A regular commenter to Sifting Reality offered the chart below to show how undeniable global warming is. Apparently they are taken in by what looks to be catastrophic rising temperatures.
That they failed to notice the increase over the past 130 years is only about 1 degree Fahrenheit is a little amusing (sad if they did notice). However, if you look closely, the chart shows an actual downward trend beginning from about 1997. And they wonder why we call them alarmists.
Sifting Reality 
What do facts matter when you have an agenda to make the government control every aspect of our lives?
Baghdad Bobs and his mindless millions.
Apparently, a degree or two make a big difference. But what does he know; he’s only an expert in the field. http://billmoyers.com/episode/preview-why-single-degree-climate-changes-matter/
Oh yea, he’s just in it for the money.
Oh no, I’m sorry, he’s just a paid spokesman delegated to give the government more control.
No, wait, he’s an agent of satan here to spread lies.
I’m sorry – why are we dismissing him again?
Screw it, I’m getting a beer.
That chart is also conveniently short term, beginning when we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, which refers to the period between 1300 and 1870 (give or take a decade or two on either end, as that’s in debate). The period between 1600 and 1700 saw a particularly steep drop.
It also conveniently begins well after the Medievel Warm Period where, despite modern attempts to re-write historical records, temperatures were considerably warmer than now.
What about other experts in the field who dissent, you dont seem too keen on giving them much credence.
That’s because the vast majority are funded by the energy lobby or industry advocates.
They sound like the same folks who told you that cigarettes were actually good for you back in the day.
So let me see if I really understand your position.
1. All these scientists and agencies reporting climate change are just in it for the money and it’s just an excuse for government to impose more taxes and get more power.
2. Regardless of any scientific evidence, you will refuse to accept any premise that the climate is changing, let alone as a result of human behavior.
3. Any changes we do observe are just part of the natural cycle. (Even though we all know the earth’s age is not even 10,000 years old, these cycles have allegedly occurred over much longer periods of time)
Is this about right?
Anyone have anything else to add from their perspective?
I guess we’re supposed to believe that an industry that might be negatively impacted by how research is interpreted could only possess evil intentions by doing their own research in order to confirm or deny. Are they supposed to just swallow whatever the AGW people say, or can they not come to different conclusions without being suspected of being only concerned with profits?
Of course, energy lobbyists and industry advocates aren’t the only entities concerned with what it will mean to abide the policy suggestions of AGW proponents, especially during sluggish economic times.
Then, of course, is the irony of weathering accusations of conspiracy mongering by those who only see the oil and coal industry as selfish, heartless bastards willing to destroy the earth for a dollar.
@Marshalart
1. Is there a study out there confirming AGW that was funded by the energy lobby?
2. Do you really think that economic conditions motivate climate scientists?
3. Would you say that climate scientists are emotionally driven?
Z
Let me ask you this: the chart above is from noaa, do you deny there is a downward trend since about 1997 according to the chart?
I’m not seeing the “downward trend” you speak of. I see red lines on the right getting larger and larger after 1980 or so.
From the NOAA page (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/): The Global Surface Temperature is Rising, U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising, Sea Level is Rising, Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising, Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating, Glacier Volume is Shrinking and U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing.
I know you think it’s not real, John, but just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you to think otherwise?
From the spike at 1997 theres 2 drastic drops. From there one more spike, then the lines get lower and lower.
You have an interesting way of looking at data. The black line shows a steady increase over the last 50 years, despite a drop from 1997-1999. Should we ignore the last ten years as well?
I know you think it’s not real, John, but just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you to think otherwise?
The black like is CO2 levels. Im talking about temps
The trend clearly shows a steady increase in global temperatures over the last 50 years.
I know you think it’s not real, John, but just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you to think otherwise?
Try to keep up. I dont dispute an increase in prior years. What I dispute is its continuting now. There are natural fluctuations between cooling and warming regardless of human presence and activity.
The warming has stopped after having warmed. What do you need to admit that?
Now you’re trying to be insulting. Nice.
So you think that warming has stopped, do you?
I bet you’d be the same guy saying “Hey, It’s over!” in 1965 and 1975, according to that chart.
The overall trend is undeniable. What do you need to admit that?
The trend is warm cool warm cool etc. There were periods much hotter than now. On what basis do you deny that through out history there has been fluctuation regardless of human presence or technology?
Do you remembet the hype about the coming ice ages from the 70s?
zqtx,
1. I don’t think there is a study confirming anything. There are those that suggest warming at alarming rates and those that suggest warming as a result of the behaviors of mankind. But nothing confirming any of it. In the meantime, there are studies that contradict it all and the response to these contradictions raises suspicions concerning the character of those responding.
