You should become a tobacco lobbyist, too.  You've got a real gift.

Not to mention creatio... erm... I mean intelligent design in school propenent (since creationism has been deemed unconstitutional to teach in school).

"Warm periods increase rainfall,"

Warm periods increase extreme weather patterns. Drought, floods, ect. But not necesarily overall rainfall.

Anyway, citing false surface stations readings does nothing to further your argument. It might if there was one or two surface stations which solely made up the theory of global warming, but the theory is based on evidence gathered from all of them. It reminds me of an experiment done way back in the enlightenment period. A man tried to prove democracy would never work, since peasants did not have enough knowledge to make an accurate decision. The experiment was done as follow: The man got a cow, and offered a prize to the person who could accurately guess it's weight. At the end, none of the peasants had correctly guessed the weight of the cow. However, the average of all their guesses was within about 1 pound of the cow's actual weight. The point is, unless every single surface station on earth is inaccurate in the exact same way (a chance which is much lower than that of them all being perfectly correct) the average of the data will come out to be a correct or at least semi-correct reading.

Oh no. Listen, if you want to be taken seriously you'd better read what data means. Take a look the source & parameters: HR2SST_1200km_Trnd12_2000_2008

Where do you see 1951-1980?

This should have been a first hint that you did something wrong. The reason it is absent is explained in the description of the fields:

• Map type:
  • Anomalies: Mean temperature (°C) averaged over a specified mean period and time interval relative to a given base period.
  • Trends: Temperature change of a specified mean period over a specified time interval based on local linear trends.

So, what you did wasn't checking 2000-2008 against 1951-1980, you did just compare December 2000 with December 2008! Pigeonpigeon did it correct. He compared the average temperature in the month December of 1951-1980 with the average temperature in the month December of 2000-2008.

Now the question is: Are you capable of interpreting scientific data at all? If you are not you'd better start trusting the people who are capable of doing so. Unfortunately, there are not many of those agreeing with your position.

Nah, that is not how I view it. You can say whatever you want, the community here has been checking your links and reading them, often doing the work that you failed to do: checking the reliability of the source. I'm perfectly open to reading articles, so have other people here been. Alas, everthing you came up with was garbage or even argumentation in favour of global warming.

You have failed to back up your claims, have concluded you are not in any way capable of providing even the start of a back up of your claims, and now you quit the game using some words below the belt that people have brain damage...

The problem is, all his arguments match my admittedly amateur knowledge of weather patterns. Higher temperatures WILL result in more rain total because it will increase the rate of evaporation. Same water cycle, just a higher rate of turnover. That doesn't say anything about WHERE that rain will fall, but there will be more of it.

Yes, almost all of both arctic areas are desert, and it is due to the temperature.

Yes, many of the weather reporting stations are systematically flawed. Not randomly flawed, where they may report higher or lower than actual temp, but systematically skewed to read higher, and this increases with urban sprawl. Call this the thumb-on-the-scales factor.

Research funding and media coverage are both inclined to support global warming. No one gets grant money to disprove global warming, and any data released to show otherwise gets conveniently buried or goes totally unreported. Frankly, too many people are now making too much money on the "sky is falling" scheme for anything but time to prove they're wrong.

Mind, I believe reducing consumption and waste while preserving resources is a good thing, but that's simply on principle. Global warming has nothing to do with that.

Climate change is an observable fact - lots of evidence to confirm it has occurred and will continue to occur.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming is purely speculative garbage, based on the garbage-in-garbage-out principle.

Should we ignore climate change simply because AGW is garbage?  Of course not.  But to pretend that a market in carbon credits or some international treaties are going to make diddly squat difference is comical at best, simply delusional at worst.  The hubris in the notion that we know what we're doing when we try to influence climate change is simply breathtaking, not to mention frightening.  Some have adopted AGW as dogma and ridicule all who choose not to drink the kool-aid.  Association is not causation.  Certitude is not evidence.

