Matt Davies for July 10, 2013

Ah, cue the deniers.

I can’t believe it’s hot today!!!Just more leftist propaganda.

The sun warms the Earth, but climate change is not caused by the sun. This sort of thing has been studied by scientists. If the sun were suddenly hotter, there are ways to measure that, and it simply hasn’t happened. We are burning fossil fuels. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. CO2 is at the highest level ever in human existence, and is ramping up constantly. The Earth is at it’s warmest point in thousands of years, and the rate of change is unprecedented in known history. There is no point in that chain of causality that has not been scientifically proven, yet conservatives point at the chain and say “that cannot possibly be true,” yet cannot point to a single valid problem with the overwhelming evidence. Conservatives are less credible on this than on most of their drivel.

It’s too bad we can’t do something about the sun warming us. Dang sun keep messing things up.

Your graph shows “temperature oscillations”, not actual temperatures. Why is that?

I’m Coraryan, and I still can’t understand the difference between weather and climate.

“Actually, if one is going to deny global warming, there are two magic words one must say. Sadly, I haven’t heard a single denier use either of them.”

Does it start with F and ends with World (though that would be three words and they say it all the time, just not outright)?

@me9970…because of “particulates” reflecting more energy than retained by CO2…http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html#.Ud22_6wpjAw A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. Some of the 7 later admitted errors and retracted their conclusions.

“Support your claim that the temperatures are not “Actual”. Oscillations = Change”The support for my “claim” is clearly written on the graph you gave us. The temperature curve does NOT show absolute temps, it shows oscillations in temp. You don’t seem to understand that oscillation actually means the temps are going up and down. All you’ve shown is that the temps move both up and down to a lesser or greater extent at different times…and from the look of the graph, even that is a sketchy correlation with CO2 levels.But what you haven’t shown is any relation between actual temperature and CO2 levels…you need a different study and a different graph for that. Did some anti-science website tell you that this graph showed something it doesn’t, and you didn’t bother to check?

LOL

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “97% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not!You won’t like it, it challenges your dogma.

“I remember back in the 70’s when they said we were going into an ice age because of CO2.”At one point in time, everyone “knew” the Earth was flat and located at the center of the universe. Scientists are better able to understand and interpret findings as knowledge advances.

Another quote from Forbes says the President Obama has spent less that any recent president .