2. I think scientists in general are not beyond economic motivations that impact their own wallets. Too many believe that what comes from the mouth of a scientist can be taken as if from angelic entities. I don’t count myself as among those.
My comment referred to the economic conditions in which we, if not the world, find ourselves and what further negative impact can result from following the recommendations of AGW proponents. This is especially important considering the lack of confirmation for their beliefs about the severity of the situation. In other words, why take steps to reverse what might not be reversible if human behavior is not the cause of the warming that AGW proponents believe is about to destroy the world?
It is also important to remember that without tying ourselves to international treaties or “protocols”, the United States has done much to reduce our own contributions to pollution. Yet, the rest of the world lags behind and we have no means by which we can force compliance upon other nations.
3. Of course climate scientists are emotionally driven, just as scientists of all disciplines are, where their beliefs compel them to encourage changes by the rest of us. They see what they see and little else making their perspective narrow. This is human nature. Firemen, for example, would force elimination of all sorts of things the rest of us take for granted, and deal with safely, because they see things from the perspective of those who see the potential for fire. They would recommend removing all sorts of things, like the gasoline we keep at hand for our lawn mowers. Or they would recommend expensive methods of storage. Climate scientists are not beyond acting in a similar manner.
All in all, I am no more convinced one side is more credible than the other on this issue, but both sides likely need to be more open to the input of the other. Are ALL climate scientists conspiring against anyone? Are ALL oil and coal industry people greedy enough to risk endangering the world in which they and their own children inhabit? Are any?
Thank you for actually answering a question or two, marshalart.
To address your last paragraph – While an individual might me concerned with the future for their children, the industry itself does not. The business is concerned with profit, not the environment. The scientist only collects data and reaches a conclusion based on that data, just like your doctor. If your doctor concludes that you have cancer after several tests, it’s rather naïve just to shake your head and say “No I don’t. I feel fine.” You’re certainly entitled to a second opinion, but I would think you might take some action after confirmation from a dozen doctors. I suppose you could always find a doctor who tells you what you want to hear, but it just doesn’t change the facts.
What I ultimately find ironic is that I recognize and acknowledge the fact that our climate is changing and I personally don’t care. My wife and I have no kids and when we’re gone we’re gone. I would think that anyone with children might have at least some interest in the future for their child’s sake. It’s kind of sad that the experts keep telling us something is wrong and we just choose to deny it.
Peace.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
“While an individual might me concerned with the future for their children, the industry itself does not. “
But what is an industry but a collection of individuals, most of whom have families? It makes no sense to believe that one who has a family would ignore that family for the sake of profits. You might make a case that a given individual in a position of power might not think in terms of the negative impact his business dealings might one day inflict upon his family. But to pretend that ALL members of industry think in this way is conspiratorial and frankly, the type of judgmental thinking of which right-wingers are so often accused.
“The business is concerned with profit, not the environment.”
This also makes an incredible leap in judgement to assume that a business does not realize destroying the environment of his customer base likewise destroys his customers. It is ridiculous to assume business thinks in such a superficial manner. It is bad business to do so.
“The scientist only collects data and reaches a conclusion based on that data, just like your doctor.”
This assumes a pureness of character of which you cannot possibly be certain. Because one is a scientist, one is incapable of bad intention, low character or simply incompetence? Only businessmen are to be assumed to be self-serving and not scientists? How could you possibly support either proposition? I doubt you have a close enough relationship with enough of either group to make such a claim.
“…but I would think you might take some action after confirmation from a dozen doctors.”
This assumes there aren’t a dozen or more doctors with a different diagnosis. And it is the same position taken by all who pretend only AGW proponents are correct in their diagnosis.
“What I ultimately find ironic is that I recognize and acknowledge the fact that our climate is changing and I personally don’t care.”
Well, there’s YOUR character exposed for all to see. At the same time, most on this side of the issue ALSO recognize and acknowledge the fact that our climate changes and have never said any different. The question is how much, how much is OK or even beneficial and what causes it. And the debate focuses on the fact that not all experts agree. It seems it is you who is unwilling to listen to any but those who YOU choose to believe. In the meantime, as John has stated, some of us listen to both sides and decide based on what sounds most reasonable and likely.
Kunoichi,
Thanks for the link. It suggests Z’s faith in the impeccable character of scientists is of the blind variety.
Article worth reading:
http://nationalreview.com/article/352690/obamas-global-warming-folly-charles-krauthammer