Global warming

[mhaze]

The entire solar system is warming up. This is easily observed on mars where the CO2 ice is melting at a rapid rate.

That's believed to be local Martian weather causing the CO2 to sublimate to gas. Solar effects though are not constrained to just the overall net irradiance, but numerous other effects both direct, indirect, immediate and somewhat delayed, including sunspot patterns, solar wind, and the interaction of the solar wind with the earth's magnetic field. Some of these are not well understood.

A recent paper by Lockwood 2007 has been bragged about much by the warmers and doomwarmers as having "nailed the lid shut on the sun" as far as it's influence on the recent global temperature rises. Others have disputed this, and Lockwood's comments indicate that he is something of an alarmist warmer in general.

 

[lomiller]

I agree completely.

Hansen needs to get off the political stage, stop taking large amounts of money from left wing political candidates, stop advising Al Gore on how to insert alarmist lies into "documentaries", stop producing alarmist "20 foot sea level rise" comments to news reporters, and concentrate on not making errors in basic data and methods that are so ridiculous they can be found by amateur bloggers.

Clean your own ship up.

I find it interesting that you neither want scientists on the political stage nor politicians presenting the findings of those scientist. It sounds like you are just looking for reasons not to hear the science at all.

A recent paper by Lockwood 2007 has been bragged about much by the warmers and doomwarmers as having "nailed the lid shut on the sun" as far as it's influence on the recent global temperature rises. Others have disputed this, and Lockwood's comments indicate that he is something of an alarmist warmer in general.

Are you seriously suggestion we discount people who think global warming is a problem on the basis that they think global warming is a problem?

BTW, I presume you have links proving there is a left wing conspiracy to donate massive sums of money to NASA under the table?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hopefully you'll forgive me for stepping in, especially on my first post here (Hi everybody!).

This is far from being a private conversation . Come on down and say your piece, daunting though the prospect may seem.

The problem I see with what you just said is I've picked up a lot of "cult feel" to the AGW movement as well. A lot of the earlier posts in this thread seem to all but scream "you don't agree with me, therefore you are wrong." without any explanation as to why.

You'll find the actual screamers in the anti-AGW camp.

There are also quite a few instances of ad hom attacks without touching the posters points, which strike me as very similar to the way a lot of cult like people act when someone attacks their beliefs.

Do you have any examples of this? Schneibster is a tad combative on occasion but he does address any scientific points that are made. varwoche can by spiky but never avoids other people's points. JoeEllison tends to the acerbic, but his specialist subject is more the way the the anti-AGW case is argued (and by whom) than the science itself. aup's hardly a monster. My own behaviour is impeccable, utterly pukka, officer and gentleman, what? And we can all plead provocation.

Especially in a great many of the cases where people in the AGW "camp" almost always say something along the lines of "there is a consensus, why are we even bothering to talk about this?" I honestly don't see a consensus in the case of AGW (GW, yes... but I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that at this point anyway).

There really is a massive scientific consensus, despite the great efforts being made to obfuscate it. You only have to notice how few are the scientists (and weathermen) whose names regularly come up in the vast panoply of contrarian websites to confirm that.

That said, I'm quite certain there are crazies on both sides of the issue as pretty much always seems to be the case.

Well, there's Diamond crazying for one side, but I'm lost for a local example on the Science side .

On a different note, hopefully building up to something interesting when I have more time to post: Has there been any disagreement over the theory that in the past there has been an 800 year lag between Temperature and CO2? It was brought up a bit but I didn't see it touched much and I'm very interested in that aspect of the story for reasons I'll hopefully explain later.

It's been done to death over the years, yet refuses to die. interesting in palaeoclimate terms, but not relevant to AGW. In the past CO2-levels have responded to climate-change - thus the lag when warming occurs by other means. Traditionally, CO2 acts as a positive feedback, just as water-vapour acts as a positive feedback to the CO2 feedback.

In the current case, where CO2-levels are being increased by other means - human, aka anthropogenic, means - the climate is responding to the CO2-change.

This is an entirely new phaenomenon.

One final general note on the topic for now:

I don't understand why humans are so egotistical to see a huge global change in something and automatically go: "Oh *****! What did we do now?"

