Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

No, only into the 'Hall of Shame', where Dimbulb and Sloman have secured the first two positions. :(

There is no sense in further measurements. Those who should change are not willing to change, nor are in the situation to actually do so. Looking back in a hundred years will have none of those who already knew it, and those who already know ir won't be there then. There will just be those who have to cope with the situation.

The smart ones now prepare the future such that there is a useable infrastructure.

I consider the recent development that the society distributes over a wide area as suboptimal. We'd rather house more compact for the future.

Rene

Depressing in a way, if perhaps accurately written.

Human population is the underlying driver. I'm not sure how that will get addressed in a sane way. Probably won't.

Jon

I would LOVE to see ANY evidence you may have. I have been studying the dat a for over 10 years and haven't seen any. That said, I can find endless res earch & data, compiled over the recent decades, showing Earth's climate is cyclic, corresponding to solar activity.

You haven't been "studying the data" but rather looking at denialist web-sites, which are numerous.

The line "Earth's climate is cyclic, corresponding to solar activity" reflects a bad paper, published a few years ago, which purported to show a relatively short term correlation between solar activity and climate. the authors had made an elementary mistake, which was picked up rapidly.

The denialism industry just loves the duff paper, and propagates it endlessly, while ignoring the correction and the consequent retraction.

The Earth's climate has been cyclic for the past few million years, but solar activity has nothing to do with it - the periodicity comes from from subtle variations in the Earth orbit around the sun and its interaction with Earth's axial tilt, as discovered by Milankovitch

The joke - as far as the denialist story goes - is that the variations in isolation involved are tiny and far too small to explain the difference in average global temperature between an ice age and an interglacial.

It took the climate modelers to work out out that variation in atmospheric CO2 levels - 180ppm during an ice age and 270 ppm during an interglacial - was one of the crucial positive feedbacks required to make the Milankovitch cycle work, and this made the anthropogenic climate change case a whole lot more plausible.

Now that we have dug up and burned a whole lot of fossil carbon, and got the atmospheric CO2 level up to 400 ppm, we have left the Ice Ages behind, and started on a new trajectory.

Red rubbish, Bill. More of your Leftie globalist propaganda.

ACHTUNG!!!

Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch das blinkenlights!!!

Oddly enough, AlwaysWrong is echoing what the far-right-wing physicists sai d about the scientific evidence on the health-damaging effects of tobacco s moking.

Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists didn't know anything about lung cancer, but they did know that government intervention to discourage people from smoking (and getting lung cancer) was a leftist p lot against the free market. Much the same people are now telling us that i t's politically important to let the fossil fuel industry keep on making mo ney out of injecting even more CO2 into the atmosphere, even though the sci entific evidence is unambiguous about the negative effect on the global cli mate and the rising incidence of extreme weather.

Which, apart from your ideology, has zero to do with the matter at hand. (Even if it's true, which I haven't checked.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Actually, it's central. In a pure free market society, the polluters are fr ee to pay advertisers to circulate lies claiming that their product isn't a ctually polluting.

They don't actually say that the product isn't polluting - it's more cost-e ffective to concentrate on casting doubt on the science that demonstrates t hat it is actually polluting - and if you spend enough money on it you can instil doubt into the minds of even people like you, who should know better .

You've been persuaded into a mind-set where you won't bother checking, beca use the facts that matter have been painted as left-wing political propagan da, even though they are based on thoroughly reliable peer-reviewed science ,

Your "global warming has stopped for the past 15 years" as opposed to "has been masked for the past 15 years", is actually straight denialist propagan da. If you'd thought about the evidence for a few microseceonds, you'd appr eciate the difference.

It's a standard operating procedure on the left: make every issue about personalities, crucify them, and never address substance.

(It's from our buddy Saul Alinsky, one of his rules for moochers. He explains that 'issues are soooo complicated, but everyone understands a villain.')

Cheers, James Arthur

Cigarettes are central to global warming? Or your fantasy of the Great Evil Tobacco Carbon Conspiracy?

Thoroughly compromised science.

I understand the difference between the Great Oz and the man behind the curtain just fine, thanks.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I have Alinsky's book.(*) He cribbed that one from Stalin. "Liquidate the kulaks as a class!"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) I bought it second hand, to avoid giving him any money whatsoever. An evil man, Alinsky.

