Let It Snow..

[Roach412]

The rigorous and scientific studies conclude that our human activities are causing a global warming problem.

rigorously testing faulty, incomplete or invalid data does not generate accurate conclusions. have we had an impact on the planet? yes, probably. to what extent? nobody has any clue. stating otherwise, is a simply(as you yourself stated) a flimsy conclusion - or more accurately, an excuse.

-Roach

[rascard2007]

...or wrong conclusions from real facts...

[Twisty]

Just a few posts back i linked to a report authored by THE leading US&UK institutions.
Have you read it? Where is the input data inadaquate? Exactly which conclusions are wrong and why?

[Twisty]

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

I am curious as to why you brush aside the report from the US national academy if science anf the Royal Society without even a single word, and choose to believe thia guy instead.

Do you think his data is more reliable? Because he doesnt even cite a source?
Do you think his assessment is more rigourous? Because it all seemed to be based on non quantative analysis of a single graph that doesnt even have a scale on the y-axis.

Based on the earlier posts in this thread, be frank and honest I'm led to conclude you just choose to believe in this guy because his conclusions are convienient to you and his hyperbole is easy to follow and to ignore the other reports because their conclusions are inconvienient and digesting their scientific method is more onerous. But if your decision making is actually more considered than this, i will listen to those considerations with an open mind.

[Karlsweldt]

I peruse reports on many subjects, and decline a decision as to authenticity unless true references are associated.
The Harris-Mann Climatology Company is a renowned research firm, with a long standing reputation of quality.
They rank among other renowned groups that publish more factual reports without hyperbole or fallacy.
The presentation was compiled from known records of meteorology and climate over the past centuries. Including known historical events of volcanic activity and other incidents that may be associated with climate aberrations.

Place all reports and presentations together, for scrutiny.. then conceive a common sum.

[evasive]

This is interesting:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

How about checking each and every year how much and what is reported about global warming and compare with the occurance of an El Nino...

[Roach412]

I am curious as to why you brush aside the report from the US national academy if science anf the Royal Society without even a single word...

because the same experts/etc. have constantly been wrong in the past...

their models have continually been incorrect.
their predictions have fallen completely apart.
their data has been proven invalid/modified/exclusionary/incomplete.
their ASSUMPTIONS of what they BELEIVE impacts climate have changed nearly every single new report.

it's poor science, and if I were a professional scientist I would be ashamed to sign my name on such "scientific reports" knowing full-well they don't actually KNOW very much about what they espouse as fact. these reports should be much less about "this is what we are saying is scientific fact" and be more in-line with "we don't know, but these are our experiments and in full scientific disclosure we don't know WTF we're doing, but we'll get there."

this is a journey of discovery and understanding, and it's very much in the early stages of what we comprehend as "climate". this continual barrage of negativity from climate alarmists, which is typically followed by a tactical backtrack when claims fail miserably to match fact, is only crying wolf. when some kind of factual and predictable model is found (and they probably eventually will) a majority of people will simply not believe it due to these current reports and false claims of fact...they have very little believability now and lose more every time something like this is released and eventually gets exposed as "incomplete" or missing very key aspects of data.

-Roach

[andrew29]

The report from the US national academy of science the Royal Society plays an important role considering this question.
I would advice you to check this relevant information first

[Twisty]

Looking at my last post I apologise for going OTT, this is an emotive topic but that isn't a reason to make things personal in any way so sorry about that.

When I am looking at stuff like this I try my best to look at the information from a 3rd person perspective to make sure I am weighing things up based on the facts, rather than my emotions. I don't always get it right the first time, sometimes on the 2nd assessment I realise that I made a mis-judgement the 1st time round.

When I look at Harris-Mann Climatology to me they are clearly presenting only a one sided argument. I can't get his facts to reconcile, they don't paint a full picture, one can't draw any scientific conclusions based on the information he has presented. [BTW, as far as I am aware the first quarter of 2016 global average temps have been record breaking highs.]

To me, in general the conclusions presented in scientific reports on global warming, like the one I've recently shared, are much more robust. You can see where the facts have come from, they state the potential inaccuracies and discrepancies, they explain how they have derived their conclusions. To me, it is quite clear that there is a global warming problem, and this will become more and more apparent as the years go on.

I do think, in general, there is an element of selfishness fueling the global warming denial camp, even if it is subconscious. People are naturally resistant to change, especially so when that change invokes hardships.

Now I appreciate that you may completely disagree with me, fair enough. However, what I do plea is that do make sure that your eyes are wide open. Don't fall into the trap of making your mind up early and denying subsequent evidence without even considering it.

[bdub]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... d270deb0e5

"The key question then becomes just how fast the annual rate of sea level rise can actually increase. In one thought experiment recently, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen calculated the consequences if the “doubling time” for ice loss is as fast as 10 years — finding dramatic sea level increases as a result."