Your views on climate change

[Keronians]

The thing is, what we're doing is, while carrying out deforestation, we're simultaneously increasing the supply of CO2.

It's fucking ridiculous.



A previous post I made.

Like I said deforestation and excavation.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing or arguing with you, just expanding upon it.

[William Delaney III]

I say we get a whole lot of highly trained experts in climatology to figure it out, tell them what our values and goals are, and have them recommend the best course of action for adhering to those values and staying true to those goals.

I don't see any sense in doing it differently.

[Nicole Scherzinger]

Climate change is partially true. But people like Al Gore (so glad he wasn't elected president) are just a bit too crazy about it.

[The Utopia of Bill]

The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. The IPCC failed to recognize, in any way, that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless, and therefore the conclusions produced by their method of study should be considered as of little scientific value.

[Infinite Harmony]

*snip*

It holds scientific consensus, if these people had any valid points it wouldn't and they would have pulled in all sorts of awards.
argument from authority doesn't worrk all that well.

If you cared to read the credentials of the scientists in question you would find out they were highly respected by their colleagues. I will repost some of their credentials again for your elucidation. Re. "awards", it is uncommon for awards to be given to those who are not in line with the current scientific paradigm, as those holding the paradigm are also those who tend to hand out the awards.

Also, <snip> is hardly a useful quote, and "arguement from authority" is probably used more by the proponents of MMGL theory than those who question it.

Also see http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php, and realize that the scientific establishment can make serious mistakes, as nicely covered in this article: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html.




The credentials of those who dispute MMGL theory from their area of scientific expertise:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology.

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones.

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research.

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum.

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists.

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science.

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project.

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University.

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists.

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy.

[Free Soviets]

yo, ISA. quote button. use it.

Am I to understand that Free Soviets actually believes that there are no non-human factors involved in the Earth's climate?

no. why if we look just slightly up in your post, you have quoted my words on the subject. as a refresher, they were that

Q. How is this climate change emergency different than previous natural changes?

there are no non-human climate forcing factors that can be blamed. the sun has not been giving off more energy, the earth's core hasn't suddenly started heating up, the continents haven't moved into a new configuration and redirected ocean currents, the earth's orbital wobbles aren't doing anything new, and there are no non-anthropogenic sources of new greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.

so...what part of that was unclear? did you lose the plot on your own question that was being answered? because it wasn't about factors involved in climate per se, but involved in the current changes. its hard to figure out a charitable approach to this level of 'misunderstanding'...

But what about that sun? Free Soviets states it has not been giving off more energy. Hmmm is that true? Hey, Free Soviets that is fabulous, we CAN ACTUALLY CHECK THE DATA WE DO HAVE, that is crazy, so lets see if there is any data that would suggest my solar activity theory is a possibility...

(Image)

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

The red curve illustrates the recorded scientific data of solar activity and mean temperatures from 1960 to 2000. Quite simply a correlation cannot just be denied on the sole basis that one wants to believe in a different theory.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

{checks calendar}
um, i think you might need to set your clock ahead a decade. you're a bit behind. (or, more plausibly, you are stealing lines from the standard denialist sources. that's a bad idea, as they are all wrong about everything in truly embarrassing ways.)

the simplified chart you are after actually looks like this these days:


note that even when the sun probably was having a significant effect - the first half of the last century - it was lagging behind the trend often enough. but now? that shit is headed in completely the opposite direction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm

[Patriqvinia]

I think climate change is happening, perhaps even global warming; however, this graph that I keep seeing everywhere, is nonsense. The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today, if not warmer, not to mention during the iron-age (The Roman Warm Period). Also, the notion that CO2 is the biggest greenhouse gas is frankly, bunk alarmism, and there is almost definitely some political motivation.

While most agree that CO2 levels have risen a good bit in the last 300 years, it doesn't seem to matter very much how much we "cut our emissions". Therefore, I must conclude that: sure, we should endeavor to plant more trees, but overall:

Well, we ought to at least leave the place clean when we go. Anyway, you and Frank Fenner can give up. I won't until I die.

Why do you care about the state of the earth? Especially after you're dead and nothing can be done.

If climate change is the threat the world assumes it to be, then our deaths are imminent; don't worry. Embrace and love the inevitability of your own death, and to hell with the human race. There's no turning back now; extinction is inevitable.