Humans have, by their activities, raised atmospheric CO2 from about 290ppm to 385ppm in century and a half. That's an observable fact, not narcissism. This is not something that any species has been known to do before, not even something HomSap has done before, although we did it the first chance we got. Not deliberately, of course, and if CO2 wasn't invisible perhaps we wouldn't have done it at all. But there it is, we did it, and we're doing it some more as we speak.

You're actually voicing the established scientific world-view of the last couple of centuries and more. Basically, that catastrophism and anthropocentrism are out, gradualism and get-over-yourself are in. Science is often presented as being biased towards AGW, but the opposite is true. AGW has had to swim against the tide, and yet it has become the scientific consensus because it stands up scientifically. We have to get over getting over ourselves and realise that we really are awesome. The way a bull in a china shop is awesome.

 

[CapelDodger]

Rabid? Naw... but seeing how many times you have subscribed to the "We're Doomed" slant on the subject, I might be towards the phrase -

WarmingDoomer.

I stick to the Schneibster formulation of "We're screwed". Make of that what you will.

And we are screwed. Shafted, even. Nothing's going to stop that, but it's not as terminal as "doom". I've been shafted enough times to confirm that, and I doubt I'm a lone example .

 

[mhaze]

Hmm...

"Wescreweddoomers"

"shafteddoomers"

both sound derogatory

I was just seeking an accurate descriptive phrase of the mindset that AGW is 100% real and will result is catastrophic consequences even if we all "changed our behavior now".

Doomwarmers or warmdooomers?

By the way we a re in partial agreement insofar as I hold "we're screwed" if we submit to the trillion dollar tax schemes of which "Kyoto was only a first step!"

 

[CapelDodger]

A recent paper by Lockwood 2007 has been bragged about much by the warmers and doomwarmers as having "nailed the lid shut on the sun" as far as it's influence on the recent global temperature rises. Others have disputed this, and Lockwood's comments indicate that he is something of an alarmist warmer in general.

Of course "some others" have disputed the Lockwood paper, which as I understand it is a meta-study of direct solar observations by dedicated satellite. Those "others" have been touting solar influences as a mainstay of their anti-AGW argument, and one has to ask : where's the data they based this on, and the code they used to interpret it? And whatever did happen to Lindzen's Iris Theory?

What lines are "some others" arguing against the paper? Apart from Lockwood's alarmist tendencies. Have you ever considered that opinions and predictions you find alarming might actually be correct?

To misuse Kipling, if you can keep your head while all around are losing theirs, it could be that you haven't grasped the situation.

 

[mhaze]

I find it interesting that you neither want scientists on the political stage nor politicians presenting the findings of those scientist. It sounds like you are just looking for reasons not to hear the science at all.




Are you seriously suggestion we discount people who think global warming is a problem on the basis that they think global warming is a problem?

BTW, I presume you have links proving there is a left wing conspiracy to donate massive sums of money to NASA under the table?

Don't duck the question I posed to you about sea ice, then twist words and meaning on other subjects.

So what's that about sea ice we all needed to worry about?

I need to know if I need to worry about sea ice. And you have some science on that, right?

 

[mhaze]

I’m unsure what relevancy either has but:

Quote:
one night below freezing ruins all crops...

Not true. Many crops have no problem surviving a one night freeze. Even sensitive crops like citrus don’t automatically die just because the temperature falls below zero.

Quote:
To be more precise, which IPCC scenario exactly?


If you don’t think we need to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions then it’s pretty obvious we select the worst case. After all, all the other scenarios suggest some moderation of our CO2 emissions, something many people seem to be claiming isn't necessary.

I'm moving this here because it fits better than is the statistics thread.

FYI I think there are a lot of what are loosely called "deniers" who would say they did not want to see C02 of 2000 Ppm. Others would say that even if there was a substantial co2 effect, the proposed measures to "cure the patient" are worse than the disease.

 

[Locri]

This is far from being a private conversation . Come on down and say your piece, daunting though the prospect may seem.

Thanks for the greetings mhaze and CapelDodger

Do you have any examples of this? Schneibster is a tad combative on occasion but he does address any scientific points that are made. varwoche can by spiky but never avoids other people's points. JoeEllison tends to the acerbic, but his specialist subject is more the way the the anti-AGW case is argued (and by whom) than the science itself. aup's hardly a monster. My own behaviour is impeccable, utterly pukka, officer and gentleman, what? And we can all plead provocation.

