the other problem with your analogy is it ignores the lack of causality in the global warming issue. more like "we have determined that butterflies are causing a hurricane to form outside of your house based on a film with a great title and an amazing expression - we analyzed the data and as the butterfly population increases so do hurricanes! of course our theory has not been tested against predicted hurricanes. oh wait it has, the butterfly population has doubled but the number of hurricanes is in decline, but ignore that - kill all the butterflies quick! you will die from the hurricane if you do not!"

Thank you Spyman for destroying this lie. I salute you.

"the earth has cooled since those predictions"

No, it has not cooled. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

There has been a standstill in the 5-year mean temperature over the past five years. This has to do with the tropics being in the La Nina phase. It's going to yet again move into the El Nino phase.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

I know, I know. Columbia is part of the mind control conspiracy. Blah, blah, blah.

"the story was no lie. i am afraid you were lied to by the abc. confirming yet again that the extent of their deception to keep those who still believe them from defecting."

Blankflag say you the above (followed by paragraph after paragraph of garbage). Yet you didn't even bother to at least glance at the Media Watch story (ABC TV). So you are just making crap up? You don't even know what the discussion about.

You may make no attempt to engage in discussion. All you do is spew nutcase propaganda. You have zero credibility. You are nothing but a spammer.

If there is a conspiracy then I swear then you are a double agent, posing as a conspiracy theorist, to make all the other conspiracy theorist look like idiots.

The issue with Climate Change is that EVERYONE acts as if CO2 is the only driver of global climate - the media, 'deniers', supporters, anyone in the debate.

Human influence on the climate is only one factor - solar output, volcanic activities, cows farting will all have an influence. And because everything has to be black and white, it seems the only published positions are "OMG. WE'RE All GONNA DIE" or "It's not happening. All the evidence is false". Not aided by media reporting of the extreme (i.e low probability) predictions as what to expect, and every single data point being analysed and reported to death.

The question is whether or not the recent 'flat spot' is a) a hiatus; b) a new 'stable' position; or c) a maximum. There certainly isn't enough evidence to claim the latter yet, despite what some are trying to claim.

If it's cows farting then human activity is still responsible. Human meat consumption is responsible for the proliferation of cow waste. I would also say that climate scientists have factored in things like volcanic activity, especially as they relate to causing aerosol layers that are responsible for historical temperature flatlines.

"Human influence on the climate is only one factor - solar output, volcanic activities, cows farting will all have an influence. "

The point is that human influence, specifically with regards to carbon emissions, is THE major factor for the changes in temperature that we have seen over the past 150 years. Remove the human influence on carbon emissions from the modelling and scientists are unable to explain the temperature changes we have witnessed.

It is conceivable that there are other mysterious and unknown factors at play and that just make it look like our carbon emissions are the culprit. It is conceivable the close correlation between carbon emissions and temperature rises is just a coincidence. But this is true of any scientific theory. There is nearly always potentially other hidden factors. But right now in 2013 there is almost no evidence for any other major factor. Right now in 2013 the theory of AGW is the best fit with the observations.

Some scientists have tried to put forward alternative theories. For example, Professor Ian Plimer an Australian geologist believes that volcano emissions of carbon-dioxide dwarf human emissions. But volcanologists (actual experts on volcanos - something Plimer is not) say he is wrong. Thus we may discount Plimer's theories (for now - if evidence comes to light which supports his hypothesis then we must review our position).

how again did they explain away the fact that co2 lags temperature in the record?

yes, in the absence of "mysterious and unknown factors" there would be no change in temperature at all. since the natural state of our planet is a fixed temperature. except that you have no idea what you are talking about. there is nothing mysterious or unknown about other periods of warming and cooling. if you cannot explain one period of warming (which has already stopped, most likely) out of countless others, then you have issues.

>"since the natural state of our planet is a fixed temperature. except that you have no idea what you are talking about."

