This announcement seems to conflict with the recent 2000-2009 was the hottest decade ever recorded news stories..

Here's a graphical representation of the trend and CI point. This is for GISS and not CRU though.




Black line is the calculated trend from the year indicated until now, and the red lines are the 95% confidence intervals.

calculated by whom?

and do they have the raw data, lol?

Here.


lmao, yes they do.

I was just being sarcastic.

The sun is the cause of climate change. You know that giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky (also called a star) that constantly showers the earth with heat and radiation. It is so elementary. The sun gets hotter, you get global warming. The sun gets cooler, you get global cooling. What's so hard to understand about this.

THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.

THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.
THE SUN IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2.


Just let that sink in for a while, for those who have no common sense and choose to believe all the Government/IPCC/Al Gore etc. propaganda, lies and hype.

As a skeptic, I'm not claiming anything. I merely want some significant evidence.

graphs r fun



look! I'm an expert

Google Scholar is pretty awesome, imo.

And given my past experience with these claims, I strongly doubt that it shows any significant evidence.

What constitutes significant evidence?

Well, yeah, you can just have your own idiosyncratic definition of what is significant, so I have no idea what you are looking for or if you even have the knowledge to determine what is significant and what isn't.

Summer. Winter. Got it. Main cause ldo

But, so what? If the main cause of deaths for people of age X is cardiovascular disease, does that mean that other causes of death can be safely ignored?

Evidence that isn't easily shown to be either statistically insignificant or possibly caused by something else.

It's worth noting that after years and years of getting people to try and provide me with evidence that isn't easily picked apart (the vast majority hasn't been anything more than obvious propaganda with no evidence at all), I don't really consider random people tossing a link at me to be worth my time anymore.

Um, if you are looking for a statistically significant trend, then just start from 1994 or any earlier year.

If all the evidence is propaganda or easily picked apart then you need to become a climatologist. They desperately need your expertise.

Is there any piece of modern science you don't think is incorrect? I also like randomly throwing around statistically insignificant as if you are sitting their running your own t tests on data.

There is no piece of modern science that I think is incorrect.

Rush is starting an amnesty effort for "WARMERS" that were tricked into buying this stuff. I think some people should give EIB a shot.

You can start by showing why the data is statistically insignificant or possibly caused by something else. The mainstream scientific community happends to disagree with you.

Statistically insignificant IMO

I don't think anyone questions the fact that the temperature has increased over the past century. To try to "demonstrate" this completely dodges the actual questions, which is pretty much typical of MMGW supporters. The question is WHY? Personally, I don't know why. It may well be CO2, but the evidence I've seen supporting that theory is insufficient to come to a real conclusion about it. It's very possible that the evidence actually is out there, and it's just so far buried in the propaganda that it's nearly impossible to find, IDK. What I do know is that in the discussions I've had with people on this topic over the years, no one has managed to find that evidence and show it to me. For me to believe it's something that man has done rather than something that is occuring naturally requires some serious evidence though, and not just a bunch of hand waving. I remain open to the idea, but given the complete and total failure of MMGW supporters over the years to provide useful data, I have a hard time caring anymore.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. They are sadly lacking.

I don't think you have enough data points to make that claim IMO

So, given the nature of the issue at hand, what would you consider good evidence? What's wrong with the currently available evidence? You're certainly acting like you have some knowledge and education, so prove it. Tell us the problems with the accepted theories that all the climatologists aren't seeing, or are purposely ignoring

Question part 2:

Are your objections to MMGW with the science itself, or with the recommended big Government remedies? Because most people I've seen that claim there's insufficient science behind MMGW don't actually mean that (because they don't have enough education to properly judge it), what they really mean is "I don't like the results of that conclusion, which appears to require Big Government interference, therefore I will reject it".

When in reality, the correct reaction is to accept the science until there's actual evidence that points to any contrary position, and look for and encourage non-Governmental solutions.

The science and the solution are two separate issues, and using your objections to the second to influence your views on the first is sloppy thinking, and doesn't help anything.