I'm not sure what you mean. I am disputing the strength of the consensus that human activity is the dominant driver in global warming. That's why I said that there is a big difference between saying "humans are causing some warming" and saying the warming is "largely caused by humans". The graph misrepresents what the Farnsworth and Lichter study actually says. (That's the first study the graph references, and the only one I've checked so far.)

As I've said before, phrases like "broad scientific consensus" and "97%" are often used, but they are simply not accurate. And global warming activists don't seem to care about accuracy in cases like these. (Granted, this kind of behaviour is endemic to human nature. Both sides tend to turn a blind eye to the "inaccuracies" and errors promulgated by their own camp.)

The IPCC says that it is "very likely" that the extra CO2 we've introduced is responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1950. That's not a very precise statement. Without high climate sensitivity, that estimate would be much lower, and that's a fact.

Your graph is misleading. Just to take the first statistic listed, it it is based on a study by Farnsworth and Lichter. Here's some information I found regarding its findings (from http://journalistsresource.org...):

--

• 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.”
• “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
• “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger."

That doesn't convey an overwhelming consensus in catastrophic global warming at all. Most skeptics agree that "'human-induced greenhouse warming' is now occurring”, including myself. That is much different than saying "global warming is largely caused by humans". Be careful when relying on wikipedia.

You know how much heat CO2 should 'trap', if the earth behaved like a simple lab experiment. What you wrote above vastly overstates the level of certainty and understanding, and does not explain how climate sensitivity estimates can vary from 1 to 10.

I cite and you cite back. That's not obvious? Do whatever you like. I'm pretty sure you are looking at two different articles. I understand Stocker has misrepresented the actual report, but maybe because he was looking at the report for policy makers? It's a bit more "informal". Why don't you find out what the official report says and find out for yourself? (You don't know what the report says, do you?) Yeah, I know. It's up to me to provide a web page, and a page line, and a direct quote. IPCC reports are not easy for my grandparents to find either. Just goes to show you don't know WTF you are talking about. Apparently it's my job to educate you about what YOUR SIDE ACTUALLY SAYS, and then I have to defend against your RANDOM accusations, often against your own 'sides' position. I'm looking forward to witnessing more of your ridiculous grandstanding. It suits my purpose. Just in case we are unclear: I have no respect for your abilities what-so-ever. (At least, if this is all you have to offer.) BTW, this SkS page describes WFT as excellent: http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html. And yes, I hate myself a little bit for having to reference a SkS page.

He may have qualified his statement a bit, but it was clearly misleading and meant to scare people. Other scientists have said there is no possibility for a runaway greenhouse effect on earth, which I think is the general view.

If you can show me previously released code and procedures that shows why the temperatures for 1936 fluctuate up and down by as much as a degree from month to month, and I can run accurately back test it, then I will happily admit I was wrong, and that the NOAA has been open with their procedures all along, just that some implications of those procedures weren't made clear. I will also say "thank you" for clearing that little detail up for me. And what will you do if you discover I am correct? And what will you do when you admit I am correct about the temperature trends for the last 17 years?

Note I have been using 1997, BEFORE the El Nino warm year. And of course you wouldn't notice that because then you wouldn't be able to accuse me of cherry picking. See my point about 'flailing' above. I am genuinely curious though: did you notice that I used 1997, then decide to ignore it? Or did you honestly not notice at all?

Much of my effort here has been observing how you deny plain facts. The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause. You are denying the pause even exists.

SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.

I hear you. I've heard of coal having a certain amount of radioactivity that is ignored when they do the accounting because it's "natural", but I can't recall the details.

One of my hopes is that people concerned with global warming can shift gears a little and focus on a) reducing real pollution like what you mention above and b) energy innovation. These are areas skeptics like myself can support. There's an ominous sounding quote from the article: "The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced." The proposed top-down solutions reek of political agenda, and will only continue to inflame the "debate", which distracts from very real problems happening right now, whatever your views on the effects CO2 will have in a hundred years. The fact is, fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. If people weren't so determined to shove their point of views down others throats, maybe we could have a real conversation.

I'm not a big fan of the old designs, especially because there are better ones out there. But I see your point. I actually just finished reading the following from the site I found and posted above:

I can appreciate people see that as a risk for future and existing nuclear projects. But what you must do is compare the nuclear risks to those from other Energy generation schemes. When this comparison is made nuclear (by far) comes out as the least dangerous method for generating power.
A few examples: (please google them)
Banquiao dam disaster 1976. Another 1000 year event. This time resulting in dam failure. Officially 198,000 people died. But that is the Chinese government official figure. I have seen plausible accounts that well in excess of half a million died. Thousands of square kilometres were not only evacuated, they were laid waste.
If that's a bit too third world for you, how about the Vijont dam disaster in Italy in 1963. Resulting in 2000 dead and the obliteration of several small towns and villages.
So, as a result of the Banquaio and Vijont disasters, should we drain all our dams? Should we not build any more? You know - just in case? After all if the Hoover dam failed the death toll has been predicted to be in excess of 6 million.
Then how about the 13000 dying each year in USA alone from the respiratory failure brought on by emissions from coal powered generation? Or maybe the thousand or so dying each year in energiewende Germany from Biomass emissions?
One final piece. Jim Hansen recently produced a peer reviewed paper detailing (with statistical rigour) how many deaths had been prevented by nuclear replacing other generation techniques. The figure currently stands at about 1.8 million. Google "Hansen nuclear" you'll find a whole raft of comment on this paper as well as the paper itself.

@1 min 20 seconds

Shoot first, ask questions later, eh? Pretty shameless fear mongering if you ask me.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

I have found many people who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming are incredibly ignorant of what the science actually says.

It is difficult to find a critical voice among the global warming supporters (nobody wants to risk being ostracized as a denier I guess), so if you want to read anything remotely critical of global warming beliefs, you have to turn to the skeptics. (Who objected when James Hansen told everyone that the oceans would boil? Any exaggeration it seems, no matter how blatant, is condoned by pro-warmers.)

But when you read what the IPCC actually has to say about the issue, you get a different picture. I always see the pro-warminst sites trying their best to make these 'official reports' sound as gloomy as possible. On the other hand, check out Matt Ridley's interpretation. Or on video if you like.

Here'a an article critical of wind which reflects some of the criticisms I have heard. I have to wonder if people's support for wind power is just wishful thinking on a mass scale. People don't want their bubbles burst.

If you are looking for some support for wind power this is definitely NOT the place to be.

It's better than coal. Well, not the traditional designs. But there are some newer designs and potential innovations that look really interesting. It's unfortunate that peoples attitudes towards nuclear are holding back innovation. There are some fusion projects that look interesting that have none of the drawbacks that you cite, yet the research gets minimal support.

I'm looking here and I'm looking at my electricity bill that I share with my neighbor, and how many KW hours we use, and I don't see a small cost at all. It looks like a rather big cost would not work for us. Granted, that was a quick web search, but hey, I'm all ears.