We may as well not cause further pain and suffering by regulating the use of fossil fuels in the short term, and, in doing so, harm those reliant upon fossil fuels (which is to say, the poor, particularly in developing nations, who rely upon fossil fuels for industrialization).

There is no "leaving the place clean"; all life on the world will be dead, save that which can evolve to the new conditions.

or

[Wikkiwallana]

There's a big difference between your claim that non-one is sure, which implies it could easily go either way, and the reality of everyone who knows enough to meaningfully comment on the subject saying "We're 90% certain it's our fault".

There is simply not enough scientific data to claim the evidence supports even at 90%, you know that. Again you are trying to change a theory to a fact or close to a fact when the evidence does not support such claims. Period.

Global warming is the current temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2] and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

You se all those little numbers? Those are citations that back it up. Don't tell me I'm distorting facts again.

Edit: fixed my tag

[Wikkiwallana]

I say we get a whole lot of highly trained experts in climatology to figure it out, tell them what our values and goals are, and have them recommend the best course of action for adhering to those values and staying true to those goals.

I don't see any sense in doing it differently.

We already did that years ago, it's called the IPCC. It's mostly been used as a boogieman by the right wing.

[Lacadaemon]

You knew people in general would get bored with it once they had that big benefit concert thingy. That always signals the end of a panicy fad. Never have a concert if you want to stay fresh and relevant. It's always a marketing disaster ultimately.

Anyway, we have the rise of China or someshit to worry about now.

[Independant States of America]

yo, ISA. quote button. use it.

Am I to understand that Free Soviets actually believes that there are no non-human factors involved in the Earth's climate?

no. why if we look just slightly up in your post, you have quoted my words on the subject. as a refresher, they were that

there are no non-human climate forcing factors that can be blamed. the sun has not been giving off more energy, the earth's core hasn't suddenly started heating up, the continents haven't moved into a new configuration and redirected ocean currents, the earth's orbital wobbles aren't doing anything new, and there are no non-anthropogenic sources of new greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.

so...what part of that was unclear? did you lose the plot on your own question that was being answered? because it wasn't about factors involved in climate per se, but involved in the current changes. its hard to figure out a charitable approach to this level of 'misunderstanding'...

But what about that sun? Free Soviets states it has not been giving off more energy. Hmmm is that true? Hey, Free Soviets that is fabulous, we CAN ACTUALLY CHECK THE DATA WE DO HAVE, that is crazy, so lets see if there is any data that would suggest my solar activity theory is a possibility...

(Image)

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

The red curve illustrates the recorded scientific data of solar activity and mean temperatures from 1960 to 2000. Quite simply a correlation cannot just be denied on the sole basis that one wants to believe in a different theory.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

{checks calendar}
um, i think you might need to set your clock ahead a decade. you're a bit behind. (or, more plausibly, you are stealing lines from the standard denialist sources. that's a bad idea, as they are all wrong about everything in truly embarrassing ways.)

the simplified chart you are after actually looks like this these days:


note that even when the sun probably was having a significant effect - the first half of the last century - it was lagging behind the trend often enough. but now? that shit is headed in completely the opposite direction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm

Hmm, looks like that chart leaves a little to be desired. It does not reflect the 6 year cooling trend of 2004-2010. This trend is well documented and is also accepted by most of the MMGL scientific community as having occured. (In fact it prompted the term Climate Change, which of course was previously Global Warming. Got to cover yourself no matter how the climate changes.)

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooli ... ncetrends/

You see, while I do not claim your theories are incorrect, I do claim that they are just theories and not scientific fact. However much you want them to be fact they are not, and we do not have enough evidence to claim them as such. I offer plausible theories in opposition. I do not know that my theory is correct or not, just a scientific guess....just like the theory you propose. Say what you want, but you cannot have a legitimate scientific study when you know the outcome will support your theory regardless of data that does not fit your theory, or some evidence which may support an opposite theory. And that is the position the MMGL has taken. They take the facts they want, ignore the ones they don't, and claim a scientific conclusion, just like your opposition who claim the facts prove man does not impact the climate. There is insufficient evidence to make any call on mans effect climate at this time with any degree of certainty. I am sorry if you disagree, but you do not have the evidence to claim otherwise. You just have majority consensus, which as you know does not, and has never, made a theory factual.

[Mosasauria]

The earth is warming.
Whether that has anything to do with humans however, is sketchy at best.

[Wikkiwallana]

It holds scientific consensus, if these people had any valid points it wouldn't and they would have pulled in all sorts of awards.
argument from authority doesn't worrk all that well.

