“How about if I were to predict that the summer in Iowa will be warmer than the winter? Will that do?”

Nope. That will not do. What we are asking for is precision on your part. Give us the temp within 1.5 degrees, because the Global Warming Crowd is saying the temp will rise this much at a point in the future. If you can’t predict the correct temp of an Iowa summer then neither can you predict the temp of the earth with any precision decades into the future. I’m glad you aren’t a doctor because you wouldn’t have any patients left

Scientists did not recently discover the SUN. The effect of the varying output of the sun has been studied and found to be a minor contributor to climate change.

Read the IPCC 4th assessment report found here;

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

You will also find data and analysis on atmospheric temperatures, sea
surface temps, CO2 and other GHG concentration histories, aerosols (which contribute to cooling), ice masses, reflectance, etc, etc.
Thanks

If we want the February 2009 comparison to bear on the December 2008 measurement, that is what we need to do, right?

Why do we go from comparing December 2008/1979, to February 2009/1979?

We should be comparing February 2009 to February 1980, right?

What do the data show then? Just curious.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/just_the_facts_on_global_warmi.html

That, titled “Hubris” — appropriately enough — posts some beliefs about how uncertainty is handled in scientific work that come right out of the PR sites.

Not from me, to be clear.

To that “Hank” — please, compare the beliefs you posted with what’s published in the science journals about uncertainty. You’re copypasting stuff from PR sites intended to confuse people. You can look this stuff up. Your library — any library — will have this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445580a.html
Nature 445, 580-581 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445580a
Climate change 2007: What we don’t know about climate change

And read this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22sound+science%22

Those who “believe” my car will kill the world never recognize the import of a counter argument, They merely move off to another topic or insult the opponent.

I have learned many true believers are good people who are very smart at what they do. In matters or religion, or emotion, logic changes into a way to design a clever argument, not obtain insight. They do not lie, only redesign the selected facts they absorb.

Science, an interesting concept, has people doing work, making observations, and compiling data. The rest of us grab whatever bit fits our view and file it under our paradigm, a silly endeavor. We love poor scientists who take the stage for personal reasons, like Mr. Hanson at NASA, and provide support for our position. The craziest thing is taking votes of unnamed “scientists” and using the result as “science.”

The one thing that is clear is that an entire segment of society is using a theory and bits of facts to justify the absorbing of billions and the controlling of people’s lives and minds. I recall in Canada there was a $3 Billion CD budget that was put in place to fight global warming. The money was used in its entirety for advertising, also known as propaganda.

Whatever side one finds oneself, keep this in mind – the manipulators are in your pocket, in your home. A Canadian member of Parliament said, a few years ago, “If global warming did not exist we would have to invent it” (Using my memory here) Her point was it was a great tool for social engineering.

The US federal government recently directed we MUST buy the dangerous flourescent lights. It is very easy to let this pass, as they are sensible, but realize what is going on. The FEDERAL government just took control of another part of your life. They can do this since no one reads the Constitution. For those truly ignorant, start with looking up enumerated powers.

I know it is frustrating to listen to nutty ideas, like Mr. Gore saying the Aral Sea is dry because of global warming. Still, it doesn’t really help to mock or attack a person for his beliefs. It is better to address why they think that way and provide a little Socratic questioning. Of course, the brain-washing going on it another story. That is what radicalizes many. So, if you are adamant, on either side, if you want to become irrelevant, just mock an opponent.

You will find group think in full battle dress, though. The emotional assume that their unexamined position in also everyone else’s and they turn pale when you don’t agree and ask a question. At that point, they move away, but you have made your point. So, ask questions. All you have to do with most people is ask them, with a smile, to explain their babble.

Of relevance, our “scientists” are suddenly becoming aware of the SUN! It it hard to believe the warming models used to create hysteria did not factor in sunspots. This explains why Mars was warming, but Mann and friends didn’t bother to notice. I assume they blamed my car. Scientists also ignore undersea volcanoes or, for that matter, above seal level eruptions.

Global warming and cooling have not been proven and trying to disprove a negative is a waste of time. This “crisis” will pass eventually, but it will be expensive and screw up our schools, as our teachers are not exactly thoughtful and will put up posters of the Aral Sea for decades.

Having snappy comments and rarefied data is just a way to pass time. I advise you to go out and vote (throw all the bums out) and ask questions.

The most upsetting thing for me from the pro-AGW crowd is that their computer models are dismal failures. Models that weigh CO2 less tend to be more accurate. It would seem they have started with a conclusion and are driving the science to fit the conclusion – similar to second hand smoke theory which may have some truth to it (confined areas, etc.), but fails in the larger sense. You can get 90% confidence on almost anything with small sample sizes and so far, we don’t really have much accurate climate data to look at. Proxies introduce massive amounts of inaccuracy to the point where the error range matches the signal.

Additionally, no one wants to subject their models for replication and criticism. This screams tainted science. Wouldn’t you think these things should be made open so we can get a true understanding of what is supposed to be the greatest threat to humanity ever? I guess personal pride trumps the survival of humanity for some.

In the graphs themselves we can easily the natural fluctuations. It looks to me as if we can see seasonal variations, monthly variations, and comparing comparable seasons or months in different years, we can see annual variations.

Dr. Becker is correct to note that these apparent seasonal, monthly, and annual variations are a significant fraction of the long term trend that our eyes clearly show, for the arctic data. The data from the antarctic, however, shows that any trend is within the ranges of the seasonal, monthly, and annual variations.

Everyone agrees that over long periods of time the earth’s climate has changed, and that at times in the distant past it has been both warmer and colder than it is today. These variations, which forced the life at that time to adapt or die out (as happened to Dr. Becker’s Greenland settlements), were due entirely to natural causes. Today knowledgeable researchers are reporting to us that the average global temperature appears to be increasing by a small but significant amount. These researchers also note that unlike past natural variations, which are undoubtedly still present, we have pumped into the atmosphere an additional warming force.

Opponents of human-caused global warming have not and probably cannot explain why this significant additional warming force has no effect, according to them.

We are certainly going to have to adjust to the effects of human-caused global warming in future decades. One possible adaptation would be to reduce how much of the warming force we create.