BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Well ok then, but I'm calling that you'll have your typical "if it's not from a partisan republican source, it's all lies"
Well I'm not sure why you think I should prefer a partisan Democrat, but doesn't matter. We can deal with the substance.
First though on the partisan thing, you sent me to warmist sites to read people like Peter Gleik. You do know who he is don't you?
" You know him, he’s the guy from the Pacific Institute who posed as a board member for Heartland so he could steal documents. The plan was so badly conceived that it quickly unraveled, partly because of a ridiculous fake document that many say Gleick authored to get the media interested in the story of what he found. But, it was laughably transparent, and Gleick’s tendentious forgery was characterized by Megan McArdle of the Atlantic as reading “like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/p ... ck-genius/So you're right on that one. I will point that sort of stuff out. Of course I will.
One reason is of the guys you sent me to Gleik is the only one who tried to actually baffle gab the reader into believing there was no climate pause - that the warming just continued on like it always has since man, or more precisely since non-Gleikian man has been exhaling heinous CO2 out into the universe, then emitting it from his evil industries.
Here's the problem with the Gleikian version though. He says the climate pause claim is false, because warming is still happening. The problem is he told you the claim he's outraged about from what he calls the deniers involves "statistically significant" warming.
If he were to say to you "when you use the right data set you can show trace warming that is not statistically significant" that would be correct, but it would not be warming in the sense he's insinuating.
Even if you did use the heavily massaged data of Hansen's GISS you still would not get "statistically significant" warming. What that means in reference to what scientists actually said regarding the climate pause is there has been no statistically significant warming in about 17 years. That means if you have a kid who graduated this year he or she has never actually experienced this warming of which you speak. That's why you guys are having all these problems scaring the youth now, even though you put so much into it.
OK on the other stuff I could go through it piece by piece, but basically it doesn't say what you think it says. Or at least it doesn't say what you were originally claiming.
It doesn't speak of hidden warming beyond what we get from the accepted data sets. It admits to the climate pause and offers excuses for it's existence within the parameters of their warming hypothesis. At least that's their hope, but what I hear is them finally admitting natural feedbacks matter more than they were previously admitting to.