And why do you pretend to know more than virtually every climate scientist in the world and all it's science organizations? BTW. Where does it say the unusual periods of warmth was in the winter. Once again, a comprehension fail. Something that seems to be a requirement for the deniers. LOL Try again. Any chance you understood what was being talked about? No? Better watch some more ice-road truckers. LOL
Yeah, I was wondering the same about you. Or maybe your heat and air installation experience makes you an expert in climatology.
Go work on an air conditioner or something and leave the science to those of us with science degrees. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.
futurecunts has a degree, or so he claims. Waste Management I believe. Sounds like a total "waste" to me, but what do I know.
What part of early 2011 do you fail to understand? In other news FC does not believe that the early part of a year is WINTER in the Northern Hemisphere. In your twisted global warming world do you believe that winter does not exist?
You're being ridiculous. First off early can mean May and it doesn't say how long any of this occurred for. Second Alaska is big and one area can experience much different weather than the other. Thirdly, this point is not really relevant to the basics of the study. I posted the study to show how global warming can and is causing unusual seasonal extremes in both heat and cold. Multiple scientists are working on the same phenomenon. It is a real phenomenon. It is the same thing that they think caused the drought in the mid-west and killed the corn crop. But of course you with Anthony Watts website know more about climatology than the world's climate scientists and all it's science organizations ..............and the Weather Channel. LOL To take your moron denier position you have to dismiss the opinions of virtually all the world's experts. Plus ignore common sense. Are you also a creationist? LOL I suppose you also think a cold March in Europe means GW has stopped? LOL You deniers are so stupid.
On the subject of global warming, climate change or whatever else you want to call it. Either we have faith in the major institutions of science (which of course could be wrong, but this seems unlikely) or we come to a conclusion based on evidence which we have personally observed. I am not a climatologist, I don't understand the science so I am defering the thought process to people that do understand the science and whose job it is to advise decisions based on this understanding. This is faith based support for man made global warming. I have faith that the worlds major scientific institutions are not lying or completely off the mark. This is based on my experience and understanding of the scientific process which compared to politics, business, finance etc is relatively unbaised. Most scientists are in it to answer "why" questions and not to accumulate money or power so have very little reason to trick or confuse the public at large. However, this is definitely a cop out. We are all able to understand climate science if we dedicate enough of our time to understanding it. IF you have taken the time to look into it and are a sceptic, I applaud you, but until I do the same I will put my faith in the robust institutions which have been right countless times in the past.
Did you have faith when the majority of the world's scientists (paid by the tobacco companies) said that smoking was harmless for many years despite the assertions of a vocal minority? Did you have faith in the 1970s when the majority of the world's scientists (funded by government grants) stated that global cooling was the world's leading problem? Unfortunately 'science' in the modern era is very politicalized and driven by money.
I agree and I would approach this topic with the same view and I did. When I have no expertise I see what the expert on the topics say and I examine their research. However, please dive in to the topic and understand what exactly the scientists are telling you. 1. temperature record shows CO2 accumulationn lags temperature on the way up and the way down. 2. for the last 17 years CO2 has been going up and temperature has stayed the same or gone down. 3. the CO2 forcing models all predicted temperature to go up... althought the recent one in 2007 included a low end of no tempertature change... and if you read the footnotes the scientists wrote that they had no model which showed CO2 forcing tempertature. So... that leaves you with the question.... What science are the scientists basing their claims on? And who are the scientists making the claims? And when there is are arugment about consensus is it real. You will find the 97% is really 97% of scientists published in pro man made global warming journals. You will find that there may be a majority of scientists with real degrees in science who say man may have some effect on temperature... but far fewer are saying that man made CO2 causes temperature to rise on earth. That last statement is not supported by any science. You may challenge any agw nutter here and not one will produce science showing man made global warming causes temps to rise on earth. They will show you charts... based on the projections of now failed models. The fact is the UN and the Met are regrouping and I am sure going to come out with new models which include the sun and the tides in their models this time.