Well, we do know that temperatures have been rising at unprecedented rates, starting not long after the industrial resolution began, and that CO2 emissions have gone up by some 40% in that same period of time (which is definitely our fault - look at a plot of CO2 levels over the past several hundred thousand years and you'll see a vertical line right at the end, and nothing similar anytime else). So there's an obvious correlation there - anyone can see that; the problem then is to figure out if there is also causation there (and if so, which way does it go? or is it a non-linear, bidirectional effect).

Your opinion seems to be that it isn't even worth trying to figure that out. Quite frankly, I don't see the hubris in finding this correlation provocative. We've increased the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 40% in a century, and in the same time period we've seen an unprecendented temperature hike. The reason people are looking for causation is because the correlation is between two factors that are believed to be interrelated; you don't see people trying to prove that extinctions in the past century are causing temperatures to rise - and yet that is also a very valid correlation. The reason scientists aren't doing that is because they see no way in which a few extinctions would raise the earth's temperature; and so far climate changes so far have been relatively minor, small enough so that it couldn't drastically affect population levels except in the most fragile ecosystems, if that.

To the narrow-minded, the reasonable seems like hubris I guess...

That said, we are definitely not all-knowing (not even remotely so) when it comes to climate change. There are tons of unknowns. But the general concensus among people whose opinions count (read: scientists in the field) is that there is a good chance that we are heading for disaster unless we take action. So we can either do the best we know to do (which is to reduce CO2 levels, basically), or just keep on going and possibly dig ourselves deeper into the problem. I wrote a post about this a few pages back - In my opinion, I'd rather play it safe than sorry. I'd rather invest into mitigating the problem and fail than ignore it completely. I'd like to say that we at least tried to be responsible for once in human history. Obviously, I'd prefer that we invest into mitigating the problem and succeed, but we'll never succeed if we don't try.

Yes, that is obvious. It's largely the same problem encountered in astrophysics and cosmology (moreso in cosmology). There is, afterall, only one universe and no chance of making another to play with. Nonetheless, using computer models and observations, we have made significant strides. There will always be doubt, that is the nature of science; that's why we invented statistics - a way of quantifying how much we should trust theoretical predictions. Cosmology is living proof that even research in topics that can't be explicitly 'real-world' tested can still be fruitful and tell us something meaingful.

All assumptions and all knowledge, whether 'scientific' or not, are based on observations. And the accuracy of all observations are always open to debate. All scientific observations have a range of error by definition, and almost all science is based on multiple layers of assumptions and observations. So according to you, science is a worthless lost cause, and it is hubris for us to even attempt to study anything at all. Good job.

Also, it is blatantly false that the confidence interval grows exponentially with the layers of assumptions and observations. It as actually possible for the error to decrease in such situations; but more often the error increases roughly as a square root, which is a very, very far cry from an exponential increase.

So you're trying to tell me that even though we have succesfully made models and simulations that give us useful information about the universe, we are completely helpless in modeling the planet's climate? I am going to basically repeat an earlier post of mine here - about taking predictions out of context. Every single simulation about climate change (that I'm aware of, anyway) is focused on long-term effects. These simulations (and the processes they are simulating) are statistical creatures, which means that their validity depends on many factors - in this specific case elapsed time is one of the more major things to take into account. Taking the results of a model or simulation that is intended to make long-term predictions, and then saying, "Look! This simulation's prediction for next year isn't right, what a piece of shit!" is nothing short of ignorant. It is especially ignorant when the simulation itself shows significant variations on short time-scales.

And, I remember someone posting earlier a comparison of recent (last century or something?) historical data campred to 2 models: one that includes human contributions and one that doesn't. The one you'd call AGW matched much better than the one that didn't take into account human contributions.