For the sake of simplicity and time I'll just stick with the first one I ran into:

Wouldn't that be best addressed by a mental health professional, one trained in dealing with persecution complexes and conspiracy theory delusions?

Seriously.

Generally I find that implying a person with a certain viewpoint has a mental issue is rather insulting, don't you?

There really is a massive scientific consensus, despite the great efforts being made to obfuscate it. You only have to notice how few are the scientists (and weathermen) whose names regularly come up in the vast panoply of contrarian websites to confirm that.

And most of this scientific consensus seems to be all based around the IPCC, an organization for which the entire point of it's existence is to find evidence of climate change. Frankly, even if there is a consensus I'm not sure it matters... just because a minority of the scientific population doesn't agree doesn't immediately mean they are wrong. Keep in mind that there have been similar instances of the majority being wrong in the past.

One other thing that hasn't been brought up a lot is something I'm well aware happens A LOT in academia... favouritism. There are a great number of fields including many scientific studies where if you are a student you can't pass a class without agreeing with a professor (even if you don't agree with him you have to fake it) or you are unable to get funding because people don't like where your experiments are heading. I work in academia currently and I see this all the time and it is very depressing as it greatly stifles the conflict that drives us to find out what the actual truth of something is.

I know some people would disagree with this, but considering the hype and the known liberal bias of most universities, it would not surprise me in the least if people proposing projects and research that could potentially go against their views (of AGW) would somehow just not happen to get funding for their project. I've seen it in many other less hyped areas of academia and I doubt that climate studies are any different.

Another thing that concerns me are the accusations that it is difficult to get access to some of the methods and data from some studies used in the IPCC reports. I'm not sure how true this is, but if people like McIntyre are truly having difficulty getting very important pieces of information like how Hansen adjusts data from temperature recording stations, I immediately become a bit concerned. Science should be about openness and discussion, right?

If not, we fall into the same trap as many religions in saying "We won't tell you how we know this, we just do."

It's been done to death over the years, yet refuses to die. interesting in palaeoclimate terms, but not relevant to AGW. In the past CO2-levels have responded to climate-change - thus the lag when warming occurs by other means. Traditionally, CO2 acts as a positive feedback, just as water-vapour acts as a positive feedback to the CO2 feedback.

In the current case, where CO2-levels are being increased by other means - human, aka anthropogenic, means - the climate is responding to the CO2-change.

This is an entirely new phaenomenon.

Well... follow me on this here... I'm going to try to use a bit of logic:

First, we know that there has for several tens of thousands of years been an 800 year gap between temperatures rising and CO2 rising.

From this, we can discern that there was something non-CO2 related that triggered the Earth to warm. Have we even figured out what that might be other than natural cycles of the sun or volcanos temporarily cooling the earth (in the case of it getting cooler)?

Why are we so quick to throw out such a long history of climate change for the sake of what's happened in the last 100 years (if that!)? There might be very important things in there that we are missing and if we don't know what caused the climate changes back then, how can we prove that those same factors aren't causing it now and making the CO2 appear to be the main factor as the AGW people are suggesting?

Also, considering that there is this 800 year lag there have been times that CO2 has been high without sending us into some sort of constant spiral up in temperature like scientists are saying it will now... if this didn't happen in the past at one point there had to have been some sort of negative feedback to keep the climate from getting stuck in a constant positive loop of warming.

If that's the case, wouldn't it be possible that that same mechanism might kick into gear in this case too?

There is really a lot that we don't know about the interactions of the climate yet and to pretend that we are so all knowing as to say that it is most likely our fault for the majority of the warming seems quite narrow minded.

Bah, ok.. that was way more than I expected to write. Anyway, I'm interested to hear your responses.

 

[CapelDodger]

I was just seeking an accurate descriptive phrase of the mindset that AGW is 100% real and will result is catastrophic consequences even if we all "changed our behavior now".

Again with the language. Why is it always "catastrophe" and "doom" with you? It's almost as if you're alarming yourself. AGW is real, and it will have significant effects. To some folk, they will be catastrophic. What they will be to everybody is significant.

