So you are saying that all 4 national weather service providers, the ones that all this is based on, are all conspiring to show that it got colder last year?? Yes, we do a lot better in certain temperature ranges than others.. But We see people living in northern Alaska and Siberia all the way down to the middle east (which used to be green at one point) where the mean temperature is considerably higher than up north..

I never said that "pollution" was good.. But then it's easier to argue a point by clouding it with others.. Hurricanes == bad.. Living below sea level in a hurricane zone == stupid.. Forest fires raging through housing developments == bad.. Not allowing people to clear brush from the area surrounding their homes and in the thick of the forest == stupid tree huggers..

My issue is that the whole subject has been so demonized (as seen so eloquently in your cute little quote perverting what I said) that it's almost impossible to carry on any sort of discussion about it without one side or the other thinking the other side are idiots for not seeing the obvious.. You don't want to believe that four seperate groups, HadCRUT, GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), [both land / ocean metrics] and RSS (RSS MSU), UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) [lower troposphere satellite metrics] all conspired to show that the mean temperature dropped approximately .6C in 2007.. That's fine, you don't have to.. But what will you say if we see a second, or third year of cooling??

Of course you take one subset of data and make it the whole of a subject. Selective reading is just that selective.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

You say idiots but maybe some just search to find data that agrees with their view and who don't understand the climate in climate change. I wouldn't say idiots, I would say people who try to make everything fit their preconceived political belief system.

Actually Steve, the Earth has been cooling since 1998, with 2007 as the coldest in the series. A 10 year trend like that is a very inconvenient trend for the alarmists. They have the ready response that these 10 years are nothing but a pothole on the well paved road leading rapidly to our next ice age, and they may even be right.

The insistence that our nation should immediately strike a grievous blow to our industry and economy, before further vetting the "science" of what is going on and while third world nations like China and many others far out pace us the production of CO2 seems to come from two sources:
1. The tree hugging left, who genuinely believe the sky is falling and the end of the world is coming(Not like they really ever liked big companies anyway)
2. A growing group of capitalists and profiteers(Al Gore amongst them) who stand to make a tremendous amount of money from the Carbon offset credit market and other related markets, especially when congress starts to legislatively guarantee their profits.
The humor comes from the fact the capitalists and profiteers have harnessed the left wing tree hugger movement to promote their product. In the meantime, we continue on like a group of intelligent ants crawling across this hunk of dirt moving through space at 67,000mph, pretending like we are extremely significant, and funnier still, have control.

/Cracks another beer.

And so says someone who know nothing about the climate or climate data.

Originally Posted by joder

And so says someone who know nothing about the climate or climate data.

Awww, if you are going to flame me, don't you think you ought to back it with some data? I could only respond to something like this by saying, "I know you are but what am I".

I posted the data where 2007 was the second warmest year behind 2005. I posted a reliable resource. Where is your data? Hurry, go try to find some right-wing blog that has some graph.

Wake up cbwm. You can't even keep up with information in one thread.

Oops. Sorry, I posted the links backing up the 10 year cooling somewhere in the last 10 threads about "Global Warming". I was referring to your previous post which said I knew nothing about global warming, but didn't say why.

Here is the link you wanted:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html

Thanks for that link to a newspaper quoting that climate scientist. Oh sorry, they aren't a climate scientist. She is a biologist paid by the oil industry.

If you read the article, you'll find that the IPCC does not dispute the earth has been cooling since 1998. Are they not a good source either?

Edit: Oh, were you going to back up your "Paid by the Oil Industry" claim with some facts, or did you just make that up?

From your artilce

Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bio.asp?peopleid=4

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Public_Affairs
has where the IPC gets it's funding.

The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

• Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
• Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
• A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
• Tobacco companies - Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [6]
• Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)
• Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan 3)
• Murray Irrigation Ltd - a major irrigation company contributed $40,000.[7]

She is paid for by the oil and gas industry among others.

cbwm,

Your wrong. AS USUAL. Learn to use Google. Err. I think you do. You just ignore the results with facts.

You still didn't answer the question. Is the IPCC not a credible source to you? They don't deny the 10 year cooling. Its funny to watch the politics at play. Don't like the message, regardless of whether it is based on facts, so we attack the messenger, or one of the messengers very indirect sources of funding.