If you cared to read the credentials of the scientists in question you would find out they were highly respected by their colleagues. I will repost some of their credentials again for your elucidation. Re. "awards", it is uncommon for awards to be given to those who are not in line with the current scientific paradigm, as those holding the paradigm are also those who tend to hand out the awards.

Also, <snip> is hardly a useful quote, and "arguement from authority" is probably used more by the proponents of MMGL theory than those who question it.

Also see http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php, and realize that the scientific establishment can make serious mistakes, as nicely covered in this article: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html.




The credentials of those who dispute MMGL theory from their area of scientific expertise:

Alright, let's review them:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences.

Only relevant if A. he's reviewed the actual numbers and B. he's not the former chairman because of messing with numbers.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology.

Meteorology is not Climatology. It's about short term weather, not long term.

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute.

I don't go to a weatherman to find out why I'm sick, so why should I go to a doctor to ask about the climate?

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones.

See second person.

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society.

What kind of physics? Classical, Relativistic, Particle, or something in a certain field, like hydraulics or mechanics? It makes a big difference, because you really have to specialize as the field is so broad that no-one could hope to get it all.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research.

Ok, this one is actually relevant, but we have much more other data even if he is completely right about the ice cores.

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum.

Geological? He knows about the ground, not the atmosphere.

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists.

Given the small pool of names deniers choose from, all of their sources are going to be heavily citied, because all of the writers and pundits are reusing them constantly even when they aren't producing any new findings.

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science.

Which says nothing about field of expertise. Dr. Allegre could be a microbiologist or toxicologist or any number of other scientific fields that would convey absolutely no knowledge about climate matters.

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

Again meteorology ≠ climatology

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project.

So s/he knows about outer space, and not Earth? Really useful there.

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University.

Wow, the first person on the list who has actual credentials in the whole field and not just a fraction of it.

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

Which has what to do with Earth'sclimate patterns again?

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists.

In what field of physics?

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy.

And again, someone in a field that has nothing to do with the freaking climate.

So most of these are worthless as sources, two are potentially partially relevant, and only one is actually in the damn field. And I would really like to see the actual credentials of those three, their statements on the issue, and any things that might be causing a conflict of interest for them.

[Wikkiwallana]

yo, ISA. quote button. use it.

no. why if we look just slightly up in your post, you have quoted my words on the subject. as a refresher, they were that


so...what part of that was unclear? did you lose the plot on your own question that was being answered? because it wasn't about factors involved in climate per se, but involved in the current changes. its hard to figure out a charitable approach to this level of 'misunderstanding'...


{checks calendar}
um, i think you might need to set your clock ahead a decade. you're a bit behind. (or, more plausibly, you are stealing lines from the standard denialist sources. that's a bad idea, as they are all wrong about everything in truly embarrassing ways.)

the simplified chart you are after actually looks like this these days:


note that even when the sun probably was having a significant effect - the first half of the last century - it was lagging behind the trend often enough. but now? that shit is headed in completely the opposite direction.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm

Hmm, looks like that chart leaves a little to be desired. It does not reflect the 6 year cooling trend of 2004-2010. This trend is well documented and is also accepted by most of the MMGL scientific community as having occured. (In fact it prompted the term Climate Change, which of course was previously Global Warming. Got to cover yourself no matter how the climate changes.)

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooli ... ncetrends/

You see, while I do not claim your theories are incorrect, I do claim that they are just theories and not scientific fact. However much you want them to be fact they are not, and we do not have enough evidence to claim them as such. I offer plausible theories in opposition. I do not know that my theory is correct or not, just a scientific guess....just like the theory you propose. Say what you want, but you cannot have a legitimate scientific study when you know the outcome will support your theory regardless of data that does not fit your theory, or some evidence which may support an opposite theory. And that is the position the MMGL has taken. They take the facts they want, ignore the ones they don't, and claim a scientific conclusion, just like your opposition who claim the facts prove man does not impact the climate. There is insufficient evidence to make any call on mans effect climate at this time with any degree of certainty. I am sorry if you disagree, but you do not have the evidence to claim otherwise. You just have majority consensus, which as you know does not, and has never, made a theory factual.

A six year cooling trend that included the hottest summers on record? I'm skeptical, to say the least.

[Independant States of America]

There is simply not enough scientific data to claim the evidence supports even at 90%, you know that. Again you are trying to change a theory to a fact or close to a fact when the evidence does not support such claims. Period.

