Jccarlton wrote:What do we see here? Data, lots of it, all of it sourced. No name calling. Quotes from opposing viewpoints. This is a page that's intended to inform you, not scare you. It keeps to the point. It doesn't hit people, it gives them a platform and opens discussion. That is the way science is supposed to work. That is why Watt's is the top science blog. That's why it's good place to get informed. Whatever Tony Watts may have done in the past, or his credentials were, doesn't change the attitude and the professionalism that his blog reflects every day. That goes for the people who contribute as well, many of whom, regardless of their positions are geophysicists with degrees. Not that that matters. The important thing is access to the facts and to have some fun on the journey. That's what science is about. Even if desmog had any actual data, the hottest measured decade in history wouldn't be what we should be looking at. The important thing, which our commenter and desmog are ignoring is the trend. Which is downward. The Climate team knows that and that's why their worried that their gravy train might be coming to an end. The temperature trend is not a positive slope and hasn't been for a long time, as even James Hansen has acknowledged and no amount of waving the "hottest decade around, over and over is not going to change that. Waving that lying deceptive piece of crap over and over doesn't prove anything other than it's a lying piece of crap. Maybe the commenter could find real climate websites and do some real research to make his points. I would say that the sidebar of Watts is a good place to start but he's said that he isn't going there because he's afraid that his closed mind might get opened or something.
The fact it isn't trying to scare you means it's LYING!!!! Facts are LIES! The only truth is the model - reality is a LIE! /Schneibs /sarc
I've surveyed a lot of weather and AGW sites over the last decade or more. WUWT has consistently been science-based, laying out facts and figures. Other sites pushing AGW have consistently been emotionally based, wanting you to be fearful of AGW and insulting anyone who starts trying to drag out actual temperature records - or want to verify the accuracy of the data used and question the ability of the models to accurately simulate reality.
(As I've tried to point out before, a model that doesn't match observed reality isn't producing anything useful for forecasting the future.)
Like the subject of increased ice coverage - a disagreement arises that it's not the 'right kind' of ice coverage, which seems to overlook that for ice to form where there was no ice before requires lower temperatures. (Or at least, so it seems to go in the reality I exist in - perhaps in others ice forms when things warm, but I don't particularly want to visit that reality. The subject of a hot blizzard sweeping up out of the tropics and leaving layers of snow in the middle of summer that won't melt until fall just seems... wrong.)
In fact, it almost seems like belief in CAGW is much more of a religion than anything else. You only have to look at the reactions when the possibility that things may NOT be as bad as they say they are is mentioned. Someone worried about a catastrophe, say a diagnosis of cancer or worries about financial ruin, would usually be relieved when the impending doom is lifted or moderated.
But instead, the reaction is as if you've defiled their most holy ideals - denial, anger, and then lashing out in an attempt to drive the unbeliever away, lest he infect others with his heresy.
It's a puzzling dichotomy. Is the belief in AGW science, or religion? Or a case of a fraud running a scam as long as he can maintain it with the help of the 'true believing' gullible saps who WANT to believe?
Reality doesn't care about models. Ice doesn't care if it's the 'proper kind' or not - it'll form when the temperature gets below the freezing point of the liquid involved. If temperatures rise, more water evaporates, forming clouds that increase reflectivity and lower the temperatures below them... or can really drop temperatures fast, in the case of thunderstorms out in the Great Plains. Why, it's almost like there's some thermal regulation going on that isn't factored into the models.
And as others have pointed out - we didn't come close to temperatures of the MWP, and it looks like things are either stabilizing or cooling.
This is not to say we should shit our nest with impunity - but the constant drumbeat of 'we have to do (fill in expensive project) RIGHT NOW to save the world!' needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
