No Warming for 10 Years

I'm with Vulcan on this one.  After dire predictions about continuous warming they're faced with data that says otherwise. 

Rubbish! There have never been dire predictions of CONTINUOUS warming. Climate scientists aren't stupid enough to ignore short term fluctuations in temperature. In fact they have gone out of their way to emphasis that short term temperature changes are insignificant. Warnings are based on LONG TERM trends.

The new information flies in the face of what they've been wringing their hands about ever since the great global cooling scare of the seventies

No it doesn't, how can it, it must be obvious to you that ten years is totally insignificant in terms of temperature change. Look at the graphs, to expect a continuous line upward is preposterous.

They have merely stated the obvious, something we know, or at least I thought we did. Suddenly I can see why you two can't grasp the concept.

It's nothing to do with 'the end is nigh mentality' it's to do with the people that KNOW, the experts, spending long hard hours doing research to justify their hard earned PhD's telling us there’s a 90% certainty that recent warming is our fault. Compare that to us lot who have no qualifications in this respect but have the audacity to think we know better.

What about the ice age?

I know what you believe; you believe that the Co2 we have pumped into the atmosphere is ‘special’ in that it doesn't result in warming. The laws have physics have changed then. Its common knowledge to anyone that the climate is finely balanced; the Co2 we have pumped into the air is more than enough to cause the effects the 'experts' observe.

It doesn’t take a monumental cause to engender a catastrophic effect.

The issue in this debate is your lack of appreciation for the insignificance of short term [ten year] climate fluctuations. That is what this debate is about.

Do you now see the point that ten year drops or an increase in temperature is insignificant in this respect??? If so then the argument that began this debate is invalid, so lets hear an admittance of that.

This entire debate baffles me Dambuster. Vulcan knows well enough that short term fluctuation in temperature exist. He has seen the graphs. He also knows that long term trends are the factor that's of concern.

The researchers have simply highlighted the fact that we may well be approaching a short term cycle down trend so temperatures may not rise as much for the next few years. However, the climate in the short term is unpredictable they may well be wrong.

No idea why he ignores the obvious, especially when we have discussed it so many times in the past. Any opportunity to counter the experts me thinks. Whether a valid argument or not.

Counter arguments to warming are becoming increasingly implausible. Clutching at any straw they can.

Some of course have political agendas, if it disagrees with there political standpoint in terms of their precious country’s economy, then sod the future of the planet as long as they are okay economically

You're changing track; I thought we’d moved beyond that.

Do you still believe there is no consensus?

Unfortunately you don't want a 'linked articles war' so I am forbidden to show you any more graphs.

The climatologist aren't daft john, believe it or not they actually know better than us, it's their job.

We are just armchair experts, telling the guys with the PhD’s what it’s all about.

Even if mankind wasn’t responsible, don’t you think we should reduce our emissions anyway, rather than continue to emit and exacerbate the problem?

“Do you still believe there is no consensus?”

I believe there is a sizeable minority or better, and that they are credible enough that their view is plausible.  I exclude the kooks, of which there are many in both camps.

“Unfortunately you don't want a 'linked articles war' so I am forbidden to show you any more graphs.”

 I have neither the time nor the patience for more eye-glazing linked articles, except as a topic starter, for which they are excellent.  I concede you can find many supporting your opinion – and I can find many supporting mine.  I’m much more interested in YOUR opinions and conclusions, and the logic that lead you to them.  I’m not interested in reading some journalist’s slant on an academic paper he probably does not understand anyway.

“The climatologist aren't daft john, believe it or not they actually know better than us, it's their job.”

True. Equally true for those climatologists who hold the opposite opinion.  That argument doesn’t sway me.  Specialists are often educated to the point of having blinders to all else outside their field, including economic impacts, which MUST be considered in determining what is feasible.  I submit that if you’re willing to believe that the experts always know better than us and should never be questioned or disagreed with, then that’s the moral equivalent of saying you’ll believe whatever they say.  For myself, I will not make a concession like that.

 “We are just armchair experts, telling the guys with the PhD’s what it’s all about.”

No.  They can believe what they believe.  I adamantly reserve the right to have an opinion rather than let the guys with PhD’s tell me what I ought to think.  I will decide which PhD I choose to believe.  You may decide which you will choose to agree with. 

 “Even if mankind wasn’t responsible, don’t you think we should reduce our emissions anyway, rather than continue to emit and exacerbate the problem? “

Yes!  Begin tomorrow to build the nuclear plants so we can begin in a few years to retire the coal and oil and natural gas burners.   Let’s get started aggressively on improving hydrogen storage technology and developing practical, efficient hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines.  None of those things requires any huge leaps in technology.  If there is so much consensus, why aren’t those very obvious solutions already being implemented with vigor?

A variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor.

The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.

Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the  would be first to see the effects of global warming.

Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day).

Conversely the predictions of those that doubt global warming have failed to come true.

A growing body of evidence has been assembled by scientist each year.

There are 20 different lines of evidence. These lines are incontrovertible.

As Isac Newton said in his seminal 'Principia Mathematica,' he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation.

And studies have overwhelmingly shown that climate change scenarios in which greenhouse gases emitted from human activities cause global warming best explain the observed changes in Earth’s climate