Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And the global warming advocates get their data from government financed scientists who have a vested interest in producing scientific results which aid the policy agenda of their employers.
President Bush?
gbaji wrote:
And, at the risk of injecting reality into the equation, those IPCC experts were wrong
Huh.
Yeah. They were wrong. Not with the base data, but with their interpretation of it, and the recommendations the made based on it.
Quote:
NASA wrote:
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92°F (0.51°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.
You mean, we haven't seen the extreme end of the potential spectrum so that means (in your mind) there's no validity to it
at all, right?
No. I mean that the evidence over the last decade indicates that we reached a plateau in the late 90s and/or early 2000s. During that plateau time its expected that temperatures will be higher than in previous measured periods. That's why it's a plateau.
What we have not seen is the predicted continuation of temperature increase. That is where the IPCC was wrong. They were wrong to predict that outcome. They were wrong about the impact of CO2 emissions on the whole thing. The IPCC didn't just say "it'll be hot in the next decade". They said that CO2 emissions were causing a small but constant runaway greenhouse gas effect which would continue to cause average temperatures to rise, resulting in ecological disaster unless we pass draconian measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
They were wrong. Get it? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Their recommendations were clearly more about excuses to impose anti-industrial policies than it was about the actual science. Some of us saw this immediately and have been trying to get the rest of the sheep like idiots to realize this. I'm still waiting for the day when you'll realize that the projections you accepted as gospel truth 10 years ago have not come true, and will admit that you got suckered.
You do remember our arguments about this back in the 2001/2002 time frame, right? When you posted graphs showing the various scientific projections based on ACC climate models all showing steadily rising global temperatures going forward? When was the last time you saw someone reference those same graphs Joph? I mean, wouldn't it be great to show just how accurately they predicted temperatures? Wouldn't that be front and center on every global warming site if they'd turned out to be true? So isn't the fact that pretty much the only place you can find those old predictions is on the global warming skeptics sites incredibly telling?
They were wrong. Some of us saw this. Some of us didn't.
Quote:
Ah, don't bother answering. I could have more intelligent climate debates with my toddler.
So you admit that your position is so weak that only a toddler can buy it? Ok. Sounds good to me!