By the way we a re in partial agreement insofar as I hold "we're screwed" if we submit to the trillion dollar tax schemes of which "Kyoto was only a first step!"

Now that is alarmist. Could you lead us through the reasoning that absolutely makes trillion dollar tax schemes the only possible next step? Cap-and-trade seems to be the favoured route. That's been the response to Kyoto, and is some way up a steep learning-curve. OK, it's been a fiasco up to now, but any new market germinates in the compost of fiascos. Governments like it because the detailed work is shunted off to the market sector. Politicians like it because it's not a tax, most proles don't have a clue what it is, and it's "taking action". Diplomats and lawyers love it for obvious reasons. Finance loves it.

Sleep easy over these tax schemes. Ignore the scaremongers. Your money's as safe as any dollar is these days. Nobody's proposing trillion dollar tax schemes in your neighbourhood - aka, Planet Earth.

 

[Locri]

-URL DELETED, check original post- Here's a scientist that pretty much agrees with you. There are many others.

Welcome.

Thanks for the link mhaze... I definitely want to read his further reports when I have some more time. Syun has some pretty interesting material there that goes quite along the same lines as what I've been thinking trying to sort out this stuff.

Edit: *laughs* apparently even if I'm quoting someone who linked to something I can't post it

 

[CapelDodger]

For the sake of simplicity and time I'll just stick with the first one I ran into:

Generally I find that implying a person with a certain viewpoint has a mental issue is rather insulting, don't you?

Yes, that's what I'd use it for. I thought when I read it, "Hey Joe, that's gonna come back at you". In principle I frown upon such contributions since they are seized on as distractions. Can I help it if I enjoy them ?

And most of this scientific consensus seems to be all based around the IPCC ...

No, it's a great deal wider than that, in fact the IPCC is a very minor body in the scientific world.

... an organization for which the entire point of it's existence is to find evidence of climate change.

The IPCC was created to review the existing climate science and present a coherent summation and consensus opinion on the subject of AGW to the International Community. Which really really didn't want to hear was that it was a problem. The International Community was sufficiently concerned by the incoherent but persuasive scientific arguments to create the IPCC. The IPCC is more a creation of diplomats, lawyers and politicians than it is of Science. It was created in the hope that it would make AGW go away

Frankly, even if there is a consensus I'm not sure it matters... just because a minority of the scientific population doesn't agree doesn't immediately mean they are wrong. Keep in mind that there have been similar instances of the majority being wrong in the past.

Would you like to drum up an equivalent? Pasteur was in a minority, but mainstream within a decade because his science was sound. AGW has been a concern for decades and the contrarian position has become increasingly confined.

One other thing that hasn't been brought up a lot is something I'm well aware happens A LOT in academia... favouritism.

And much more along that vein.

Seek what comfort you can, but the science of AGW is sound. Events are bearing it out. AGW isn't just a prediction, as it was in the 80's, it's happening. Just as predicted.

The "science" of anti-AGW has always depended on speculation and attacks on the real science. Nobody new in science is embracing AGW to further their careers, they're taking it as a given because observation bears out prediction. The science of AGW is sound.

The "science" of anti-AGW is top-heavy with post-career scientists who aren't influenced by academic favouritism. They do like the attention, though.

 

[mhaze]

Now that is alarmist. Could you lead us through the reasoning that absolutely makes trillion dollar tax schemes the only possible next step? Cap-and-trade seems to be the favoured route. That's been the response to Kyoto, and is some way up a steep learning-curve. OK, it's been a fiasco up to now, but any new market germinates in the compost of fiascos. Governments like it because the detailed work is shunted off to the market sector. Politicians like it because it's not a tax, most proles don't have a clue what it is, and it's "taking action". Diplomats and lawyers love it for obvious reasons. Finance loves it.

Yep. And the banker says

"Trust me."

Your above paragraph is all about how to take everyone's money away, and acknowledges it is a fiasco. Except for those who have made countless millions in the carbon trading rackets.

The IPCC was created to review the existing climate science and present a coherent summation and consensus opinion on the subject of AGW to the International Community. Which really really didn't want to hear was that it was a problem. The International Community was sufficiently concerned by the incoherent but persuasive scientific arguments to create the IPCC. The IPCC is more a creation of diplomats, lawyers and politicians than it is of Science. It was created in the hope that it would make AGW go away

Really?