Global warming is the current temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2] and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

You se all those little numbers? Those are citations that back it up. Don't tell me I'm distorting facts again.

Edit: fixed my tag

never intended to imply directly or indirectly that you are distorting any facts. Truth is there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, and some solid scientific evidence as well to support a moderate to large human impact on the climate. And yes you have scientific consensus. I am just offering a straight scientific data approach to the question why is our climate changing. There is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence as well as some fairly strong scientific evidence in the data that tends to minimalize any real human impact in regards to climate. You see both sides here have to ignore a fair amount of evidence to the contrary of their viewpoint on the issue. The issue is not as clear as either side seems to make it. The only fact, if we can call it a fact, is we really do not know. And if man is causing this phenomenon, what, if anything can we do about it? That is the more important question anyhow.

[Bitchkitten]

Climate change is full of uncertainty. But reputable scientits pretty much agree we are a major cause. In the scientific community unlike the media there is no real uncertainty of it's cause. The uncertainty is in exactly what will happen because climate has so many variables, some of which we are not aware of.

Recently we have had the deadliest torando season since 1936. The only three years that death tolls have exceeding 100 deaths during my father's lifetime. 1984 1998 and 2008. But the latest death toll was over 500. Since the warning for a tornado touchdown have gone from seconds to about 13 minutes, deaths should be shrinking. But recently our tornado seasons have been getting worse.

The western US has been hit by record droughts repeatedly in the last decades. Texas is burning as well as California.Russia has record crop failures due to heatwave. France and Germany have current drought related crop failures. Parts of Australia are under water. The Amazon has just come through its second hundred year drought in five yaers. That's two droughts of the type expected once in a century in a five year span.

The distribution of precipitation is changing radically. Global tempratures are rising. And even if you are one of those people who doesnt think man is the main cause only an idiot would deny we are contributing. And only an idiot would say that we shouldn't do everything in our power to mitigate these changes.


The effects on civilization could be catastrophic. Wealthier countries will weather the weather a bit better. But the developing world will plunge into chaos. Wars and famine will be rampant. Climate refugees will innundate countries that are better off. The disaster of the poor will eventually fall on the rich. No matter where you live, you will be affected.

[Free Soviets]

Hmm, looks like that chart leaves a little to be desired. It does not reflect the 6 year cooling trend of 2004-2010. This trend is well documented and is also accepted by most of the MMGL scientific community as having occured.

haha, no. here, check the data from nasa.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

and just in case you can't use excel yourself, two charts. with trend lines! i took the liberty of making one for both your very odd 2004 claim and the more standard but even stupider 1998 one.


note the utter lack of a cooling trend.

(In fact it prompted the term Climate Change, which of course was previously Global Warming. Got to cover yourself no matter how the climate changes.)

in 1988 the world meteorological organization and the UN formed the IPCC. do you happen to know what the CC in that stand for? i'll give you one guess.

[Free Soviets]

A six year cooling trend that included the hottest summers on record? I'm skeptical, to say the least.

it also included the 4 hottest years on record. every year but one is hotter than 2004. in fact, every year but one in this 'cooling trend' (haha) is one of the hottest ten years in the instrumental record. the other one is number eleven.

whoever our friend here is reading, they are doing a particularly swell job at being laughably wrong. even by denialist standards.

[Free Soviets]

I think climate change is happening, perhaps even global warming; however, this graph that I keep seeing everywhere, is nonsense. The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today, if not warmer, not to mention during the iron-age (The Roman Warm Period).

regional temperature variations do not imply the entire world varied with them. and in these specific cases, we know the world did not. if you believe we have evidence for the existence of a medieval climate anomoly, then you are obligated to accept the 2000 year climate chart. it is made by the same people using the same methods, just with more data points covering the world instead of the north atlantic.

Also, the notion that CO2 is the biggest greenhouse gas is frankly, bunk alarmism, and there is almost definitely some political motivation.

nobody says CO2 is the biggest. they say CO2 is the biggest driver. see if you can puzzle out why on your own. here's a hint - where does water vapor get into the atmosphere from and what happens to it after?

While most agree that CO2 levels have risen a good bit in the last 300 years

'most' also agree that gravity exists and that the world isn't flat. come on man.

