There is nothing to be wrong about with that graph. Global warming has been minimal for the past couple of decades. Gladiato's graph showed it as well. Let's also not forget that we are in a historically cool period in Earth's history. Additionally, CO2 levels are poorly linked to global warming. There are many other greenhouse gasses out there and some that are many times stronger than CO2. Humans clearly alter the environment, but people need to quit being so doomsday about things.
Yes, but that's not the source you turned to. Had you turned there, you might have posted things like this: or this which show that GW is occuring, but by these data points, not as fast as the models predict; they certainly don't show what you claim. But, like we said, the source you turned to wasn't that site, it was from another site. A blog run by one who generally denies GW - a British radio weatherman. Why did you turn to that site? Because you trust British radio weathermen? Or another reason? My guess: Epistemic closure
Nothing, the trend depends on how far back you want to bound your data. But if you want to justify policy changes or taxation/subsidization or (forced or voluntary) behavior modifications, it needs to be getting warmer and people need to feel negative effects of that warming. The doomsaying has increased over this interval, while the temperature has not. Also, these predictive models can be compared to observed temperatures. Spoiler
That peak in 1997 was due to a super el nino. Signs are pointing to a possible super el nino this year. What will you guys do when you lose your talking point?
The IPCC models have been wrong over and over again -- why would anyone believe them at this point? East Anglia has been proven to be a completely corrupt and fraudulent organization. Why would anynoe believe them? Same goes for Michael Mann. There are so many drivers of climate change that it's impossible to isolate a single one and try to focus on that. Even if you did, one volcanic eruption could erase 20 years of sacrifices and "gains" towards lowering CO2 emissions. Politicians can't control the weather or the temperature no matter how hard we try. Heck, they can't even build a website that works. But as I've said before, this politically driven movement is being done to do several things: 1) Raise the tax base to deal with unmanageable budget deficits in developed nations. 2) Hinder the growth of the developing nations (China, India, SE Asia) because they rely on coal-fired power. US/Europe wants to hold on to economic power. 3) Reduce Europe's exposure to fossil fuels since they do not have many natural resources. This is a key vulnerability to their economic health. For every lie that climate scam artists tell, another child in Bangladesh goes without electricity. Climate change is a luxury problem for those without access to electricity. I'm sorry if someone in Aspen might have less powder to ski on 20 years from now -- but that doesn't trump the improvements in quality of life that access to electricity brings in developing economies. Nor does it trump the quality of life benefits that cheap electricity provides in developed nations.
This, fuel and food consume the bulk of the expenses of the poor. Anyone that advocates any policy that artificially raises the price of energy or food needs to pound sand.
How can you say nothing when the president, founder of the company completely contradicts the chart and conclusions that was shared by his own company?
Well we can't have any regulations. Per libertarian/market ideology any of that sort of thing will just make it worse. We will just have to wait and hope the major oil and coal companies will figure out how to save us while still maximizing their profits quarter by quarter and while burning their reserves. Let's hope they do so before 400 ppm or whatever is needed to end civilization. Frankly it doesn't look good. Their immediate plan seems to be follwoing the tobacco lobby which confused folks on the effects of smoking for 40 years or whatever. Our best hope is some sort of disaster such as Wall Street under water for six months which will cause a general rebellion even among some of the corporate elite against the idea that business and markets know best.
he didn't contradict the chart. The chart says the temperature is the same as it was 17 years ago. The contradiction would be to suggest it has gone up or down from 17 years ago. The founder does not say this. One could claim he is contradicting inferences that others might make from his data.
I actually seen number much higher (referring to peer reviewed one). Maybe I bought into a myth. Can you point out why it's a myth? People keep saying it a myth and not point it out why.
And here is what I'm referring to when saying I've seen much higher #... http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change
You are correct, I could have posted my question better. Let's take that posting into context. I believe Commodore's stands is that global warming isn't happening. He presents evidence that provides validity on his position which not only shows statistics, but the conclusion in bold letters NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE.... It would not be a far reach that his intentions where to show that since RSS is a scientific research company who specializes in studying climate change, that their data shows that it is inline with his conclusions. Apparently, that couldn't be further from the truth based on the interview. To say that 'nothing' was missed is not accurate. The same company that he sourced, doesn't agree with him - this is the contradiction.
1. 97% is a complete lie. 2. There is tremendous bullying that occurs within the scientific community against those who dare question the fake consensus. Those who oppose the climate change cult are blackballed and funding is withheld for their future projects. The climategate scandal put this out into the open.
1. I have seen zero proof of this. 2. Do you have any evidence to support your accusation on that? In general science is about proof, and if you can prove the existing theories and evidence wrong the science community usually holds you up as a hero. You are celebrated and rejoiced as a hero.
