Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

[HAL 9000 96]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

That reminds me: Time to throw another log on the fire.

When will the winters get mild enough that I can get rid of my woodstove, and run around naked all year??

[HAL 9000 96]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

That reminds me: Time to throw another log on the fire.

When will the winters get mild enough that I can get rid of my woodstove, and run around naked all year??

I don't know but today we're about 5 degrees above normal for this time of year.

You could just move south...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

That reminds me: Time to throw another log on the fire.

When will the winters get mild enough that I can get rid of my woodstove, and run around naked all year??

I don't know but today we're about 5 degrees above normal for this time of year.

You could just move south...

Using weather again to promote your religion?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah Bill... totally missed it.

[Pooky 3,929]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

If you want proof (for and against), there are plenty of actual scientific articles (yes, with actual data) we can discuss instead of misreading the actual review//descriptive article in the OP's link.

In the meantime its the word of actual science vs people that don't get it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

You're dealing with radicals. There's no getting through to them, they're gone. They accept lock-stock-and barrel whatever the DNC and liberal activists group say. "healthcare", taxes, Bush, corporations, morality, etc etc. The list goes on. Their view will be perfectly aligned with the Democrat party on literally everything. They do no thinking for themselves. An article comes out from a source aligned with the Dim party, and they buy it. Whatever it is. Doesn't matter.

[Pooky 3,929]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

If you want proof (for and against), there are plenty of actual scientific articles (yes, with actual data) we can discuss instead of misreading the actual review//descriptive article in the OP's link.

In the meantime its the word of actual science vs people that don't get it.

And there's the rub. There are scientists on both sides of the debate, for and against climate change, for and against "global warming" and for and against anthropogenic "global warming".

For you to dismiss those you don't agree with, a number of whom are eminent and respected scientists, as "people who just don't get it", just means that you're one of them. You just don't get it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

If you want proof (for and against), there are plenty of actual scientific articles (yes, with actual data) we can discuss instead of misreading the actual review//descriptive article in the OP's link.

In the meantime its the word of actual science vs people that don't get it.

And there's the rub. There are scientists on both sides of the debate, for and against climate change, for and against "global warming" and for and against anthropogenic "global warming".

For you to dismiss those you don't agree with, a number of whom are eminent and respected scientists, as "people who just don't get it", just means that you're one of them. You just don't get it.

I dismiss science I do not agree with based on having actually *seen* the data. How about you?

Certainly not folks like Joe... whom still can't understand basic scientific precepts, but as usual its best to stick to the substance to right those wrongs.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Sigh. The climate has always 'changed'. This trend will continue.

Indeed luckster. Indeed.

Artificial effect goes up by 0.07. Natural effect goes down by 0.07. Simpletons can do that kind of math and reach that apparent 'standstill.'

Thanks for the post, AJ. Yet another show of force that proves that reading is important.

And where does it say anywhere in the article that the 0.07 increase is due to artificial effects?

Or is this just a creative assumption on your part?

Not really- its called, as the Newsweek [*] part reminds us in the picture above your post... 'overwhelming yadda yadda yadda.'

So it doesn't give any proof in the article, then. Didn't think so.

Same old, same old. When the figures fit, it's all well and good, when they don't, it's just "weather". I'll wait until the science is more inclusive and less "model-based" before I make up my mind how much ** sapiens has to do with all of this.

And for one who purports to like detail and evidence, blowing off a contrasting opinion in such a supercilious and condescending fashion does you no favours. Try harder next time.

If you want proof (for and against), there are plenty of actual scientific articles (yes, with actual data) we can discuss instead of misreading the actual review//descriptive article in the OP's link.

In the meantime its the word of actual science vs people that don't get it.

And there's the rub. There are scientists on both sides of the debate, for and against climate change, for and against "global warming" and for and against anthropogenic "global warming".

For you to dismiss those you don't agree with, a number of whom are eminent and respected scientists, as "people who just don't get it", just means that you're one of them. You just don't get it.

I dismiss science I do not agree with based on having actually *seen* the data. How about you?

Certainly not folks like Joe... whom still can't understand basic scientific precepts, but as usual its best to stick to the substance to right those wrongs.

See what they do? Again, if you disagree with GW you don't understand basic scientific precepts.

What a crock of bull. But thats every post.

And there's the rub. There are scientists on both sides of the debate, for and against climate change, for and against "global warming" and for and against anthropogenic "global warming".

For you to dismiss those you don't agree with, a number of whom are eminent and respected scientists, as "people who just don't get it", just means that you're one of them. You just don't get it.

Spot on my friend. Thats the liberal MO.

[HAL 9000 96]

So any takers on scientific substance or are we going to have to wait for the whining to end?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

CO2 is not pollution. It's plant food you maroon.

[HAL 9000 96]

You can have your GW religion, just don't force it one everyone else.

Nobody's forcing you to pollute.

CO2 is not pollution. It's plant food you maroon.

rolleyes without : and :

water isn't either, but its poison to our lungs.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

So any takers on scientific substance or are we going to have to wait for the whining to end?

Oh yes, you're a world of scientific substance in this thread.