Ok, the verdict has to be dishonest."Slowed down slightly?' The IPCC reported that if there was any increase at all (and the IPCC's range included the possibility that the temperature may have cooled), it was statistically insignificant. In plain English, that means no increase.
The New York Times article said what I said it did. Your misrepresentation of my comments (possibly due to your struggles with reading) is another matter.Ok, the verdict has to be dishonest.
You are still basing all your arguments on the cherry picked, El Niño, warmest year on record as your starting date.
Your argument falls to pieces just by shifting starting dates by a year or two in either direction.
You willfully misrepresented an article which directly contradicted what you said and in fact backs up my position, to try to make your case.
You know full well you are wrong, don't you?
I provided quotes from you and the article, you said:The New York Times article said what I said it did. Your misrepresentation of my comments (possibly due to your struggles with reading) is another matter.
The article says:I very clearly said it was an article that confirms the pause "is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world."
The article clearly backs my statements and reveals yours as false.To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.
...
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
No it doesn't. Your claims are clearing using an El Nino year.As for the starting dates, the pause goes back to January 1997 -- prior to the increase in temperatures caused by the El Nino effect. It is a universally accepted fact that the Earth's temperature has not increased over the past 17 years, and that has nothing to do with any 'cherry picking' claim you picked up from the propaganda websites.
This recent opinion piece from some wingnut relies on talking points from two other wingnuts who make basic errors that are easy for someone with even moderate scientific education to pick apart. All you are doing is trying to change the topic now that you've been caught out as being dishonest.This recent column from the Calgary Herald points to the real issue. It's not that there was a pause, but the fact that the computer-model predictions were so spectacularly wrong.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...l+warming+upsets+religious/9848202/story.html
I already answered this question. Every time you accuse me of "lying," the reality is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.Admit it, you are being dishonest and misrepresenting articles on purpose, aren't you?
His posts in this and other GW threads would show otherwise, but then this isn't the first time you've been wrong about facts in the GW threads.I already answered this question. Every time you accuse me of "lying," the reality is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
His previous posts have included ones where he got the IPCC`s predictions (or I guess he prefers to call them projections) completely wrong, and ones where he got the actual results completely wrong.His posts in this and other GW threads would show otherwise...
A thread with 1300+ posts of which he contributed 260+? Mind narrowing it down to which posts he made this error?His previous posts have included ones where he got the IPCC`s predictions (or I guess he prefers to call them projections) completely wrong, and ones where he got the actual results completely wrong.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated
If you go through the thread, you'll find them. I pointed a number of them out throughout the thread.A thread with 1300+ posts of which he contributed 260+? Mind narrowing it down to which posts he made this error?
How to Write Good, by blackrock13. :biggrin1:Seeing clearly how badly you read english....
Neat, so you can't answer the question, or won't because it actually requires some work, and we know how lazy you've shown yourself to be actually reading stuff, so you attack some vapourous grammatical error? One which I certainly don't see.How to Write Good, by blackrock13. :biggrin1:
You offered a number of them? Nice try. The only one I remember is the one you keep offering up about the oops on the decade being 20 years, but he explained it.If you go through the thread, you'll find them. I pointed a number of them out throughout the thread.
I'll give you an easy example on the predictions/projections side: he thought the IPCC's per-decade projections were for 20 years each, apparently not realizing that a decade is 10 years.
I gave you specific quotes and direct questions.I already answered this question. Every time you accuse me of "lying," the reality is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
You either don't read -- or don't understand -- your own quotes.I gave you specific quotes and direct questions.
You are now avoiding answering because you've been caught being dishonest.
Plateau is quite different from pause, but lets again look at your claims and the quote from the article.You either don't read -- or don't understand -- your own quotes.
You keep saying it is dishonest to state that the article acknowledged there has been a pause, or "plateau." Yet the acknowledgment was in the quote you provided:
"As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau."
I note that the article first doesn't contain the quotes 'is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world', nor does the article say anywhere that its accepted science that there is a pause.For the record, I did not say the New York Times article was a "denial" article. In post 126, I very clearly said it was an article that confirms the pause "is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/sc...eau.html?_r=2&As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
How many times does that have to be explained to you? That is a quote of something that I said. No one ever claimed those words appeared in the article.I note that the article first doesn't contain the quotes 'is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world'
Right. The article also calls it a "plateau."In fact the articles describes it as a slowdown in surface temperature increases
How many times does that have to be explained to you? That is a quote of something that I said. No one ever claimed those words appeared in the article.
...
Finally, I never said the article supports my views. I said it confirms the internationally accepted scientific fact that the Earth's temperatures did not increase as expected (regardless of whether you want to call it a pause or a plateau). And that is true.
Admit that the article says the opposite is true, that the 'pause' claim is based on cherry picking the warmest El Nino year on record as your start date.For the record, I did not say the New York Times article was a "denial" article. In post 126, I very clearly said it was an article that confirms the pause "is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world."
Admit that you were dishonest and misrepresented this article.Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
Gotcha!Admit that the article says the opposite is true, that the 'pause' claim is based on cherry picking the warmest El Nino year on record as your start date.
No you don't, refer again to the quote:Gotcha!
I never said I agreed with the article's explanation for the pause or its misleading statements about people "almost always" picking 1998 as a starting point (in fact, the pause dates back to January 1997: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html).
I said the article confirmed there has been a hiatus (whatever the explanation) -- something you now concede is correct.
Here's what I'll admit: You were either dishonest or sloppy and you therefore misrepresented my characterization of the article.
The article clearly debunks the 'claim' that there is a pause using the latest theories and information.Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
You say the article confirms the pause is accepted science when the article clearly says its a claim based on cherry picking.I very clearly said it was an article that confirms the pause "is accepted science that is recognized throughout the world."
I'm afraid that isn't supported by the first four paragraphs in the article.The article clearly debunks the 'claim' that there is a pause using the latest theories and information.
As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.
But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
Then again we have the last paragraph of the same article;I'm afraid that isn't supported by the first four paragraphs in the article.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz33JH4ceVSSo let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
