Please cherry pick the beginning of the hill. (1970s)
Also making a line between 2 points obviously will show 1 trend and only one.
You think people are idiots don't you?

Why so scared to admit it has flatlined in the last 18 years?

Even if you are right and its just a pause... IT IS A PAUSE.

You take todays date, you go back in time until you can no longer find a flat line.
That currently brings us to 18 years 4 months.

1998 is offset pretty much by 2010, so your point is moot.

There is no cherry picking, its just an observation. If you start today and go back 18 years 4 months, the trend is DEAD FLAT.

However.... CO2 is most definitely NOT flat.

Explain.

Congrats to Svante, and obviously smart man for his discoveries, now, that about 125 years ago.
I think science has progressed since then, or it did until climate science came along and it started regressing.. but I digress.

We put 36 gigatons of CO2... ok, so? Half of that is scrubed. The half life of the rest is MUCH shorter than 1980s and 90s chicken littles where predicting with their crystal balls. And the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic, most of the IR rays being trapped are already being trapped... the extra does have an effect, but its almost nothing compared to the first 30-50ppms.

Latest sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is in the range of 1 to 1.2c. The fact that many alarmists still cling to their untenable bullshit claims of 3-4 or even 5C is irrelevant. Real science adjusts itself. Climate science desperately tries to make models, data and fake research fit with their pre-determined notion of WHAT climate should be doing.

None of the facts that you stated above mean CO2 is the main driver of the increase in temperatures we have observed, the palsy .85c over the last 100-125 years.
None of the facts above demonstrated that 1-2c average increase would be bad.
None of those demonstrate that there currenly is observed catastrophe happening.

I could go on. But as usual you will find a way to try to destroy my character, point to propaganda at SKS.
Tell me I'm an idiot because I state stuff that are in blogs.

Go ahead. The blogs report what scientists are researching. Not what the IPCC and their handlers cherry pick to show.

Who the hell upvoted this shill.

Stop your lying. People actually believe you because they are to lazy to do some research.

Straight from the horses mouth. Freeman Dyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Look, just because you where brain washed into thinking if we dont spend a gazillion dollars RIGHT NOW and install inefficient solar panels and wind turbines all while sucking the life blood out of civilization with extra taxes and trading that go to the rich, doesnt mean that science (yes, the real one, not the climate religion) wont solve these problems all by itself over the next 20-30 years.

We are well on our way to doing that.

And no, there is NO immediate threat. Show me a threat, I'll show you the propaganda.

THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE THREAT THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

You got it? No, I'm sure you wouldnt.

They are a bunch of clowns and you know it.

You are just to intellectually dishonest to admit it. Nuclear is the only long term solution to a growing societies energy needs.
All the time wasted not furthering research is worst than the fake CO2 scare.

They constantly post press releases about killing "deniers", they attack private business in the middle of the sea and except a welcome wagon and warm blankets, and are surprised when they get thrown in jail.

They strut around the world in a giant rusting diesel spewing hunk of metal... all very very green.

400 million dollar budget and they cry for more.

They have become a machine, that needs to feed on more attention, more money just to grow. They ARE the cancer.
I'm sorry. Greenpeace is owed no respect as they respect nothing but themselves and grass.

1998 is not normal by any stretch. You would like to think so, but it just is not so.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Choose another source than UAH and 1998 will still be an outlier by a long margin.
Also, while you are at it. Compare 2014 in many of those datasets with 1998. 2014 was not the warmest year in almost all if not all data sets.

Now back on topic. You accept that natural variation might hide the heat, but not that it might have been the cause of the heat? Why so? Because we are such experts at every aspect of our climate? Because we understand so thoroughly the AMO, PDO and all other cycles and phenomenons?

Natural variation most certainly does maintain trends that are decades long. Look at the data going back to 1850 or as far back as you can go. It is generally understood that CO2 (for those who attribute almost all the heat to it) has not noticeably affected global averages before the 1950's. However there are still decades long trends upward or downward before the '50s. Unless I misunderstood what you where trying to say...

Yes, I am referring to "the pause". I am not ignoring possible heat sinks. However AGW seems to have ignored the heatsinks before "the pause". They just suddenly "activated"? Heat sinks that weren't, just now... are?

None of the heat sinks trying to be linked to "the pause" or "slowdown" have been demonstrated to be true with a high level of certainty.