Now, in order to take the predictions of a simulation seriously we need to have one of two things (preferably both): 1) we need to be extremely confident that our initial conditions are correct, and that all important factors have been accounted for correctly, and/or 2) we need to compare the simulation with relevant historical data. We can run simulations for long time periods, with relevant initial conditions, and see if the results are at all similar to the actual historical data. At  this point in time I'd say that many scientists believe that we've taken into account many of the important factors, but consider the possibility that they're missing some big ones, or many small ones that add up. That said I'm aware of at least one climate simulation that has successfully done option #2 - and I'd presume there are many more (not that they reproduced earth's climate history, but they reproduced the same trends and correlations).

I find it kind of disturbing that you're picking sooo hard to make predictions seem much more uncertain and random than they really are, and then use that uncertainty as a reason to be apathetic about combating or even understanding climate change. I'm going to give you an analogous hypothetical example now, I'd like to hear what your actions would be:

You and another person are in a sealed room, with no idea of how or why you got there. The only other things in the room are a small, black box against the far wall, and a computer near you. Your companion walks towards the box but staggers and eventually collapses, dead from a heart attack. Then you notice that the box is slowly moving towards you. You noticed that as your companion walked towards the box he became progressively less stable before finally collapsing; ie, there is a correlation between your companion's proximity to the black box and his health. What do you do? Do you go try to check out the box yourself, hoping that proximity to the box was not the cause of death? Do you wait where you are, hoping nothing bad will happen? Or do you sit down at the computer and try to figure out what the hell is going on, and thus maybe a way to prevent it? Or some other option that I haven't thought of?

First, I want to make sure it is known that I believe that global warming has been occuring, and that greenhouse gases affect global warming.  However, I have yet to have anything refute the theory that sunspots cause more of global temperatures than greenhouse gases, and it seems more believable to me.  First, the Sun is more likely to determine Earth's temperature than we are, for obvious reasons.  I will not believe anything from someone who says otherwise.  Secondly, the best counter I have heard to the sunspot theory is that greenhouse gases are proven to affect global warming.  This proves nothing except that greenhouse gases affect global warming.

To show that I am not some random person who is just posting what some guy on tv said to post, here is a <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783">link</a> with a site I saw earlier.

I'm not sure if I was supposed to put the html right on the page, so if not, here is the address without the code:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

That's all I have now.

Thanks for clarifying the obvious and then misquoting me.  I didn't say we shouldn't 'attempt to study anything at all.'  The hubris comes in when we decide that we know 'enough' and that we know what to do about it, both of which assume that some sort of intervention is 'necessary.'  I remain unconvinced of the latter, irrespective of the obvious benefits of a 'greener' approach to living here in terms a healthier environment.  Smog reduction is a good thing, waterway management is a good thing, lots of things are 'good things' - they have intrinsic short-term benefits that make them worthwhile, whether they contribute to 'solving' global climate change or not.

Alright: 'magnifies'... feel better now?

Nope.  Again, better brush up on your reading skills.  Tried to tell you no such thing.  What I suggested was that we not bet the farm on them.

No doubt, the longer the time scale the more likely the models are to be 'reasonably predictive'.  Problem is, the AGW proponents aren't talking about 'long-term' solutions (I happen to believe there is only one 'long-term' solution, if any) - the Goracle says we're doomed within a decade without drastic intervention.  I'm not willing to bet the long-term farm by rolling the dice on drastic short-term interventions that are politically motivated, the risks & benefits of which we haven't exactly worked out yet (& may never), especially when they're almost certainly pissin' in the long-term ocean anyway, at great cost.

Another misread and misdirection play.  I'm all for understanding as much about about the universe and our place in it as possible, but we need to understand the limits of our ability to understand (not to mention the limits of our ability to safely intervene).  It's the 'combating' part where things get dicey, especially when that becomes a political/economic argument used by non-scientists to advance political agendas.

Yes, you're right, you said it's hubris to claim that "we know enough" to do something about climate change. I apologize for misreading your original post. That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is not hubris to claim that "we know enough" if we actually believe we know enough. Either you and I are aware of very different levels of understanding of planetary climate among the scientific community, or our standards of what is "enough" are different.