No one has said the planet is normally a fixed temperature (WHY does this point have to explained a thousand times this discussion come ups?????). Climate scientists are well-aware the Earth's planet temperature fluctuates considerably over time. From almost completely frozen to their being no ice at the poles. No one is disputing this fact. The key questions are what are the reasons for the *present* sudden warming phase, what will be the impact on our habitation of the planet and what should we do about it.

>"there is nothing mysterious or unknown about other periods of warming and cooling. if you cannot explain one period of warming (which has already stopped, most likely) out of countless others, then you have issues."

But we do have an explanation for the present warming.

>"you have no idea what you are talking about"

Please be specific about what I have said you disagree with and state why.

typo... WHY does this point have to explained a thousand times this discussion *comes up?????

"If it's cows farting then human activity is still responsible"

Actually, the decimation of the Bison (a Bovine species of which the female are cows and the male are bulls) has left fewer Bovine in the world now than during the conquest of what we now call the USA.

ok so the only reasonable explanation for the current warming is human emissions of co2. and you cannot think of any other, i guess.

so that is interesting. how this one period is so anomalous. because there were so many others that could not have been caused by human emissions of co2 since humans were not burning things enough for even the craziest of theories to blame for the warming.

you are telling me it is easy to explain all those other warming periods. it is just this one where human caused global warming is the only reasonable explanation.

funny how humans in the past 15 years have burned the most and released the most co2 ever. yet it has not warmed at all. it is almost as if there is no causal link.

"ok so the only reasonable explanation for the current warming is human emissions of co2. and you cannot think of any other, i guess."

That is what scientist say. What is your explanation Blankflag? And what makes your explanation more valid than the mainstream scientific view?

"you are telling me it is easy to explain all those other warming periods. it is just this one where human caused global warming is the only reasonable explanation."

There have been many warming and cooling period during the Earth's history. But these periods do not all have the same explanation. Scientists however do have specific theories to explain some of the known warming and cooling events. For example the cooling during the Younger Dryas (a brief cooling period during an otherwise general warming trend at the end of the last ice age) is thought to have been caused by the pouring of huge amounts of cold fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean (cold water from melting glaciers) which affected ocean currents for about a thousand years.

the point is that most of these previous periods have no explanation. and the current period likewise has no explanation. but all signs point to the sun and the earths orbit.

"but all signs point to the sun and the earths orbit. "

Says who? Remember we are talking about the present warming. Put forward some evidence for this. A link and a brief summary will do.

in fact even me saying "the current period" is kind of a bit of nonsense. there is no "current period" contrasted to a normal state of no temperature change. the anomaly is when the temperature holds static for a long period of time.

but right before these global warming theories came out, there was some warming. it seems like it has stopped - unfortunately for those in power behind the theory. but before that there was pretty much always either warming or cooling. they may hide it from you by creating fake hockey stick graphs from fraudulent climate modelling and changing the record, but it has always been that way. they cannot fake things like vineyards in england or freezing over of lakes and rivers. even if they can rewrite the temperature record.

how is it the sun and the earths orbit? maybe occams razor, the sun is the source of the radiation coming to earth, did you consider that? instead of coming up with these contrived theories about phenomenon on earth somehow driving the temperature.

"in fact even me saying "the current period" is kind of a bit of nonsense. "

Okay let's expand on that definition. The past 150 years.

"the sun is the source of the radiation coming to earth, did you consider that?"

No one denies the Sun is the ultimate source of the Earth energy. But if it were left to the sun alone; that is if there were no greenhouse gases the average temperature of the Earth would be about 30 degrees cooler (the Earth would be frozen wasteland).

Has the amount of radiation emitted from the sun increased significantly enough over the past 150 years to explain the change? Evidence please.

To expand on that somewhat.

1. We know the sun is the ultimate source of energy
2. We know the temperature of the earth is affected by greenhouse gases and that the affect is significant.

