Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

He's had enough of logic. Lucrum is loadin' his double. Look out. His daughter/new wife is hot.

 

That wasn't what I thought you meant, but yes I did answer that question to him. Which incidentally exposed you for the ignorant hypocrite you are.

At least you admit you're in P&R for the sole purpose of trolling and masturbating your inflated ego, mountain fuck.

 

Wut did you say? tilt.

It's not as though you had a chance. You're simply out of your depth.

 

if any big govt loving leftists have some science showing man made co2 causes warming you might want to produce it soon because ...


The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to the panel of six.
Here is the press release, which somehow escaped everyone’s a number of climate skeptic bloggers notice until now.

APS to Review Statement on Climate Change

February 20, 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...is-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#more-105692

 

Polar Bear study walked back or invalidated.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...em-as-threatened-now-invalidated/#more-106176

As the PBSG said about the 2006 estimate:

“…it is important to note that there is the potential for un-modeled spatial heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling that could bias survival and abundance estimates.” [my emphasis]

“Spatial heterogeneity” means that the sampled bears could have come from more than one population, a possibility which violates a critical requirement of the statistics used to generate the population and survival estimates. “Un-modeled” means that the ‘movement of bears’ problem was not factored into the mathematical models that generated the 2006 population size and survival estimates as it should have been.

Ecologist Jim Steele pointed some of this out in his book and his guest post last year, so it’s not news that this was done.

What’s shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the ‘movement of bears’ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted ‘reduced survival of cubs.’ The reduced survival of cubs data from that SB study was a critical component of the argument that US bears were already being negatively impacted by global warming and thus, should be listed as ‘threatened’ under the ESA (US Fish & Wildlife Service 2008).

 

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US “monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century].

In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.”

In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures “and even some cooling” of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ooling-maximum-temperatures-flat/#more-106253

 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PxYeBqG6H58?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

... interesting article... here is a segment


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/#more-106553

However, there is not compelling evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950, i.e. “Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.” NASA Earth Observatory “The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.” NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000 “Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.” Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: “There exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950″. EPA

So how to clear up this confusion? Let’s take a look at the data…

 

So what? Why are you even arguing? You believe in AGW. Don't you?