That's your answer?? Good grief, Charlie Brown.


Last time I checked, this is a scientific topic. So,I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that one consult the scientific literature to really learn about the subject. Your source doesn't fit that bill in the least. So spare me the BS.

Debate the science, not the talking heads opinions if you really want to convince others of the validity of your claims.

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

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

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

I see. The scientists that don't support your position don't count.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Perhaps you could provide us with some evidence of a published and peer reviewed climate scientist who has published and been peer reviewed in the field of climate science that determines AGW is a hoax?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Actually, no.
It has not cooled at all, (meaning it has not returned to temperatures of 1960 or so), but just that 1998 was EXCEPTIONALLY warm.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.svg

And they suspect the cause of the slow in increase, is because of the polar ice melting.
When ice melts it absorbs lot of heat.
But that is a one shot deal once the ice is gone, and there is less polar reflection.

The Oregon petition is notorious for being decietful and misleading. The National Academy of Science denounced the petition. All that is required to be a "scientist" is a BA.

__________________

your chart shows that it has cooled this decade despite increasing CO2. why would you assume its reasonable to throw in soe arbitrary 1960 yardstick ?



And they suspect the cause of the slow in increase, is because of the polar ice melting.
When ice melts it absorbs lot of heat.
But that is a one shot deal once the ice is gone, and there is less polar reflection.[/QUOTE]


I suspect that the reason is decreased solar activity. when the inferno that warms us gets stoked up, its not skocking that we might feel it.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

It is not the inferno that warms us though, not directly at least. Without the "greenhouse" effect the earth would be very, very much colder.

The effect of solar irradiance on the actual temperature of earth is actually observed and measured and it is far less than the recorded warming over the last 30-40 years. Likewise, the decrease in the sun's output does not explain the degree of cooling recently observed either. For that one needs to look at a combination of factors, including but not limited to a decrease in solar output but more especially a strong la nina in mid 2007.

http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdc..._GRL_2007b.pdf
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf

The other thing to point out here is that since the 1950's solar output has been decreasing ever so slightly, but at the same time there has been warming trend recorded.

as per this graphic:



Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I'll take data over someone's opinion any day of the week. Got any of that to back up your claim that isn't the same old tired arguments that have been refuted time and time again?

It is easier to just believe someone though, I'll give you that. Lazy, but easier.

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

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

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

In the end, 99% of the human race are unwilling, unable, or incapable of caring in any significant way about a concept as broad and abstract as the earth warming at a relatively slow rate. A giant asteroid hurtling directly towards earth? Sure, that impossible to deny, easy to understand, and pretty linear. Air pollution? More difficult to wrap our heads around but still an undeniable threat to the health and well-being of our species. But things heating up by 2 degrees in a hundred years? Who cares?
This is part of the reason why this "issue" is almost pointless for the public to discuss. We would do better to focus our attention towards simple environmental pollution. Furthermore, the environment is not a political issue--which isn't to say we don't love to politicize it but it gets us nowhere to do so.

I see. You make a jackass OP, you fail to support it in any meaningful way, and then you whine a lot.

Awesome, dude.

Keep up the work.

No, there is a constant rise over the last 50 years.
There was just such a dramatic peak in 1998, that it makes the current warming to only look like it is staying the same.
It is not.
It is warmer then both sides of this 1998 peak.

And no, there is absolutely no correlation with solar activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

There are several reasons it is important to discuss.
One is that the last 100 years was 2 degrees only, but it is expected to greatly accelerate now that the arctic ice is not going to be reflecting as much.
Second is that we need to also conserve oil, so this is as good a reason as any other.

Let us face the trueth, any one not on the good ship lolly pop that says man is the reason for the season is going to be going to a camp to relearn what is needed to understand that man is the reason for the season.

How many Corps are making money with the GW? And how many of their items are truely doing some thing to slow down and stop GW?

Maybe some day I might buy into the BS that Man is the Reason.... but now now.

Just think that if it was not for the Greenhouse effect, man would not be alive on this planet...

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

Your criticism is always very validating.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

No, not really. Saying you've posted nonsensical bullshit is the equivalent of saying 'The sky is blue'.

Nothing remarkable about it whatsoever.

Good luck with your bullshit.