It thus follow that if either factors change significantly the Earth's temperature should change (yes there are other factors but lets focus on these two for the moment).

Which factor has changed? Is it the sun or is the amount of greenhouse gases? The available evidence suggest the latter.

grammar correction... it should read "*effected by greenhouse gases and that *effect is significant".

*affected but ok

i think part of your confusion is that maybe the hockey stick graph is still in your mind a little bit. the truth is that the slight warming that has happened up until the year 2000 was barely anything in the historical context.

It's not in *my* mind. I don't personally collect interpret the data. I listen to vast majority of climate change scientists who say that the difference is significant and who say that there is very good reason that this increase is occurring and that if we don't take heed we risk facing the long term consequences.

I am not qualified to determine if the temperature changes are significant. But plenty of other people are qualified and they say the difference is significant.

"the truth is that the slight warming that has happened up until the year 2000 was barely anything in the historical context. "

It might not be significant in comparison to temperature changes the earth has experienced over millions of years - but it is significant that it has changed so much in such a short time. And the increase in greenhouse gases is also significant - and we know why that is happening. It started when we started consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels.

Now you say that the change is not significant - but it is easy to throw words around. What makes you qualified to determine what level of change is significant?

*affected but ok

sorry you're right. I am quickly typing these posts while I am at work. Please excuse my slip-ups but I am not really proof reading what I write.

i dont know. at this point it is just the two of us going back and forth. but basically i do not think that the earth is still warming. even if it is i am not convinced it is because of the greenhouse effect. even if it were i am not convinced that co2 is the main greenhouse gas. even if that were true that human contributions are significant.

but even if all that were true, as i said i do not think a cooling earth is better than a warming earth and something we should be striving for. but even if that were somehow better and we decided to go for it, i do not think we can change the climate through a mere reduction in the rate of burning things.

but i see your point, academia has whored itself out to this and to the 9/11 official story and to how having governments borrow money from the banks rather than print it is perfectly legit and anything else the elites tell them to. as has media and government. and unfortunately these are the three institutions that control what people think...

i guess... we are kind of screwed if we cannot trust our sources of knowledge about the world. our institutions are compromised. this is what the nasa petition said. those former astronauts/scientists from nasa were talking about how support of this global warming theory in the absence of evidence will result in a breakdown of the publics trust in scientific institutions themselves when it is eventually exposed. and even before that among people who think independently.

"academia has whored itself out to this"

What do you mean by this statement? Do you think almost all scientists are in on the conspiracy? And they don't really believe their own claims?

What makes you believe this? Have you surreptitiously attended secret meetings between the Illumaniti and scientists (in their masses) and witnessed the conspiracy first hand?

It sounds to me like your whole argument is begging the question. Something like this:
I don't believe in AGW.
Why? Because scientists are conspiring to convince us all to believe in AGW.
How do you know? Because they all support AGW. They must be in on the conspiracy.

You say that you think the we are just "going back and fourth". This is not the case. It is you who is going round and round. You are making wild claims but not providing any evidence for those claims.

On the subject of conspiracies. If there were a conspiracy why is it the advocates of AGW theory who are "in on the conspiracy"? And not the deniers. After all AGW challenges the richest and most powerful industry in the world. The energy industry. How do you know that it is not the deniers who are trying to brainwash us all?

Just like with 9/11 truth, who you gonna trust?

Hundreds of thousands of experts in the field ..... or Blankflag?

Blank whenever you are tempted to express your opinion on something like this, just try to remember that you aren't qualified to have one.

"Actually, the decimation of the Bison (a Bovine species of which the female are cows and the male are bulls) has left fewer Bovine in the world now than during the conquest of what we now call the USA."

I'd like to see some evidence for this. USDA puts US cattle alone at 96 million.

Wikipedia says there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world. Yet at their peak there was only about 60 million bison, which is a lot, but only a fraction of the total number today.