Seems like I have about 8000 pages here somewhere of IPCC scheme implementation. But isn't Armstrong all one really needs to know to understand the IPCC? .

The Armstrong and Green paper is available in full text. The authors used the Forecasting Audit Software available on the Forecasting Principles site to evaluate the IPCC forecasting procedures.

• Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (Forthcoming in Energy and Environment).
• Forecasting Audit Software output

Climate scientist Jos de Laat of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute wrote of the paper:

“I very much agree with your statement that 'the forecasts in the report ... present the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing', I don't think that many climate scientists are willing to admit this… I was quite surprised, even a little bit disturbed, to learn that there exists a research field devoted to the science of prediction. I have a formal education in climate science (University degree, BS in physics, MS in Meteorology and Oceanography, PhD in climate science), so I've been around for some time now, yet I don't recall anyone ever mentioning your research area.”
​

Or perhaps ICECAP, this article.

More? Or can we just move on from this ridiculous bunch of clowns?

 

[mhaze]

More? Or can we just move on from this ridiculous bunch of clowns?

Clarifying: Ipcc clowns

And this is how bad the forecasts of Gore, Hansen, Mann and their IPCC doomwarmer buddies actually are-

Scott Armstrong Says:
June 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am There are many situations where forecasting methods produce substantial gains. Those are described in the Principles of Forecasting handbook.
Better methods might also help in climate forecasting. I expect that they will.
My bet is based on the fact that the climate forecasting models use poor methodology. Thus, even an assumption of complete ignorance should do better.

 

[BobK]

Here is an article that may be useful to some as food for thought.
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

 

[Megalodon]

Review

Nature 416, 389-395 (28 March 2002) | doi:10.1038/416389a
Ecological responses to recent climate change

Gian-Reto Walther, Eric Post, Peter Convey, Annette Menzel, Camille Parmesan, Trevor J. C. Beebee, Jean-Marc Fromentin, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Franz Bairlein

Abstract

There is now ample evidence of the ecological impacts of recent climate change, from polar terrestrial to tropical marine environments. The responses of both flora and fauna span an array of ecosystems and organizational hierarchies, from the species to the community levels. Despite continued uncertainty as to community and ecosystem trajectories under global change, our review exposes a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems. Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible.

Nature 421, 57-60 (2 January 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01333; Received 12 September 2002; Accepted 26 November 2002
Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants

Terry L. Root, Jeff T. Price, Kimberly R. Hall, Stephen H. Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweig and J. Alan Pounds

Correspondence to: Terry L. Root1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to T. R. (e-mail: Email: troot@stanford.edu).

Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate1. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history2, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change3. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations. The synergism of rapid temperature rise and other stresses, in particular habitat destruction, could easily disrupt the connectedness among species and lead to a reformulation of species communities, reflecting differential changes in species, and to numerous extirpations and possibly extinctions.

Nature 421, 37-42 (2 January 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01286; Received 5 March 2002; Accepted 22 October 2002
A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems

Camille Parmesan and Gary Yohe

Correspondence to: Camille Parmesan1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.P. (e-mail: Email: parmesan@mail.utexas.edu).

Abstract

Causal attribution of recent biological trends to climate change is complicated because non-climatic influences dominate local, short-term biological changes. Any underlying signal from climate change is likely to be revealed by analyses that seek systematic trends across diverse species and geographic regions; however, debates within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveal several definitions of a 'systematic trend'. Here, we explore these differences, apply diverse analyses to more than 1,700 species, and show that recent biological trends match climate change predictions. Global meta-analyses documented significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles (or metres per decade upward), and significant mean advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade. We define a diagnostic fingerprint of temporal and spatial 'sign-switching' responses uniquely predicted by twentieth century climate trends. Among appropriate long-term/large-scale/multi-species data sets, this diagnostic fingerprint was found for 279 species. This suite of analyses generates 'very high confidence' (as laid down by the IPCC) that climate change is already affecting living systems.

OK, now please someone explain how the International Conspiracy of Marxist Climate Scientists managed to shift biological patterns in a way that is consistent with the predicted warming that is not happening because Exxon was right... or something...

