People in this thread constantly questioning the temperature record and then posting all sorts of theories to explain the recent warming is not thought provoking, it is nothing short of intellectually dishonest and utterly confusing behavior that does nothing but put all rational debate to a complete stop.
That's not what I do, and in any event, its not up to you to dictate how this thread is managed or how people chose to engage. If it's too hard for you to follow, stop trying.
Every single link/argument you've posted over the last few pages has been posted by Anthony Watts first. If you aren't getting your information from him or a blog that repeats everything he posts (ie Andrew Bolt's blog). Then where are you getting it? And why does he post them all first?
I don't know what Andrew Watts puts on his blog or when, but if he's a blogger in this space it stands to reason he'll probably cover the filed pretty broadly and he may well get there before I do. So what. All of my sources are apparent from the links themselves. How many of those were links to Andrew Watts blog? None. And this thread goes on for a lot more than the last few pages, so it's a ridiculously small sample size in any event.
I don't care, you pick one. You oversimplfy by reduction and then suggest that one of your conclusions must be right. It's 3rd grade stuff.
If the global temperature is not rising, despite every study on the subject concluding just that. Either they have made some unbelievable massive mistake, or they are flat out lying to us. So you are right, my quote should have said:
"If no, then you shouldn't even go to that step. You should stick to articles regarding the temperature and how you think scientists are faking data - or how they have made an insanely huge mistake. Which, if you correctly identify, will make you worthy of a nobel prize. "
What has happened in the last 10 years? And you talk it up again - now you must be right unless it's fraud or a mistake so huge that there could be no plausible way they could have made it and only a lunatic denier would try to argue they did. Simply put, the IPCC scientists seem to have been over-confident in their ability to accurately predict the future behaviour of a complex system when they knew or ought to have known that they had a far from perfect grasp of all of the issues, particularly feedbacks and natural variability. If it's not rising it's because they have made inaccurate predictions, or if it is rising, but not in line with catastrophic predictions, the same holds.
You know perfectly well what we all mean, this is the "climate change" thread right? Since the industrial era rising greenhouse gas levels have contributed largely to the rising temperatures, is how the theory goes...
No, the theory goes, according to AGW advocates, that there is going to be massive and near term warming that will have a wide range of devastating environmental, social, economic and other effects unless we act drastically and urgently because man emitted carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the predicted rise in temperatures. The trouble is that the real world isn't co-operating by producing the results predicted and more and more very credible and well qualified scientists are coming out and wrecking the perfect perception of your supposed 97% consensus that says the science is settled and the debate is over. That seems to make you guys snarky.
Then you need to ask whether the predicted warming is an accurate prediction (and there is plenty of evidence it isn't) and if the predicted dire consequences are accurate as well. There is a big difference between the science and the computer modeled predictions of what will happen in the future.
Ok, but that hasn't nothing to do with my post.
Sorry, did I do off topic? How inconvenient. I'm saying, you don't need to deny aspects of the basic science of GW because that's not even the damn issue. The issue is that having a handle on one part of the problem doesn't mean it's the only piece of the puzzle and until you understand how the whole thing works you don't have a hope in hell of making an accurate prediction. Now the IPCC is so invested in it's position, it's not even looking for the truth any more, it's just defending a position.
You post conflicting information all the time. If skeptics actually believed what this guy says, they wouldn't have posted the links they have done over the last 5 pages. It doesn't make any sense. How am I supposed to adopt your view if it will just cause me to have cognitive dissonance.
Your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. You'll never adopt my view. I am quite comfortable reconciling the various different details because while some might be inconsistent, there is a theme that connects them - and that theme is the non-acceptance of the IPCC line that the science is settled, that all or nearly all of the warming is a result of man made co2 emissions and that the IPCC predictions in relation to the amount of warming we will see or the catastrophic near term effects of that warming are accurate.
As for posting conflicting information and your view that it should be banned or against the rules - this is a debate. If I see something that attacks the other sides position for reasons that I may not necessarily subscribe to, that does not mean I should be somehow restricted from putting it up here for comment and discussion.
