Both TooOldForThis and Piezoe have posted deeply detailed explanations describing where the claims of climate alarmists are simply not true. Rather than providing any original information countering their information which includes references to peer reviewed papers - all you can do is attack them as deniers.
America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time. The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years. The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record. Data compiled from these stations shows a slight cooling trend over the U.S. for the past decade. Source: NOAA USCRN compiled by Anthony Watts ”Clearly, a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ exists in this most pristine climate data,” writesAnthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That. “In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears.” Watts’s plotting of U.S. Surface Climate Observing Reference Networks (USCRN) data comes after NOAA researchers put out a study claiming there’s been no “hiatus” in global warming– a 15-year period with no significant rise in the world’s average temperature. Basically, NOAA made adjustments to weather stations, buoys and ships that increased the warming trend from older data. “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus’,” NOAA scientists wrote in their study. NOAA found that from 1998 to 2012 there was “more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade. “This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists wrote. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.” NOAA’s latest climate adjustments were sharply criticized by climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming. Skeptics argued NOAA’s data adjustments were largely unwarranted and excluded data that didn’t fit with the global warming narrative. “My bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.” “The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target,” Curry added. “So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.” What’s interesting about the USCRN data is that it was created to provide scientists with “long-term sustainable and robust climate observations that are necessary to document long-term climate change trends for the United States,”according to NOAA. Much of this relies on the fact that these climate stations are placed in areas that don’t need to be adjusted for interference, like urban heat created in cities. NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis. It should also be noted that USCRN only covers the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska, but the rest of the world lacks these high quality weather stations that don’t require temperatures to go through ex post facto adjustments by NOAA. Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others. “So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts asked. “While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”
Well of course this how someone who was caught having two forum names would respond. The similarity in style and depth of bullshit from both you is just too similar to be coincidence.
........ She decided to do something no climate scientist had thought to do: count the published scientific papers. Pulling 928 of them, she was startled to find that not one dissented from the basic findings that warming was underway and human activity was the main reason. She published that finding in a short paper in the journal Science in 2004, and the reaction was electric. Advocates of climate action seized on it as proof of a level of scientific consensus that most of them had not fully perceived. Just as suddenly, Dr. Oreskes found herself under political attack. Some of the voices criticizing her — scientists like Dr. Singer and groups like the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington — were barely known to her at the time, Dr. Oreskes said in an interview. Just who were they? She had connected by then with Dr. Conway, an official NASA historian who, working on his own time, helped her dig into some important archives. It did not take them long to document that this group, which included prominent Cold War scientists, had been attacking environmental research for decades, challenging the science of the ozone layer and acid rain, even the finding that breathing secondhand tobacco smoke was harmful. Trying to undermine climate science was simply the latest project. Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway came to believe that the attacks were patterned on the strategy employed by the tobacco industry when evidence of health risks first emerged. Documents pried loose by lawyers showed that the industry had paid certain scientists to contrive dubious research, had intimidated reputable scientists, and had cherry-picked evidence to present a misleading picture. The tobacco industry had used these tactics in defense of profits. But Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway wrote that the so-called merchants of doubt had adopted them for a deep ideological reason: contempt for government regulation. The insight gave climate scientists a new way of understanding the politics that had engulfed their field.............. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/s...on®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 ..........................
FC, This sort of stuff is well known tactics. In 2007 I posted this: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16593606/...ts-ties-global-warming-skeptics/#.VX-xtnUViko What has happened since then? This: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26830555
Yep. Exxon's "cutting ties" is from 2007. At that time the climate scientists were still in denial about the pause and even Republican politicians were getting convinced by the evidence. By 2014 it was no longer deniable that temperatures weren't doing what they were supposed to. In addition, a lot of failed renewable fuels ventures were making the whole thing look a lot like a scam barrel: (2011) Raser Technologies (geothermal) (2011) Solyndra files for bankrupt with $500 million taxpayer money. (2011) Beacon Power (KE energy storage) bankrupt with $43 million taxpayer money. (2011) Nevada Geothermal Power bankrupt with $2 (2012) A123 (batteries) bankrupt with $123 million taxpayer money. (2012) Abound Solar bankrupt with $70 million taxpayer money. (2012) Ener1 (batteries) bankrupt with $118 million taxpayer money. (~2012) Nevada Geothermal Power with $98 million taxpayer money. (2013) Fisker Automotive (electric cars) bankrupt with $200 to 600 million taxpayer money. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that the people who ran the above companies made political contributions to US politicians (or were related, etc.). This sort of "recycling" is a very inefficient source of campaign cash as most of the money ends up being churned into purchases that end up being scrapped or labor costs that are wasted. Probably only a percent or so ends up in the pockets of the politicians. It would be much cheaper for the US taxpayers if the politicians simply voted themselves the money. -- But that would be "illegal". The renewable / recycling industry has also attracted a lot of true scam artists. Try googling jail+fraud+renewable+federal to find some of the cases that attracted the attention of the Feds. And it's not a US only thing. My all-time favorite is Andrea Rossi who has masterminded three (!) scams, Petroldragon (garbage to oil), Leonardo Technologies (electricity from waste heat) and Energy Catalyzer (cold fusion, LOL). At least no US funds were wasted on this guy, as far as I know. I guess I should add that this is not a feature only of the green energy / recycling business. US military contractors are also ridden with fraud. Basically, the only thing the US government ever does efficiently (and not always that) is killing people and breaking things. And maybe in that, our proficiency at it is in comparison with the incompetence of the rest of the world rather than an absence of fraud and abuse.
Where are the papers showing man made co2 causes warming. Oreskes work has been totally debunked by facts. Any papers which supported the idea that man made co2 caused warming were based on models. the 18 year pause in land temperature...(the temps the models were predicting not ocean temps or combined temps because ocean temps have been rising since the last ice age.) has shown those papers to be garbage. hence there is no science showing man man co2 causes warming... therefore oreskes is no a credible source. if you wish to prove me wrong... produce a few papers showing man made co2 causes warming? how hard can that be? its impossible because co2 levels trail warming and cooling hence logically... co2 can not be the cause absent some very complex and yet unfound mechanism.