Or at least find me a blogger who will put reality back in place by saying that the authors don't know what they're saying... a construction worker will do...

 

[mhaze]

Here is an article that may be useful to some as food for thought.
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

Interesting group; I just subscribed to their list. This appeared while I was reading your ref from Dyson - a sort of commentary on his ideas.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE CHANGING ARCTIC: A RESPONSE TO FREEMAN DYSON'S "HERETICAL THOUGHTS"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Alun Anderson[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][8.14.07][/FONT]​

 

[mhaze]

OK, now please someone explain how the International Conspiracy of Marxist Climate Scientists managed to shift biological patterns in a way that is consistent with the predicted warming that is not happening because Exxon was right... or something...

Or at least find me a blogger who will put reality back in place by saying that the authors don't know what they're saying... a construction worker will do...

A construction worker? How about an Aleut native that would love to have an actual job in construction? Like this one. After things warm up a bit he might actually be able to get a job, instead of being dirt poor, no job.

Found this at a really good source, "How to talk to a Climate Sceptic" - you know, one of those places you get your scripts and instructions on how to insult and ridicule Deniers - Gristmill.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

Oops...there's a comment section that's not censored (like that at RealClimate). John Bailo's comment -

Warmer..and Loving It !

I was channel surfing between breaks in football Sunday and caught a few minutes of a Global Warming scare flick (I mean, PBS documentary). This one was about arctic ice melting.

First the narrator says that the ice of some lake was frozen "year round". But then the guide for the explorers says it was free "a few months a year". Well, never mind, because now it's ice free almost all year round. And guess what -- the native people there love it! Now they have free passage and trade.

The funny part is the hapless "environmentalists" who go through the village trying to get someone to say what a bad thing it is...and yet, everyone of the Aleuts seems to be liking the warm weather and open water!

There's one fellow, who they really try to arm twist. He says how its getting warmer and warmer there every year.
"Well, how do you feel about that?" says the environmentalist, a foot from the guy's face, with his enviro-buddies right behind him...looking like a bunch of hoods asking "you want this loan, don't cha?".

The guy nonchalantly says "oh, I think it's good. We're poor and warm weather means we'll spend less on fuel".

"But, but" sputters the environmentalist, "what about the polar bear!?!"
"Oh", says the Aleut, "he can go North...to where it's colder".

See, this was the first time I ever had sympathy with a tunda person, because he reacted and spoke like every other person that I know -- he likes warm weather and he likes to save money. He didn't go into some epileptic fit about "Shamanadoda" and start decrying the spirit of the Polar Bear.

Nope. He wanted to sip pina coladas and watch the ice melt!
​

 

[Locri]

OK, now please someone explain how the International Conspiracy of Marxist Climate Scientists managed to shift biological patterns in a way that is consistent with the predicted warming that is not happening because Exxon was right... or something...

And what exactly was the point of those articles? All you are doing is misdirecting. The argument here is not so much whether global warming has been happening but more so whether or not it's anthropological global warming or natural.

The only thing these articles say is that things are happening because of global warming, but that tells us nothing about whether we are causing it.

Also... I would probably take you a lot more seriously if you didn't infer that anyone who disagreed with you and is anti-AGW is a conspiracy nutjob. Comments like that are generally typical of people who are just denying something outright without any consideration as to the arguments laid out.

 

[Megalodon]

And what exactly was the point of those articles? All you are doing is misdirecting. The argument here is not so much whether global warming has been happening but more so whether or not it's anthropological global warming or natural.

It is? Talk to Diamond... he seemed to have missed the memo.

And mhaze seems quite troubled with is opinion also...

The only thing these articles say is that things are happening because of global warming, but that tells us nothing about whether we are causing it.

And your point is? I though someone might like the information, but I did notice a certain aversion to facts around here...

Also... I would probably take you a lot more seriously if you didn't infer that anyone who disagreed with you and is anti-AGW is a conspiracy nutjob.

I don't... but even if I did, it doesn't change reality.

Comments like that are generally typical of people who are just denying something outright without any consideration as to the arguments laid out.

What arguments? All arguments have been done to death in this and others threads. There are still those who grasp at imaginary straws, but there are also those who have trouble with the concept of Evolution.