Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...
[quote=n. mouse]Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

If your point is that it was more than five years ago, please cite the 1990 claim that it was only variability instead of warming. If you want to argue ten rather than five, I will concede the extra five years. I will say I first heard of variability instead of warming when variability was prefaced by ALWAYS SAID. Been there, done that, sorry but is is a recent T-shirt.

<snip>

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statement.

Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I am referring to ALL the people who are cited by the political melter types. If you wish to quote any of them please feel free to use the people with the highest reputation you can find. I will respond. This really only means I never bothered to memorize their names and organizations.

I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

That does not make sense. They, they as in ALL the experts who started this hysteria were saying around 1990 that in ten years it would be to late to do anything about global warming. It is now more than ten years. It is too late. Why have they not shut up?

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

If you do in fact assert they always said rate of change, and we agree on the fact they always said change, then I invite you to cite the ALWAYS from the late 1980s to early 1990s.

The difference between potentially disastrous and disastrous is a great as night and day. If you do not understand the difference in rate of change in context you do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion.

You may feel free to say the same about me. Machts nichts.

Please explain why all temperature measurements have to be from absolute zero and the difference between heat and temperature.

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

Fine with me. You have no idea how to read the graphs you are presenting. Pardon but I have other posts to read and respond to without wasting any more time on you.

Have a better one.