And about a hundred different things have been said to be a heat sink. The climate change community seem to be scrambling for answers, as well they should, since they are now realizing they did not understand climate as well as they wished they did.

I do read real scientists. I do not read media or politicians as is quite obvious from my statements (unless youd like to call me a right wing republican hillbilly), I'm Canadian, living in Quebec and couldnt care less about your political system and the idiots that actually think the end game is affected by Rs or Ds in power.

The media is actually on your side of this discussion, as are most politicians. However they are scrambling as the people just arent buying it.

There is a debate, but those in the climate change crew dont like to debate. Much easier to call others names, like deniers, shut out scientists who have dissenting views from discussions than to actually debate the science. Since it does not back up what they are peddling.

You misunderstand me. I am not conflating, Its the exact opposite.

I am making the point that local trends vary wildly because of dozens of "local" factors and making a global average of local readings, particularly in the the case of OA leads to no where.

The global average is basically meaning less.

What if the oceans across the WHOLE planet where basically flat concerning PH however one area, for example the Mediterranean sea was so way off, as to offset PH levels for the global average.
That global average number would mean absolutely nothing... however :) There certainly might be a localized problem in the Mediterranean sea.

The sampling points and sampling rate for ocean PH is so small, its irresponsible to even put it together in a global average.

Not to mention we haven't even determined what would be, if any, the natural equilibrium of average ocean PH levels.

So many things wrong and missing to even begin to make conclusions:

- Low sampling rate (i.e. in Hawaii, 10 samples a year... seriously);
- Low amount of sampling locations;
- Sampling depth inconsistencies (deep ocean water has a higher acidity than the surface);
- Historical record inconsistent geological sampling (one decade has more northern hemisphere sampling, while another has more samples elsewhere in the world);
- Historical record inconsistent sampling periods (seasonal factors affect greatly PH, under sampling, over sampling or skipping seasons greatly affects the data);
- Sampling locations in known up-welling areas or down-welling areas. There is just no consistency;

Because of all these factors, we currently do not have the data to draw conclusions. However, just like allot of things in the global warming, climate change area of science... it just doesnt matter. We must publish and it must be dire...

Re-read. Then refute with source.

I have to admit, you seem to have put allot of thought into that one.

However, it doesn't really change anything.

If CO2 was the main driver of temperature, as it steadily increases, there is no way there would be no effect for almost 18 years.

Now before you go calling me names (maybe your not that type, and I apologies in advance), I don't deny that CO2 does contribute to rising temperatures. However, we seem to have all lost our marbles and completely forgotten natural variations, as if they do not exists.

If you look at the data, it doesn't really show a tale worth being scared like chicken little's for.

The slight increase is only felt in daily lows, not daily highs (as a first), also increases are most noticed in colder months than in warmer ones. This barely increases global averages (which is honestly a very ridiculous yard stick). The amounts claimed as warmest years are so far below instrumental precision, on a global scale its quit ludicrous.

I honestly think main stream media and politics have hi-jacked climate research and spun it into something that is much more dire than it actually is.

Easier to prove?

Go ahead.

The variation in ocean PH differs locally. Only a mile away, the PH level can be off by 30%, which coincidentally is the amount they say has changed over the years.

The data, especially the historical data is horribly incomplete. However that doesnt stop researches from publishing papers with gaps the size of the grand canyon in their data.

Before you go believing all the hype about OA, you need to do some research with an objective mind.

However, "this" century hasn't seen a steady increase in temperatures, all the while CO2 has been rising steadily.

Your particular dealership must be really inexpensive.

In the real world, dealerships are still very much more expensive than doing your own repairs. Even for the stuff you mentioned. Especially brakes.

Wrong. That lobby group mentioned in the article? Mainly asian. No american or german manufacturers seem to be part of that lobby group.

The only thing in the e-mail is a link to a central transferring site (interac), from there you choose your bank, logging to your account and choose which account you want to transfer it into. Its very secure. Never heard of any fraud in Canada from this method.

The e-mail basically contains no information and the link itself either.

In Canada we still get gauged on ATM fees. Even if you pay the monthly, if you use an ATM that is not from your bank, you'll pay from 2$ up to 5 or 10% (with a limit) depending if you use a 3rd party ATM in a business like a club.

If Im not mistaken in the UK they have forced CAPS on ATM fees of 0.50cents (or pences or half a pound). We need laws like this very badly.

You are right.

Lets disband ALL agencies and call ALL of them the White House, division of...