| Kynes said:
It's not a science when you keep moving goalposts. The IPCC predicted 4 to 6 C more at the end of the century, but for the last 15 years this manmade global warming hasn't happened at all. It's not a science when you have to change global warming to climate change because people begin to see that it isn't happening. It's not a science when you have to hide the Medieval warm period and the little ice age to create your hockey stick graph. It's not a science when you only use the ground stations that provide you most warming, but you discard the ground stations that provide you cooling. It's not a science when you can't suggest any other possible explanation, like O3 or cosmic rays and it's influence in the cloud formation. It's not a science when you say that CO2 will reduce crop fertility, but it's just the complete opposite.
A science has to accept all the possible hypothesis and criticisms, but anyone that has doubts of global warming is labelled a negationist and someone paid by petrol companies, or Christian fanboy, or any other stupid adjective. It's not a science when people try to destroy the messenger and not the message. It's not a science when lots of people live of the money they receive of asserting one and only one hypothesis. It's not a science when alarmists use images of refrigeration towers (which expel clouds of vaporized water) to represent CO2 pollution, when you can't see CO2 clouds because it's transparent. Something that don't accept criticism isn't a Science, and most defenders of the global warming theory don't accept any criticism. |
Showing a 15 year trend with temperatures stabilizing for now doesn't prove much. It mostly proves the climate is a lot harder to predict. Temperatures have been going up, are still up, glaciers are still receeding, ice coverage on ocean water is still receeding. And although trends show that global surface temperature of oceans is down and sea level rise is down, it is still higher then expected with melting ice alone. That could suggest lower parts of the ocean are warming up. There has been a lot of flooding as well, dumping a lot of water on land.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html
There are many other factors that can cause variations, eg solar output is at a minimum atm.
Global dimming can play a role, ironically pollution can make temperatures drop as well by preventing sunlight from reaching the ground.
Cloud coverage can play a role, more moisture in the air will reflect heat back into space as well.
Anyway the climate is changing. We are changing the land space and composition of the atmosphere. Both have effect on the climate. We can wait another 15 years to see where the current trends are going, or wait for quantum computers to be able to build more accurate climate models, but can we afford to sit and wait?
I do agree though that there is little point in dismantling our industry, instead we should start converting it to become sustainable in the long run, rather sooner then later. At least that way we'll have the energy in the future to cope with climate change.
Here is a list of recent graphs
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/global-warming-mapsgraphs-2/
And the latest analisys by NOAA, plenty of change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
