No, not lazy. Would just like some evidence to back up your claims is all. All I saw was name calling. And trust me, I read a lot about this topic. Part of the job.

Anyways, I will read the papers that Si Modo posted. I have little interest in reading media reports on this issue (which I thought were biased, right? unless you agree with them I guess...), I will stick with the journals. You might want to do the same.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Thanks for the nature of your reply. It is quite refreshing.

Yes, I posted some abstracts that contradict the doomsday attitude of the "consensus". As the actual science is still up in the air, contrary to what the press and the propaganda reports, it would be refreshing to bring the level of hyperbole down several notches and actually look at the data and studies.

As the climate models are nightmare-ishly complicated and new variables are finding importance, the models are interesting and can guide researchers to investigate new questions; they are not the final word in any conclusion about climate change. So, I also smile.

Have a great holiday season!

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Name calling eh ?

I asked you if you were lazy, since you seemed unwilling to know the facts of this issue. You DID say:

...where is the data to support your conclusion? With so many scientists apparently disagreeing with the theory, there should be some solid evidence in the literature, right?

There is PLENTY. That you seem willfully ignorant of it no longer concerns me. I've wasted time arguing with your type before. It's ALWAYS a waste of time because you're not INTERESTED in facts.

Only unsubstantiated propoganda.

Si Modo DID say above:

...contrary to what the press and the propaganda reports, it would be refreshing to bring the level of hyperbole down several notches and actually look at the data and studies.

Which I agree with.

Spud, Spad, whatever. I've been called a lot worse by a lot better people than Daisy. As long as she's quit beating kids, I'm OK.

Something I've never seen is a definition of what the climate SHOULD be. All areas have been everything from tropical to arctic at some time. Please GW advocates, tell me what the proper climate is. All I see is the same old "Change is bad, so give me your money, and I'll make it all better." The climate is ALWAYS changing. As once again, if the weather guessers can't get tomorrow right, you want me to believe them about the coming DECADES???

__________________

Two of those give no evidence contrary to you claim. You should really read the links to make sure they are consistent with what you are trying to say before you post it.

Most of the institutions, infrastructure and industries that are in place are there to deal with the current situation in place. This means that even if there are insignificant changes in sea levels and weather volatility there and people on average are not subject to worse conditions then there would still be considerable adjustment costs.

The response to the second statement is that they are two different things. Climate modelers addressing global warming are not looking for the temperature in Paris on December 23, 2030. They are looking for the average global temperature in 2030 or perhaps the average temperature over that decade. Further analysis might look at the effect on individual regions but they will be large. Suitable aggregation and abstraction from details makes the problems quite different.

So your answer is not an answer, but just a plea to maintain the status quo in a changing world. It's just not possible. You cannot freeze the world to your own selfish views. Once again, I ask, what is the PROPER climate for Planet Earth?

No answer? Then how can you say warming is not the proper climate? Rather egocentric to say that what you want is the proper climate for Earth itself, isn't it?

__________________

My response was not a plea to maintain the status quo. It was only stating the obvious, that unless we are given a reason to think otherwise, the best guess at the ideal temperature would be the current temperature. It would be easy to complicate the response and perhaps I will do that tomorrow.

Also a word of advice; by the worlds I used you should have realized that I have a sufficient background in the economics of the environment to know what I am talking about. Normal people typically don't use worlds like institutions and adjustment costs. I'm sure you also realize that your education in the relevant subject areas limits your ability to understand the issue. While this is fine, you should probably wait to imply insults. Better yet you should probably forgo implying insults altogether, though in this regard I know I am not one to talk.

Really? Nice implication you slide in there, but not very clever. I'm curious to see what you think I'm claiming. Do tell.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Thats what this entire "debate" is about. The egocentristic nature of humanity.

The planet has gone, and is continuing to GO through it's own cyclical changes and "ups and downs."

We little humans like to think we're SOOO huge and powerful we're affecting an entire planets weather systems.

A planets entire weather system whose workings, history and mechanisms we don't understand yet.

Ego ego ego.

We ALL have a lot of study to do before even "debating" this.

Shut up and get to work

This is obvious. Why is so difficult to understand that there can still be a deterministic trend even in what can be viewed as a stochastic process. Even though weather is clearly both cyclic and determined by other things, such as solar activity, the levels of greenhouse gasses can, and in sufficiently high concentrations certainly do, have an effect on the weather.