To be clear, it wouldn't matter if Al Gore, the IPCC, Jesus Christ, Jennifer Marohasy, or the president and CEO of Union Carbide were the one to point out the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years. Fact is fact. Does it take a master taylor to point out the emporer has no clothes? What if one of the master taylor's sponsors was an advocate of nudity? Would that make the emporer's clothes more visible?

2005 and 2007 were warmer that 1998. I have a page of scientists quoting the data. You have a news article quoting someone paid for by the oil industry that doesn't have a link to any data.

No science could convince you since you ignore all the scientific facts.

Instead of quoting a right-wing pundit, can't you quote the IPCC?

From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).

Funny because your link doesn't bear that out. I guess this guy is wrong on that point as well:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../09/do0907.xml

Are you saying these people are all wrong? Are you saying the IPCC is wrong? It seems you would be better suited to argue a point that could be argued, like the 10 year period is too short a period to matter, or it is an anomaly, or something.

I guess you missed the IPCC report. Your newspaper article still didn't show any data. What is it that you can't quote any scientific data?

Are you saying they are wrong? Answer the question. Most of the graphing models presented in these reports show graphing from the early 1900s which makes it very difficult to read the data between 1998 and 2007(Most of their charts go to 2002). Are you saying Dr. Marohasy lied in her interview when she mentioned the IPCC does not deny this fact? Your link, by the way, leads to a massive report. If your data is so readily available, how come you didnt dig it out of the report and link to it?

This is off topic, but I'll bring it up. Where do you think the IPCC gets it's funding? Do you think the sponsors are all altruistic? Do you think they have no political drum to beat? Lets not be naive.

I say its off topic because it is irrelevant. If we have a 10 year period where earth temperature went flat or declined while at the same time carbon emissions soared, and have only 115 years worth of total data, you are going to have to dig out a LOT more evidence to prove a direct relationship, no less one of causation.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Are you saying they are wrong? Answer the question.

Yes.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Are you saying Dr. Marohasy lied in her interview when she mentioned the IPCC does not deny this fact?

Yes.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Your link, by the way, leads to a massive report. If your data is so readily available, how come you didnt dig it out of the report and link to it?

Its was PDF. Can't you look at a web site or can you only read news articles that don't quote any data?

I'm also saying you willing overlook data when you post. What does that say about what I'm saying about what your saying?

Originally Posted by cbwm

I say its off topic because it is irrelevant. If we have a 10 year period where earth temperature went flat or declined while at the same time carbon emissions soared, and have only 115 years worth of total data, you are going to have to dig out a LOT more evidence to prove a direct relationship, no less one of causation.

Produce the scientific data. Not a newspaper article that doesn't have any data.

Hahaha. Now who is in denial? Its amazing you would make such allegations without presenting a shred evidence.

Edit: Lets also not forget the two large periods of time in the 1900s which anyone can clearly see the earth cooled while carbon emissions rose. Let me guess, someone doctored the charts on the IPCC's website?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Hahaha. Now who is in denial? Its amazing you would make such allegations without presenting a shred evidence.

I did present the data that shows them to be wrong. Can't you read?

EDIT:
Your Marohasy says the IPCC says they climate is cooling or flat. The IPCC says the climate has been warming even since 1998. That makes her a liar.

I've provided some imagery to help you out. First, we have the Atomospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations, measured since the late 1950's.

And here we have global temperatures since the 1860s.

First off, as a reminder, you'll note that this chart goes to 2006 and shows every year since 1998 as being cooler than 1998. 2007 has been listed as the coldest year on record in a very long time, so we can call this 10 years of data.

You may also note the 40 year period between 1940 and 1980, where global temperature dipped or held flat, while carbon emissions continued to steadily climb. You may also note the period between 1880 and 1910 where temperatures fell dramatically, though you can bet CO2 emissions was probably steadily rising during that time as well. Those temperatures were not reached again until 1940 which means essentially a 60 year period of temperature dipping or holding flat while CO2 likely rose.

I know it is more convenient to ignore these dips so we can say "The relationship is direct". Through another leap of faith, many scientists say the relationship is causal. In that spirit, I've doctored the Global Temperature chart a bit to better support your position. I hope you like it .