Good source of climate change data

[Anomalocaris]

don't know. Some people just don't care about evidence. Some people are afraid of the consequences and choose to beleive its not happeneing. Others focus on the argument against. The reasons are probably as varied as the opinions on the subject out there.

Hmmm, you seem to dismiss milankovitch cycle out of hand based on your misunderstanding that it marginalize the role of GHG, until it was represented to you that it in fact seem to favor antropogenic climate change.

Let's say antropogenic climate change, if valid, would present an argument critical to winning public support for a conservationist agenda you strongly favor.

But a researcher presents a large body of scientifically valid and compelling evidence against antropogenic climate change, and thereby making it highly probable that antropogenic climate change is wrong. Would you acccept that antropogenic warming is thereby discredited, and conceed your agenda should not be supported at least from that quarter, or would you ignore the development, argue against the motive of the research, so as to prevent your agenda from being robbed of its critical, but now invalid, support?

[ib.me.ub]

Not at all. I would actually agree with milankovich cycle in terms of process. I was arguing against your claim that we should be in a cooling period.

As I have said before, I firmly beleive that humans are causing the planet to warm faster. But to tell you the honest truth, I don't really worry about it that much any more. I think the term "im slightly over it" comes to mind. If climate change is made made or not, I still support pollution reduction. A clean future is much more appealing to myself. .

In terms of human induced climate change & your last question, it dosen't really matter what I think, it matters what World governments think. At the present point in time, they beleive that climate change is caused by humans. You would think that World governments would be quite well informed? or not?

[popeyespappy]

[ib.me.ub]

ok, so it's actually worse than I thought then.

You would think that World governments would be quite well informed? or not?

I wish...

They understand, but choose do nothing about it. The system is firmly in place. At least here in Australia, the current government is making an effort to do something. Even so, without a World Wide effort, nothing will change.

[popeyespappy]

I’m afraid you underestimate the pig-headed ignorance of American politicians. Many of them are in complete denial of anthropogenic global warming thanks in no small part to a well funded professional disinformation campaign Hermann Göring would be proud of.

[Anomalocaris]

You meant Josef Goebbels. Herr Reichsmarschall Goering couldn't disinformation his way out of a dry can of petrol.

[popeyespappy]

Yea Goebbels... It’s hell getting old. The CRS is getting worse every day.

[Welsh cake]

[djrams80]

hmm, ok, interesting, cheers. I thought you were a skeptic.

Frankly I don’t get it. Being a skeptic doesn’t mean denial of a large body of evidence simply because it favors a position you don’t like.

LOL! Exactly! There is a line where these Global Warming deniers cross from healthy skeptic, to the tin foil hat club. The evidence is so overwhelming, they have to convince themselves that NASA scientists put out completely fraudulent, manipulated data. That's just nonsense.

[Autumnlicious]

Lessons learned so far in climate modeling class - it is so far impossible to model small phenomena past a few weeks and the best we can do with the massive scale of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is predict up to six months. But even that becomes iffy, as minor differences in initial conditions diverge completely ~6 months as a prediction.

The more general you are with climate, the chances that you are 'correct' goes up, while precision drops like a rock.