[TheRealThing]

"The Economist (magazine) has been fairly consistent in its stand that carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources are the chief cause of global warming. But in an editorial this week, it sounds less certain.

Global warming predictions haven’t panned out as predicted in the past decade, but the why is a bit fuzzy, the magazine admits.

Greenhouse gas emissions have soared during the past 15 years, the magazine notes, with 100 billion tons of carbon having been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. Still, both air and ground temperatures during that time have remained virtually unchanged."

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/Economist...z2PJbdqVBg


Oxymoron - 'Cooked' empirical data.

[TheRealVille]

^ Why didn't you post The Economist article?

[TheRealVille]

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-an...-emissions

[TheRealThing]

YOUR POST QUOTE:
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.




Seriously, most of the time you post info intended to refute what I put up. This one appears just as damning as my link did against the validity of the wild eyed liberal, sky is falling, global warming crowd, LOL. If your post was intended to rebuff mine, I suggest your penchant for self delusion is as strong as ever, and the delusion of global warming stands totally unsubstantiated by true empirical data.

[TheRealVille]

YOUR POST QUOTE:
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.




Seriously, most of the time you post info intended to refute what I put up. This one appears just as damning as my link did against the validity of the wild eyed liberal, sky is falling, global warming crowd, LOL. If your post was intended to rebuff mine, I suggest your penchant for self delusion is as strong as ever, and the delusion of global warming stands totally unsubstantiated by true empirical data.

Read the whole page, and you will see that they aren't saying global warming is false, just that some temperature lags need some explaining, and they give several reasons later in the page.

[TheRealThing]

Read the whole page, and you will see that they aren't saying global warming is false, just that some temperature lags need some explaining, and they give several reasons later in the page.

This is where your logic fails you across the board IMHO. Like the rationalizations in your article, environmentalists ignore their own empirical data and doggedly persist to claim global warming to be true. You know it is a retro-engineered theoretical hypothesis. Hindsight is 20/20 they say, and yet these guys still get egg on their face every time they can't cook the data. To come to the conclusions liberals advocate in matters of governance, morality and in this case science, again as viewed by the liberal mind, it is necessary to run over what we know to be true or just thrash the truth around in the liberal spin cycle, and belch it out sort of redefined in you're own image. The life experiences of those of us who have seen events and history unfold over the last several decades, know what you all are saying is not true.

That is why Obama never addresses and audience aged past their college years. Students have been prepped to attend these presidential pep rallies from here to Jerusalem. Devoid of life experiences, wide eyed college youth readily accept the visions of their liberal profs as real. And are appropriately and predictably awed by the pres. Those of us who see how they fair outside of the classroom realize naivety and the trappings of academia don't carry the day in the real world. Let him come in and try to shuck and jive seasoned adults with his usual blather and see if he gets his ego slaked by cheers or deflated by jeers.

I believe liberals are engaged in this unilateral cycle of spin because they have chosen to separate themselves from God's authority. And like a plant that has become self aware and has chosen to separate it self from the water and nutrients of the soil in which it and all generations prior have been anchored, the liberal's future is to wither and die.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Global warming is almost as believable as thinking this country is on the right track.