed that they got it wrong many, many times.
Sometimes it takes a demonstration of ignorance to show all how the contrarian bubble of information is malfunctioning, those sources of information do not care that they are giving misleading information to their followers. I will always wonder why the bile is geared towards the ones pointing that out and not to the ones that are giving you that sorry information.
BTW, apparently (and based entirely on leaks, of course), they’re predicting a three-foot rise in the sea level by 2100.
Invest not in beachfront.
The 20 cities that have the most to lose. And that’s by 2050, not 2100.
However:
LOL. Since the findings produced by the IPCC and it’s devoted followers has been a repeated demonstration of arrogance showing all how their bubble of information has malfunctioned,
I will STILL wait for the actual IPCC report to come out.
In the past, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using various emissions scenarios and climate models. Unfortunately, they’ve lost their man-made inputs that would have allowed others to actually check their results. How convenient. Now there is “leaked” information that may or may not have come from the “soon-to-be-released” official IPCC report suggesting all kinds of unprovable/unproven/speculative/conjured possibilities. :yawn:
FYI - Attacking me is NOT going to prove global warming or climate change. It suggests that you’ve run out of argument and have gotten desperate. I suggest that you try to to stick to debating AGW and sea level rise.
You must be referring to the malarkey of several years ago where Phil Jones was accused of that, unfortunately your pathetic sources forgot to tell you that his research was confirmed by others.
Read it again, I’m attacking your sorry sources that are still repeating debunked baloney from years ago. You are even wrong on your observation here but thank you for showing your ignorance to others.