Tuesday: Climate Action Now rally in Washington, DC; Partner Actions in Iowa

All your references are long, long, LONG ago discredited.

You see there has not been an increase in volcanic activity, first off. But even if there had, what you and many right wing idiots have consistently FAILED to understand is that volcanic activity COOLS the atmosphere. Yes, that's right, Rush was Wrong. He lied to you. He overestimated Pinatubo's carbon output by 10 fold (even after the mistake was pointed out to him he kept telling you this lie) AND he ignored a simple fact: volcanos expel carbon as particulates that COOL the planet and fall back to earth relatively rapidly. Not the same as what is causing global warming. Jesus, man. Can't you learn even the most BASIC of science? No? I thought not. You take Limbaugh at face value ignoring the fact that the man knows jack about science and is, basically, an addict.

As to the rest, you still have it all wrong. I pointed this out but you continue to ignore facts. Just like Sarah Palin. Just like George Bush. You are out of touch with America and with reality.

And I was studying the scientific literature long before I'd heard of Gore. Did you know that global warming research dates back to the 1950's? And that the theory has simply been supported by more and more evidence since then? Yes, this science is almost 60 years old! And you are some 60 years behind in the facts. If YOU are unwilling to keep up to date on the latest science, don't blame the rest of us. And if you repeat these long ago discredited talking points, your comments will again be deleted. If you can't talk science using actual data, then don't talk about it.

Look, kid. Have you ever once investigated the issue on your own or do you just listen to right wing talking points, most of which have never been based in facts.

First off, no...there are NOT just as many scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming and NONE who have "debunked" it. The one thing that no right wing science denier has ever been able to address is the fact that not one single peer reviewed scientific article has EVER been published opposing man made global warming. Each and every study done has supported it. Period. That is pretty definitive in science, though it doesn't mean research ends. So, please don't repeat outright lies. Seriously. It is a flat out lie to claim that there are just as many scientists who disagree with man-made golbal warming. You have already been warned about lying on this site.

Now, as to your repetition of ANOTHER debunked myth (do you EVER check your sources?). Global warming did NOT stop in 1998. This claim was based on ONE data set, and a misinterpretation of it to boot. The Hadley data set excludes the Arctic, which is one spot that has been warming the fastest. That is the data set that has shown mild cooling since 2003. Now what does that cooling mean? First off, one fact you never seem to have grasped even though I have pointed it out to you over and over is that global warming does not in any way exclude periods of cooling within the overall trend. A slight cooling over 5 years (if it really was true, which I will show you it is not) would in no way invalidate the whole trend.

But even the Hadley data set does not show this. It shows a slight cooling since 2003 at the earth's surface. So not only does it exclude the Arctic (where the fastest warming is taking place) but it only takes into account the surface, not the bulk of the atmosphere where much of climate takes place. Bet you didn't know these details, did you.

Now the NASA data set tries to take the Arctic into account. There are no permanent bases in the Arctic, so NASA uses the closest permanent base there is, which probably underestimates the Arctic warming. This data set shows clear warming since 2003 with 2005 and 2007 being two of the three warmest years on record (with 1998 being the third of them). Since the NASA data is more complete, it is likely to be more accurate though it too is thought to underestimate Arctic warming.

Now I am going to do something you have never done. Show the actual data (figures taken from the New Scientist). Here is the Hadley data (note the massive warming since 1980 with a slight drop off at the very end if you don't include the Arctic):

And here is the NASA data, which partly takes the Arctic into account:

No cooling at all. Both show the bulk of warming since 1980, which matches the increasing fossil fuel use of those decades. Both show the earlier 1940 warming with a cooler period in between when natural cooling was predicted to cause even MORE cooling, but it was balanced by global warming. Around 1980 is when more rapid global warming took off as would be predicted by the massive increase in fossil fuel use.

Now there is one final problem with your claim. !998 itself was an unusually hot year because there was a strong El Nino effect, so using it as your baseline fails to take all the facts into account. Take out the 1998 El Nino and you would no longer see a cooling trend at all even if you leave out the Arctic data.

So, basically, you are repeating misinformation based on partial data. But what if you were right and there was temporary cooling? Let's even take it further. THere is a controversial paper that claims global warming is going to take a pause for even longer, into the next decade. Now most scientists think this paper will prove to be wrong, but it is a legitimate controversy, discussed on Real Climate. But even THIS paper clearly shows that it is merely a pause, and even THEIR model catches up with the standard model by 2025. This makes two points. First, no one in the field doubts that we are in the midst of man-made caused warming. No one. Second, when you get down to 5-10 year periods, there remains legitimate controversy and debate about exactly what will happen, but the overall trend is agreed upon over multiple decades. So even if your short term cooling claim was true, it would be a detail in the overall pattern that is well within the predictions of the anthropogenic global warming models.

Now...let's face facts, kid. You have never once had a clue about this subject, have you? You haven't even bothered to read up on it beyond the factually incorrect, frequently flat out lies of the fossil fuel industry and their right wing allies. I bet you didn't even know that Rush Limbaugh made demonstrably false and uninformed claims about the Mt. Pinatubo's effect on warming and continued to make them even after it was pointed out he was using the wrong data. He lied to you and kept on lying. And you blindly believed him and I suspect will continue to do so. But the facts are very clear. They are easy to find if you look beyond right wing propaganda.

Not sure what your point here is except to distract from the fact that you have no grasp of the scientific data whatsoever. Care to comment on the DATA I presented or are you just going to continue to show off your ignorance and blind adherance to right wing misinformation?

Now, let's get to who supports global warming. Basically EVERY peer reviewed published paper on the subject supports it. This is discussed in detail here. The article adds:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

(footnotes can be found in the article)

Yes...IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These are the people you are calling sheeple. America's top scientists and scientific organizations. And let me add the statement by the American Statistical Association:

The American Statistical Association (ASA) recently convened a workshop of leading atmospheric scientists and statisticians involved in climate change research. The goal of this workshop was to identify a consensus on the role of statistical science in current assessments of global warming and its impacts. Of particular interest to this workshop was the recently published Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), endorsed by more than 100 governments and drawing on the expertise of a large portion of the climate science community.

Through a series of meetings spanning several years, IPCC drew in leading experts and assessed the relevant literature in the geosciences and related disciplines as it relates to climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report finds that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean sea level. … Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. … Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.

And you, in your infinite "wisdom" imparted to you through the air waves by Rush "Drug Me" Limbaugh, think you know better.

Once again, I challenge you to discuss the actual data. If you can.