This argument is old and tired. I am quite surprised that you have not heard the appropriate counter argument. In our recent history it is clear that we have had a significant effect on our environment. Over 100 years ago we practically made the buffalo extinct. It was done in a small time frame (10 years or so) using only guns. Forty years ago we saw pollution so bad it was changing the Ph of the rain and lakes were being destroyed. The appropriate history tells us that we can have a major effect large environments. Given that we have had a significant effect on the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere the question of whether we have the ability to affect the entire planet in a way that affects the weather system is a trivial question. The simple answer is that we do. The question is whether we are affecting the weather systems and if so, the extent to which we are affecting it. After that the discussion continues and addresses what the best course of action is.

I agree that we do not entirely understand the planets weather system but we do not have the luxury of waiting until we fully understand it to make a decision. My guess is that it will be at least hundreds of years before we are able to model weather in a purely deterministic sense. This is not problematic. All of science, pure and applied, deals with incomplete information. We do not have a full understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, economics, psychology and history let we make decisions based on them in every day life. Some of these decisions are made based on necessity, such as economic decisions, and others are made in what might be seen as a more flexible environment such as the choice to pursue a technological innovation. In each situation the choice mechanism is no different we make the choice based on the best information we have on hand. Since greenhouse gas emissions are more costly to decrease in high quantities and over short periods of time we do not have the luxury of waiting until we are all but certain yet alone until we understand the systems perfectly.

And WHO are these "anointed ones" we should have decide what "decisions" we should make and actions we should take ?

Based on almost complete ignorance.

Non scientist, idiot politicains like Al Gore who threw a Michael Moore style propoganda movie together ?

Do tell us.

Otherwise, get to work. This is something we know very LITTLE about.

Is there any point wasting time blabbing about something you know almost nothing about on the internet ?

Get to work

Is spudplanter an insult in American?

I apologise.

If Spadplanter were a Spudplanter he would be able to appreciate the impact of climate change on our environment.

I actually hadn't realised that I hade called him spudplanter - spadplanter doesn't mean anything to me, but spudplanter does, which is probably why I wrote the wrong word.

However Si Modo - you are free to interpret my posts in any way you see fit.

Over the years I have been coming here I have been able to maintain quite cordial relations with a number of posters with whom I have very different points of view. The problem seems to be yours, not mine.

When you first came to USPO I thought, great, an intelligent poster,and another woman. We need more of both here.

Now I see you consorting with the likes of Captain Trips (previously Thane) whose contribution to USPO over the past few years has been mainly to insult and bait other posters, and your style is reminiscent of Chiquita - another American woman who had issues with non American posters - especially women - in the same way you do (I have seen you attack Tethys and Sucre as well as myself).

Probably the main point of difference is that you are a more educated version than Chiquita.

Quite frankly - I would prefer not to put someone like you on ignore, because you ARE intelligent and have some really valuable contributions to make to discussion here at USPO. I would like to be able to read your input, but virtually every response you make to a post of mine is bitchy and childish.

However, over the last month or so I find whenever I see a post from you that I am reminded of Oscar Wilde, when he said "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

LOL.
Have you seen the residue after the decomposition into four intrinsic mode functions ? It's on page 117. It shows a linear increase of 0.4°C !

Furthermore, while they admit that their method is critically sensitive to the endpoints, they still extrapolate from them. And that extrapolation looks, especially in the case of IMF-1, as a textbook example of a chaotic bifurcation, which isn't surprising actually giving both the method and the effect are sensitive towards the initial conditions. Thus, at least IMF-1 is just a guess. Nothing more. It's the economists approach to data : add functions till it looks like the data.

Until they give a functional explanation for the residue, all they did is play with maths a bit and end up with a residue that is no more than a moving average of the signal.

Do you think it's a coincidence that this sort of work comes from China where the rush to develop regardless of everything is the strongest ?

Besides, this particular article, and a few more you linked I see, are published by the company that publishes Bild of all things (Springer-Verlach). The exact opposite of scientific credibility.

Edit: The other three articles are not free. Do you have access to the full text ? If so, is the methodology in them any better ? IOW, are they worth buying ?