And comparing gravity with how the climate works, is the same as comparing why a wheel needs to be round with the science behind nuclear fission.

Your ignorance is showing, or your bias.

Come back to us when you understand the difference between "Science", "Research", "Scientists" and "Government grants".

Also, stop talking like Science is the bible and holds the "truth".

When you start realizing that individual research and scientists are fallible, you'll start looking and reading papers with open eyes instead of ideological blinders.

Your not entitled to your own model outputs to shape public policy, especially when it contradicts observations.

Charts and models are NOT "objective reality".

Why is it that people distrust the government, but dont distrust government paid studies?

If the government in power has an agenda, do you not think it possible that grants would be awarded only on subjects that align with that agenda?

Somehow, research paid for by the government seems to get a pass on scrutiny, but when its paid for by anyone else it doesn't.

“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

The intellectual dishonesty on this subject is mind boggling.

“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Oh come off, you are sounding more and more like a petulant little child.

Talking down to me, trying to ferment in the mind of readers that I'm retarded, lying or just plain ignorant.

Make an effort and read the other thread replies below your first post and you'll find what I mentioned.

If you are too lazy, then shut up and move along.

Your replies in this thread have been all about trying to knock me down a peg and not about addressing the issue.

How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.

1. About climate sensitivity estimates, as you know, are all over the place, however whats important is they keep shrinking as we learn more.

https://landshape.files.wordpr...

2. About my 70s comment:
I did read it in there somewhere, however cannot pin point it right now.

You will find in D.3 though:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}"

Since there was a cooling phase from 1944 until about 1975 it is clear CO2 wasnt warming the planet before that... according to the IPCC.

3. You'll also see that the reference for the last claim I made is in there too.

Now, of course climate has always had an effect on climate. We aren't talking about natural forcing, we are talking about AGW.

Your last sentence is conjecture and speculation as are the supposed feedback's that is supposed to create this runaway warming.

About the Bloomberg graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
You would like to imply I have not, as if reading should automatically turn me into a believer.

It has not.

Its unfortunate your superiority complex prevents any proper discussion.
You are assuming I am wrong and thus linked, off offhandedly to the IPCC reports saying I'm wrong.

As usual, your side doesnt debate anything, only appeals to authority.

What are yours?
What are Pew's?
What are Obama's?
What are Gavin Schmidt's?
What are the qualifications of the 67 scientist who supposedly represent 98% of the entire SCIENTIFIC community?

The intellectual dishonesty or out right laziness is very strong on this subject. As long as it fits your ideology, right?

I meant correct some IF they are wrong.

An infographic for children filled with lines that have no data points is useless.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.

The CO2 trend alone is below actual readings.

As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.

Point out what is wrong or dont bother posting.

The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).

Its all nice and dandy to say the sky is falling, but which of the points above do you not agree with?

"the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity"

I think you don't quite understand the subject.

Let me break it down for you.

- The earth is getting warmer... Fact (well, depends on the period you look at and time scale... but generaly yes)
- How much warmer... Debatable (statistical error for "global average temperature anomalies" are LARGE)
- Are humans responsible by way of CO2... Somewhat and debatable (Climate sensitivity from a double of CO2 is constantly being revised, currently at around less than 1C)
- How much warming exactly are we talking about?
            - We are talking about 0.85c over the last 100 years (per the IPCC)
            - CO2 has only started affecting our climate since the late 70s (per the IPCC)
            - Since the late 70s temperature average increase is only in the range of about 0.5c
            - Humans are responsible for little more than half of that warming by way of CO2 (per the IPCC)
            - Half of 0.5c is 0.25c

So in FACT if we take all of those numbers (from the official scientific alarmist sources), humans are only responsible for about 0.25c increase over the last 40-50 years, 20 of those years (more like 18.5) where it has been statistically stable (for now, of course.)

So you see, the statement above, is utterly meaningless without context.

Go back and ask the question:
1. Is it alarming that temperatures over the last century have increased by 0.25c (as far as we know FOR NOW) directly because of human activity?

Also... you still need to establish that 0.25c does and or will affect our global climate and is linked to all the non statisticaly significant events that the media has tried to tie it to.

You are aware that there has not been an increase in extreme weather, hurricains, precipitation, tornados, droughts or other... right?

Look, stop trying to shape the argument by building strawman arguments.

They believe its a big lie, because the predictions do not match with observational data.

The statements about current weather being affected by 0.85c (approx) of warming, does not fit observable data.

When your theories do not fit observable data, what normally happens is you adjust the theory, not the other way around.

The thing is, if it does increase dramatically, which it hasn't yet and the evidence becomes clear, which it currently is not, then I would change my mind about it.

If the reverse is true, would you? Somehow, I highly doubt it.