I don’t convert people. The vast majority of scientists who share consensus is what converts people.
I’m just pointing out that you’re a pussy who can’t think.
You are only an idiot for thinking that science works with no proof, science works also by others confirming a research, and before and after NOAA’s research others confirmed that the talk of a “pause” was indeed a denier talking point that was given too much weight that it was needed or it was indeed just talking point with no value.
What should be “good to know” is that your clumsy preferred way to express CO2 numbers to show how “small” they are can still be used to show how a difference of 0.0001 parts CO2 by volume per unit atmosphere is enough to start and end ice ages. So your clumsy notation only impresses morons and has no other purpose except to be clumsy.
The full paper is public information. For those looking for more detail, the supplementary material includes all material and methods and sources of raw data.
Do you suppose Lamar Smith has looked at it, or that a senile scientific illiterate like Lamar Smith could possibly understand it if he did? So what do you suppose this political troglodyte is fishing for from NOAA that isn’t already publicly available? It’s exactly the same harassment that Michael Mann was put through when the same troglodytes didn’t like his “hockey stick” reconstruction that inconveniently showed rapid post-industrial warming.
There’s nothing further that NOAA could provide that could possibly aid anyone’s further understanding, especially the understanding of a malicious scientifically ignorant bozo like Lamar Smith. What he’s hoping for is to find emails with scientific jargon that can be willfully misunderstood and craftily misrepresented. In vast quantities of informal technical communication, the laws of statistics say you can always find something if you’re on a determined witch hunt.
Those who are actually interested in scientific integrity will rely on the peer review process and on further scientific studies by competent scientists to corroborate or question the study, if there’s anything that should be questioned. Not a mendacious idiot like Lamar Smith. If Smith’s concerns were genuine he should at least have the intelligence and integrity to ask the National Academy of Sciences to look at it, rather than engaging in a stupid witch hunt. That’s what the National Academy is for – to advise Congress on science. That actually happened before, when some of the same Congressional morons questioned Michael Mann’s famous climate reconstructions and asked the NAS to look at past climate and on Mann’s work in particular. Overall, the NAS review just elevated Mann’s stature as one of the foremost climate scientists practicing today.
The evidence points that the claims that the pause falsified global warming was a stupid denier tactic, that evidence is not under investigation.
Once again what Lamar and the Republicans are doing is to ignore the science and only toss dirt even before they got their grubby hands into the usually (by the deniers) taken out of context e-mails; incidentally the congress critters already investigated, but since they did not get what they wanted they are overreaching for the useless emails and conversations.
Useless as that is not science and are not used for publication.
Lamar and his buddies already have the data and the report, but they do not like the results and they are unable to find a skeptic scientist that is willing to contradict the data.
It’s on a par with the other denier tactic of asserting that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are minuscule compared to natural ones. Well sure they are, but the point is that the natural emissions are part of a stable annual cycle of release and absorption that keeps the CO2 levels in the atmosphere approximately constant. The release of extra CO2 from human fossil fuel burning that is not balanced by extra CO2 absorption is what’s driving up atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Similarly, if you have a balanced monthly budget of incoming paychecks versus outgoing expenses and savings, and somebody starts illegally withdrawing $20 per month from your account, that $20 is pretty tiny compared to the thousands of dollars that you’re moving around every month. But because that recurring additional withdrawal is not part of your balanced financial cycle, it won’t take long before it makes a detectable difference in how much money you have. And if you don’t find the source of the leak and fix it, it will just go on making your overall financial situation worse and worse.
As I pointed out several pages ago when you first brought this up, and as several other posters have pointed out since, you’re mixing up the effects of long-term orbital (Milankovitch) cycles with the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the short term.
The orbital changes that initiated a natural warming trend before the end of the last ice age are not sufficient to account for the observed large recent increases in CO2 concentrations and temperature.
If you think you have scientifically valid evidence that suggests otherwise, then by all means provide a cite for it.
(doorhinge appears to be stuck in Stage 3(b) of the five stages of climate change denial, namely “it’s part of a natural change”. I have to admit, though, that he has also managed to come up with an innovative denial tactic that isn’t even covered in that very detailed list: simply complaining that “not enough other people believe it”. Most people even in the science-denial camp would not consider the general popularity of a scientific hypothesis relevant to the question of whether or not it’s true, but our doorhinge has somehow convinced himself that it matters deeply. Presumably he also thinks that the persistent general unpopularity of the heliocentric theory as late as the end of the 17th century counts as an argument against the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun.)
Now, please don’t misrepresent our dear D’Orange’s position. He thinks the Sun rotated around the Earth for thousands of years, but beginning about four centuries ago roles reversed and the Earth started rotating around the Sun.
Um, no, you seem to not understand who you are talking to, so I shared a bit about myself. You are full of wild accusations and proselytizing assignments for everyone. But they don’t fit in my case, do they? I don’t have to convince anyone of anything. I understand the science, I can see how it affects the business world, and I made big money investing in a part of the solution, all without declaring anything evil (except for BP maybe, but that’s mostly unrelated). But all that is just a small part of an ordinary life.
Thanks for the suggestion to change course and go on a mission to convince math-illiterate idiots about scientific findings, but I think I’ll pass. Sounds like you have the zeal for that mission, only in the service of misinformation. Good luck.
