Ian

as Hey Doofus suggests? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201403...

Although his climate sensitivity calculation was way too high, he actually thought it would be a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Gree...

I think James Hansen and Al Gore (whom I doubt has any concern about global warming whatsoever) were the ones who really took the alarmism mainstream. Was there anyone before them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U

(I'm talking about liars and frauds like Hansen and Gore using scare tactics to get people to believe in the CAGW religion)

I guess I was confused because all I read about and hear about in the news is how bad AGW (or Climate Change because of the pause) is going to make things.

I just want to get this straight. Are you saying that AGW will NOT be catastrophic (ie lead to catastrophe)?

If you don't believe that AGW will be catastrophic would you join me in fighting against money being spent combating AGW?

I know from alarmists that these people are not skeptics but deniers. I also know from alarmists that these deniers think the moon landing was faked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/08/the-group-th...

I know several alarmists claim that there is a difference between a climate skeptic and a climate denier. I'm curious as to what the distinction is. Can anyone explain it to me?

I'm not sure myself. I wouldn't be surprised if temps did inch up over the next few decades but I also wouldn't be surprised if they stayed around where they are now. I think a lot, if not most, of any supposed global warming is due to temperature adjustments of cooling the past and warming the present.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plo...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13...

Anyone?... Anyone?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3309508232001/senate-de...

Recently antarcticice has been babbling on that the UAH is not a real "global climate service" like the NOAA. The UAH is the University of Alabama in Huntsville which does analysis on data supplied by the NOAA from their satellites. You can read a bit of information on the UAH anylisis from the NOAA's own website.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

antarcticice also claims that Dr. Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/) estimates "are always below the real ones which is why he releases his before the real ones"

C also jumped in and said "If you got this from Spencer it has likely been doctored". (I like C as he was the only alarmist to admit that the AGW theory is non falsifiable and his "There is no pause... and this is what is causing the pause to occur" argument highlights how utterly detached from reality alarmists are.)

Anyway... I decided to compare Spencer's estimates for lower tropospheric temperature anomalies to the ones released from UAH from June onward (UAH Version 5.6 as of Jun 2013) to see if his estimates are below the real ones.

June: Spencer +0.30, UAH +0.0.30. July: Spencer +0.17, UAH +0.17, Aug: Spencer +0.16, UAH +0.16. Sep: Spencer + 0.37, UAH +0.37. Oct: Spencer +0.30, UAH +0.30... I could go on.. They all match up EXACTLY.

It's not surprising that alarmists would lie, it's just their nature, but why are they picking on Roy Spencer?

Maybe they're just running out of excuses to adjust present temps upward.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushc...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-als...

why are there so many explanations as to what is causing it?

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/volcanoes-linked-to-...

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/371280...

Why do some of the most vocal CAGW alarmists have the biggest carbon footprints?

I'm sure the IPCC will continue to decrease climate sensitivity estimates in the future as the global warming pause continues or if there is only slight warming over the next few decades. Do you think we'll ever get to the point where most skepics on YA are predicting higher temps than most alarmists? What types of excuses do you think alarmists will make up if that does happen?

1. Accept reality and pretend they were never an alarmist: "I always said that man made CO2 emissions wouldn't warm the planet that much."

2. Accept reality but continue to fear monger about increased heat: "The temperatures haven't risen as much as I had thought, but that's because it's hiding in the deep ocean and all at once it will get released and fry us to hell."

3. Accept reality completely: "I thought the temperatures would have risen faster. I was wrong."

4. Deny reality completely: "Temperatures have risen faster than anyone has predicted. There has been no pause. The hottest 100 years on instrument record have all occurred within the past 200 years."

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dudass/dudass100...

To help you out you can use the highly upwards adjusted GISS estimate.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:...

I think it will be a long time myself (barring any drastic upwards adjustments of present temps and downward adjustments of past temps) but temperatures will eventually creep up due to the extra man made CO2 in the atmosphere.

Are there any bets on how long C will claim that there is no pause?

As everyone knows, there has been about a 17 year pause in Global Warming. Several alarmists can tell you that there definitely is no pause occurring and also that the pause is occurring because of natural variability (or those damn Chinese fireworks). One of their theories about why the pause is occurring is that there is missing heat hiding in the deep ocean where unfortunately, awwwww, we can't really measure it.

If natural variability can mask Global Warming, can it also be used to explain any supposed warming?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-st...

I've always been suspicious of the adjustments that always seem to cool the past and warm the present. How accurate do you believe temp anomalies going back to the late 1800's really are? Remember, were talking about 0.1C higher every decade. There is no way you'd notice that type of temperature change yourself even if it was instantaneous.

If the pause (which of course is not occurring) lasts for another 10 years do you think the alarmists will stop their fear mongering and begin to realize that man made CO2 is not as bad as they have made it out to be? Or will they continue to act like brain washed sheep and repeat whatever Al Gore tells them to?

"Industrialization is bah..ahhh..ahhhh...ahhhhd. Third world poverty is guh..uhhh...uhhhhd."

be willing to spend as much money on the AGW hoax as President Obama has? I'm sure Prime Minister Trudeau will spend billions on it unfortunately.

Jeff M answered a question yesterday where he stated:

"Usually, during this time of year, it's snowy and below freezing in the part of Canada I am"

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au...

Since I live around the same area and I didn't find the weather all that unusual I checked the historical temperatures in Vancouver and found this.

http://weatherspark.com/averages/28404/1/Vancouver...

I checked the weather at the Vancouver airport and found

http://weather.gc.ca/trends_table/pages/yvr_metric...

I also checked historical highs and lows for Vancouver on that specific day (although only going back to 2001) and I could only find two occasions where the temperature dipped just below freezing at -0.6 C in 2009 and 2008.

http://past.theweathernetwork.com/index.php?produc...

In my mind I would find it UNUSUAL that Vancouver would be BELOW freezing at this time of year. Jeff M finds it UNUSUAL that it is ABOVE freezing at this time of year.

Do alarmists and skeptics just naturally see things differently?

I thought this was an interesting article on Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/when-did-glo...

What really got me is how much man made CO2 we've added into the atmosphere during "The Pause" that alarmists say is not occurring and can also explain exactly why it is occurring.