[Thalam]

You see, while I do not claim your theories are incorrect, I do claim that they are just theories and not scientific fact. However much you want them to be fact they are not, and we do not have enough evidence to claim them as such. I offer plausible theories in opposition. I do not know that my theory is correct or not, just a scientific guess....just like the theory you propose. Say what you want, but you cannot have a legitimate scientific study when you know the outcome will support your theory regardless of data that does not fit your theory, or some evidence which may support an opposite theory. And that is the position the MMGL has taken. They take the facts they want, ignore the ones they don't, and claim a scientific conclusion, just like your opposition who claim the facts prove man does not impact the climate. There is insufficient evidence to make any call on mans effect climate at this time with any degree of certainty. I am sorry if you disagree, but you do not have the evidence to claim otherwise. You just have majority consensus, which as you know does not, and has never, made a theory factual.

Wow man, you might want to look up what a scientific theory is, because you really have no clue.

[DaWoad]

There's a big difference between your claim that non-one is sure, which implies it could easily go either way, and the reality of everyone who knows enough to meaningfully comment on the subject saying "We're 90% certain it's our fault".

There is simply not enough scientific data to claim the evidence supports even at 90%, you know that. Again you are trying to change a theory to a fact or close to a fact when the evidence does not support such claims. Period.

support that assertion please.

[Wikkiwallana]

A six year cooling trend that included the hottest summers on record? I'm skeptical, to say the least.

it also included the 4 hottest years on record. every year but one is hotter than 2004. in fact, every year but one in this 'cooling trend' (haha) is one of the hottest ten years in the instrumental record. the other one is number eleven.

whoever our friend here is reading, they are doing a particularly swell job at being laughably wrong. even by denialist standards.

What really confused me about the graph was that the line that supposedly averaged the temperatures only touched the actual temperatures once and then continued to go on below it. How does that even work? It's like saying 5, 8, 7, 10, 6, and 7 average out to 5.

[Sociobiology]

it also included the 4 hottest years on record. every year but one is hotter than 2004. in fact, every year but one in this 'cooling trend' (haha) is one of the hottest ten years in the instrumental record. the other one is number eleven.

whoever our friend here is reading, they are doing a particularly swell job at being laughably wrong. even by denialist standards.

What really confused me about the graph was that the line that supposedly averaged the temperatures only touched the actual temperatures once and then continued to go on below it. How does that even work? It's like saying 5, 8, 7, 10, 6, and 7 average out to 5.

actually the average would be 7.16
you could actually learn something about statistics or just mathematics.
each point on the graph is an average for that year, the line is a plot of the regression of all the data points, not just the averages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

[Sociobiology]

Hmm, looks like that chart leaves a little to be desired. It does not reflect the 6 year cooling trend of 2004-2010. This trend is well documented and is also accepted by most of the MMGL scientific community as having occured. (In fact it prompted the term Climate Change, which of course was previously Global Warming. Got to cover yourself no matter how the climate changes.)

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooli ... ncetrends/

You see, while I do not claim your theories are incorrect, I do claim that they are just theories and not scientific fact. However much you want them to be fact they are not, and we do not have enough evidence to claim them as such. I offer plausible theories in opposition. I do not know that my theory is correct or not, just a scientific guess....just like the theory you propose. Say what you want, but you cannot have a legitimate scientific study when you know the outcome will support your theory regardless of data that does not fit your theory, or some evidence which may support an opposite theory. And that is the position the MMGL has taken. They take the facts they want, ignore the ones they don't, and claim a scientific conclusion, just like your opposition who claim the facts prove man does not impact the climate. There is insufficient evidence to make any call on mans effect climate at this time with any degree of certainty. I am sorry if you disagree, but you do not have the evidence to claim otherwise. You just have majority consensus, which as you know does not, and has never, made a theory factual.

A six year cooling trend that included the hottest summers on record? I'm skeptical, to say the least.

not to mention the source the for the cooling trend is only a report on US climate trends not global trends. the US does not represent the entire planet.

[Wikkiwallana]

What really confused me about the graph was that the line that supposedly averaged the temperatures only touched the actual temperatures once and then continued to go on below it. How does that even work? It's like saying 5, 8, 7, 10, 6, and 7 average out to 5.

actually the average would be 7.16
you could actually learn something about statistics or just mathematics.
each point on the graph is an average for that year, the line is a plot of the regression of all the data points, not just the averages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

Which was my point, I was complaining about this graph:

Somehow the "average" of the averages is lower than the individual averages. It makes no damn sense.