Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring.
In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

the USHCN adjusted data averaged over the CONUS are well aligned with the averages derived from the USCRN for the past five years.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
354
Geologist Dr. Al Pekarek, professor of geology, earth and atmospheric sciences at St. Cloud State University, ridicules man-made global warming fears as a "media circus." "Climate is a very complex system, and anyone who claims we know all there is to know about it, let's say, is charitably misinformed or chooses to be," Pekarek said according to a September 7, 2007 article. "We fool ourselves if we think we have a sufficiently well-understood model of the climate that we can really predict. We can't," he explained. "Geologists know that the Earth's climate has done this all the time in its history. We also know that man has not been around very long and could not have caused that. So we know that there are many natural forces that have caused our climate to change," he continued. "Those of us who don't jump on the bandwagon - we're called deniers and Hitlers and I don't know what all else. Some of us have been threatened - I think some with their life, but more it's trying to destroy our reputations," Pekarek added. He also pulled no punches in criticizing former Vice President Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, calling the film "a total misrepresentation of science." He dismissed computer model fears of a climate doomsday. "It's an abuse of science. They are misquoting science. They are misusing science. They are making predictions of dire consequences in the name of science that will not come true, and science will lose its credibility," he explained. "In some of our schools, we are scaring the hell out of our kids. ... They think they have no future," he said. "In 10 years, you won't hear anything about global warming," he concluded. (LINK)

Yes, and the sun will go supernova at some point too. What's your point rosborne?

parados wrote:

Yes, and the sun will go supernova at some point too. What's your point rosborne?

My point is that it doesn't matter if we stop producing CO2 or not, the same cycle is going to repeat itself. Isn't it obvious. This entire global, political, scientific debate is academic.

We don't know for a fact that this is true. It behooves us to exercise caution when playing with our life-support system.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We don't know for a fact that this is true. It behooves us to exercise caution when playing with our life-support system.

In the strictest sense we don't know anything for a fact and never will. But the ice-core history is very clear and very regular.

Do you really believe that if we were to stop producing CO2 today (not that we even can), that the ice-core cycles won't simply repeat itself again? There is no reason whatsoever to think that the natural cycles we've seen over the past several hundred thousand years aren't still happening.

And conversely, if we went hell bent for leather trying to *increase* CO2 (which is pretty much what we're doing, although accidentally) to prevent another ice-age, do you really think that we could alter the atmosphere enough to counteract the natural forces which cause the temperature collapse?

parados wrote:

Yes, and the sun will go supernova at some point too. What's your point rosborne?

My point is that it doesn't matter if we stop producing CO2 or not, the same cycle is going to repeat itself. Isn't it obvious. This entire global, political, scientific debate is academic.

It's only academic if you want to take the long viewpoint while ignoring any immediate consequences.

Climatologists have puzzled over why global temperatures have stayed roughly flat in the past decade, despite a long term warming trend. New research suggests that lower levels of water vapor in the stratosphere may partly explain the anomaly.

The study, appearing in the journal Science, points out that the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in the water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperature by about 25%, thus partly negating the heat-trapping effect of increasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

The only shame should be yours for not being able to hold a civil conversation.

So are you willing to argue that an increase in the high/low for a day in no way reflects an increase in temperature?

Are you also willing to argue that it is as likely for the average temperature to be lower as it is higher if the high/low is higher?

Please present your evidence, or stop making claims for which you have no supporting evidence.

This thread happens to be about global warming however.