Scientists believe that humanity is contributing to significant global climate changes due to our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Pretty much all their models and predictions tell us that if we do nothing, we face potential catastrophe in the near future. Worst case scenarios are literally worldwide catastrophe within the next 30 or 40 years, but much more probable consequences are that by the end of the century our planet will be unable to support nearly today's population levels or standard of living. Climates all across the globe will become more extreme. This isn't fringe thinking, it's the consensus of scientists, and one that they are pretty confident of it. The Earth and its life will survive, but humanity will be forced to undergo major changes and these changes will in all likelihood include significant violence and suffering (let's face it, that's what'll happen). Scientists are also confident that merely curbing our emissions within the next decade or two to more reasonable (and definitely achievable) levels would be enough to avoid that fate.

Yes, there is a possibility that our scientists are wrong; that global warming won't lead to any sort of human tragedy. And even if they're right about that, they could still be wrong, and reducing our emissions might to accomplish anything. That said, the risk of inaction, in my opinion, is not worth shrugging off our responsibility to future generations. If we do nothing, everything might turn out just fine, but the reigning science today says that it probably won't.

To sum this up: I believe that we know enough that ignoring the risk would be among the most irresponsible cases of inaction in human history - and that is no small claim, we have plenty examples of gruesome consequences of inaction.

Yes, I do feel better. But I want to clarify further - the fact that multiple layers of observations and assumptions usually magnifies the confidence interval doesn't mean that theories built up off of many such layers are inferior. The only thing that determines that is the final level of confidence of the results, and its agreement with appropriate real-world scenarios or experiments. I recently did an experiment about thermal lensing with pretty crappy equipment; more than 10 uncertainties, including those of the crappy equipment, went into calculating the uncertainty of the final results - and the resulting confidence interval was still very small. Looking at the number of factors, and even the uncertainties of those factors individually, tells you nothing about the uncertainty of your final prediction; you really have to do the math to figure that out, and you'd be surprised at how large uncertainties can go in, and small ones can come out.

"the longer the time scale the more likely the models are to be 'reasonably predictive.'" Wow. No, you clearly don't understand the concept of computer models of complex systems. You see, in order to accurately predict what the climate will be like next year, extraordinarily precise initial conditions would have to be input into these simulations. So precise that it's not going to happen, not in the near future anyway. When dealing with such complex and chaotic systems, you don't try to make pinpoint predictions at all. You don't say, "in 34 years, the average global temperature will have increased by 2.3 celsius, 4 years later it'll have gone back down by 0.1 degrees, and another 4 years later it'll go up again by another 0.6 degrees" that would be amazingly dishonest. Instead, you look for trends and broad long-term effects. The types of conclusions that can be made are things like, "Over the time-span of about 50 years, temperature will increase by an average of 0.1 celsius, with a standard deviation of 0.1 celsius," (meaning that ~2 out of 3 years, the temperature will change by 0 to +0.2 celcius). Also, they don't just put in a set of initial conditions, press start and record the results. They run the simulations numerous times, sometimes varying initial conditions, sometimes not.

On the other hand if someone designed a simulation that is meant to accurately predict short-term effects, then using that model to make long-term predictions would be similarly dishonest. Simulations and models are designed for very specific purposes, and taking their results out of context renders them meaningless; unfortunately, the media doesn't understand this concept and reports the musings of curious scientists as well-founded scientific predictions.

Also, I find it telling that you completely ignored my hypothetical scenario. I have a feeling you didn't answer it because your answer would either undermine your argument or make you look silly. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I know, I'm still done.  Just posting links for the uninformed masses, no arguing from uneducated me.

Is this the vaunted satellite data you guys are talking about?  Click the data access links on this page if you're not too in love with your views.

Edit: Dmantione, the GISS information is the ground stations...  They aren't all in the US either, they're what passes for a worldwide network.