What is not in dispute is that Exxon’s scientists concluded that AGW is in fact the case, the investigation is to determine if their public misinformation tactics rise to the legal standard of securities fraud. Is NOAA even accused of a crime? Either way, they pretty much agree with Exxon’s scientists that AGW is the fact of the matter.
Do you see how you don’t have a point here? You talk about ‘our side’ and ‘your side’, but the fact is both ‘sides’ agree that AGW is a reality. Everyone except for you and your kind.
Hahahaha. You can’t convert people because you don’t know how. The man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots don’t need convincing. They’re already sold on the idea. You need to convince the rest of the voters. Or not.
This is NOAA’s big chance to sell the public on the idea that NOAA is, and has been, open, honest, and transparent when it comes to their global warming data, emails, and internal discussions. Was there a recent plateau in the global temps? Was NOAA wrong when their recordings showed that there was a plateau? Is NOAA now trying to hide/change their records of a recent plateau?
NOAA can present their tactics and techniques in a public Congressional investigation OR they can say that they don’t have to share their emails with anyone. (Why does that sound so familiar?) Anyway, it’s their choice. Sharing will go a long way to convince the fence sitters of their transparency and honesty.
Hahahaha. It appears that as D’Asshole, you are wrong. Again. But you are consistent. 
(post shortened)
My position is that your side can’t sell the voters/public on the idea that your version of global warming is correct. Maybe the public is just bored with your personal attacks and name-calling.
Global warming has been occurring since the last ice age.
(post shortened)
This isn’t rocket surgery. You want to change the status quo. You, and your side, want to sell others on the idea that AGW has more of an effect on the planet’s temp than the naturally-occurring CO2 levels. You can’t make the sale. You’ve been trying to blame everyone other than yourselves for your lack of progress in convincing others that your version of global warming is correct. Your incompetence is 1-level above doing nothing. The end result is the same - you can’t change the status quo.
Bump!
True. So what? Global warming on a different scale of both measured value and acceleration has been happening for the past sixty years, in addition to the slow-scale warming between ice ages.
That’s like saying “Cell division normally happens in the human body,” which is true, but it doesn’t make the cancerous lesion in your liver any more “normal.”
You don’t understand that something’s *popularity *has nothing to do with if it’s *factually *true.
You don’t understand that, because you’re too much of a pussy to challenge your beliefs with facts.
Oh, I have no problem with admitting that the liars and deniers on the topic of AGW are far better marketers and spinmeisters than the people trying to explain the actual scientific facts of the subject. This is largely because the liars-and-deniers side isn’t hampered by any respect for truth or factual accuracy. They are shamelessly willing to pitch their made-up narrative by telling uninformed members of the general public any lies they want to hear.
The fact that you regard this outcome as indicating some kind of deficiency or failure on the part of the pro-science side says a lot about your complete disregard for scientific fact and honest reporting.
But then, that was easily figured out just from your constant repetitions of your disinformation-mantra “global warming has been occurring since the last ice age”, no matter how many times it’s patiently explained to you that you’re conflating two very different phenomena.
In the words of the old proverb, “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” This is not, as you seem to imagine, an argument in favor of ignoring truth and preferring lies.
Of course he understands that. He also understands that as long as he continues to post this garbage, people will continue to reply and give him attention.
And people who read his posts will also get a clearer sense of just how feeble the rhetorical tactics of the liars-and-deniers side turn out to be, when they’re subjected to actual rational scrutiny.
Mind you, I’m not suggesting that anybody should feel obligated to engage with doorhinge’s popularity-contest mentality on scientific issues he clearly doesn’t understand in the least. It’s not as though there aren’t zillions of better things to do with one’s time. I’m just pointing out that everything he posts continues to expose the weakness of his position; and when he posts the same illogical nonsense for the twenty-fifth time, there’s a chance that his bullshit will be spotted by somebody who happened to miss it the first twenty-four times.
This is all part of the slow but steady process of lacing up the boots of truth. 
Crazy left the house so Stupid stepped up? Who’ll jump in when Stupid gets asked to leave?
So what? Why should that matter for you? I am not “my side”. Neither is Kimtsu. Neither is Lobohan. You are not “the voters/public”. Neither is Brazil69. Neither is that one guy who recently got banned. This is a conversation between you and other people. So what does it matter what the voters in the USA are convinced of? I mean, “my side” can’t sell the voters/public on the theory of evolution. The “voters/public” is, on the whole, a phenomenally stupid group (see also: FOX News being the most trusted news channel in America); I don’t see why their opinions should particularly color yours. The fact that we can’t convince people (only in the US, mind you - everywhere else is pretty much up to speed) that global warming is real and a real problem is a tragedy, not something that should make you think, “Gosh, better follow the scientifically illiterates!”
But you seem to be holding up “you can’t convince the voters” as a shield to avoid having this debate. That’s not particularly helpful. Or, alternatively, you think that actually constitutes a good argument. That’s more fucking retarded than Timmy’s incestuous premature fetus. So why don’t you either get off your popularity contest schtick and actually engage the arguments (which would, by the way, immediately make you smarter than quite a lot of “the voters/public”), or start fucking your horse in the general direction of somewhere else?
So why do we have this pesky “democracy” thing? Why not a single-party state where members are vetted to climb through the ranks and be appointed commissioners and directors who impose policy by decree? (For the Peoples’ own good of course).
I’ll tell you: because it turns out that power bureaucracies are often as stupid or stupider than individuals, and that if something really is a good idea it should be possible to convince a majority of that.