The global cooling deniers get paid a lot more. Mostly profit.

on it you can instil doubt into the minds of even people like you, who should know better.

Yes, thoroughly reliable. E.g. the predictions 15 years ago that temps would stabilize for 15 years.

Oh, wait--that never happened.

There was a great ship-of-fools story recently: ice-is-melting Antarctic tour folks, going south to sensationalize the tragedy, who then got ice-locked in the open sea (in the middle of summer) when snuck up on by a giant freeze.

Melting ice can be tricky.

Cheers, James Arthur

But - of course - it works just as well for the right. You've been telling us that Obama is a villain for years now.

The left is better about thinking about what it is doing, so you quote Saul Alinsky rather than Karl Rove, but the technique is universal.

Your own take on climate change is all about what some casual acquaintance told you at a dinner party, rather than any considered contemplation of the scientific evidence.

The evil tobacco companies developed the technique for devaluing embarrassing scientific evidence. The fossil carbon industry used the infra-structure - and some of the same people - the tobacco companies had put in place, to devalue the scientific evidence about anthropogenic global warming.

Try reading about it in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, rather than Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. your response is that of a gullible sucker, and you really ought to do better, if only to maintain your own self-respect.

And you choose to believe the Great Oz, rather than noticing the man behind the curtain.

In this case, it's the Heartland Institute

rather than the oil companies supporting the Heartland Institute

though they've been a bit more careful to hide their subventions recently.

't

nd.

e free to pay advertisers to circulate lies claiming that their product isn 't actually polluting.

st-effective to concentrate on casting doubt on the science that demonstrat es that it is actually polluting - and if you spend enough money

Evidence? Has the Heartland Institute set up a right-wing version of Source watch?

hould know better.

because the facts that matter have been painted as left-wing political prop aganda, even though they are based on thoroughly reliable peer-reviewed sci ence,

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation isn't a predictable oscillator, any m ore than the El Nino/La Nina alternations. Fat chance of predicting that. T he ocean currents do seem to switch paths every few decades, and so far the y only seem to switch between patterns of flow - the Gulf Stream hasn't tur ned off since the end of teh last ice (the Younger Dryas).

And would have had to have been divinely inspired if it had happened. The A rgo buoys have now been mapping the deep ocean currents for a few years now - the scheme was first proposed in 1999 and the 3000 buoys were deployed b y 2007 - but nobody has managed to get anything much out of the data yet.

has been masked for the past 15 years", is actually straight denialist prop aganda. If you'd thought about the evidence for a few microseceonds, you'd appreciate the difference.

It was tourist junket - recreating Sir Douglas Mawson's 100-year-old Austr alasian Antarctic Expedition. There might have had a lecturer along to keep the tourists entertained and bird-watching to keep them busy, but it wasn' t any kind of scientific expedition, and rescuing them inconvenienced the s cientists who are working down there.

It's not so much melting, as sliding off Antarctica faster than it used to be. Though the Greenland ice sheet is a lot smaller than the Antarctic ice sheet, it's losing mass twice as fast.

My impression was that the tour ship got trapped when the wind changed and pushed a lot of floating ice closer to the shore.

It's number thirteen in "Rules."

Speaking of "Neo-kulaks in need of liquidation,"

and Global Warming Cooling:

and Obamacare:

(from a Soviet emigre.)(That site's a major time-waster.)

Me too.

Yep. Didja know the Carter Administration distributed free copies by the thousands to schools and the 70's radical left outfits?

His disciples (incl. Hildebeest and Dear Misleader) still heap praise on ol' Saul, since he was all about doing evil ... but "for a good cause."

Cheers, James Arthur

I've explained in great detail how the policies don't work, can't, didn't, and won't ever, in theory, and with empirical data.

And I've given many examples of the President breaking the laws, spying on people, intimidating his enemies, etc.

Big Brother loves you, so you double-think it instead.

I've pointed out all sorts of fatal flaws and errors I spotted on first inspection, some of which you've now adopted years later.

The 'science' is hopelessly shoddy, pointless, and political. But it makes a nice boogey man.

You echo what someone else you don't understand said. And emit many- fold more carbon than I in the bargain.

Cheers, James Arthur