UK: Climate change data dumped.

Those dirty rotten liars!  

Anyway, how does losing data make someone into a liar?  The fact that the data's been lost doesn't change what it said.

Here's a logical explanation as to why increasing carbon dioxide is an issue:

I think stuff like that is wasted on persons of the type that you are addressing it to, who is cast in the same mould as those people who write without irony stuff like "It's 5 degrees here in Montana so those left wing liberals who say the earth is warming up must be lying".

Cutting pollution is important of course.  We are all breathing that stuff in.  But why is Carbon Dioxide being presented as the boogeyman?  Plants breathe carbon dioxide!

Seriously?

Water vapour and carbon dioxide make up less than 1% of  the total atmosphere,  and yet these two molecules contribute to more than 99% of the rise in GMST (global mean surface temperature) and increase in the greenhouse effect.

An estimated 7300 million tonnes of anthropogenic (that's human produced via usage) carbon are added to the atmosphere EACH YEAR.

There is a problem.

Seriously?

Water vapour and carbon dioxide make up less than 1% of  the total atmosphere,  and yet these two molecules contribute to more than 99% of the rise in GMST (global mean surface temperature) and increase in the greenhouse effect.

An estimated 7300 million tonnes of anthropogenic (that's human produced via usage) carbon are added to the atmosphere EACH YEAR.

There is a problem.

Really? Then please explain why the GMST hasn't risen in the last 10 years.  You're damn right there is a problem ... the problem is people claiming an unfounded hypothesis as fact.

the GMST hasn't risen in the last 10 years.  You're damn right there is a problem ... the problem is people claiming an unfounded hypothesis as fact.

Aren't you doing that? Where is your evidence that it hasn't risen?

Really? Then please explain why the GMST hasn't risen in the last 10 years.  You're damn right there is a problem ... the problem is people claiming an unfounded hypothesis as fact.

Please check your facts, the overall trend still shows an increase in GMST:




Perhaps if you spent less time reading up on conspiracy theories, Obama's birth certificate, and how 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by a "new world order" you'd have time to read up on the actual facts.

Please check your facts, the overall trend still shows an increase in GMST:




Perhaps if you spent less time reading up on conspiracy theories, Obama's birth certificate, and how 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by a "new world order" you'd have time to read up on the actual facts.

And perhaps you should read the chart you posted.  We're significantly lower than in 1998.  The temperature has dropped for the most part.

AND PLEASE tell me where on this forum I have ever said 9/11 was an inside job - that is rediculous.  9/11 was perpetrated by 19 Arab Muslim terrorists.

Why are we back to where we were in 1981?  Your "science" cannot explain why there was a big spike leading up to 1998 and a big drop after that.  According to this chart, this decade has cooled since 1998 despite more CO2 emissions from emerging economies in Asia like China and India.  There's a big hole in your theory and you all can't seem to explain that hole.  It's hardly worth crippling the economies of the industrialized world and raising energy prices for the working class over such a flawed theory isn't it?

1998 shows a spike in a single anomaly, if you look at the overall trend from left to right, we are experiencing an increase.

1998 shows a spike in a single anomaly, if you look at the overall trend from left to right, we are experiencing an increase.

learn2readgraphsplease.

That's a pretty big anomaly for what is being proposed as "sound science" don't you think?

That's a pretty big anomaly for what is being proposed as "sound science" don't you think?

You obviously know nothing about science or how to read scientific data.  You fail.

One anomaly does not constitute a trend, hence why GMST is calculated from the data taken from hundreds of locations around the world every month of every year.  Anomalies occur in data, there is no way around it.  But, if you would read the graph as it's intended IE the overall trend, you would see that the trend of data along the graph is moving upwards as the graph progresses to the right, indicating an increase in the data plotted on the Y axis IE temperature change.

You obviously know nothing about science or how to read scientific data.  You fail.

One anomaly does not constitute a trend, hence why GMST is calculated from the data taken from hundreds of locations around the world every month of every year.  Anomalies occur in data, there is no way around it.  But, if you would read the graph as it's intended IE the overall trend, you would see that the trend of data along the graph is moving upwards as the graph progresses to the right, indicating an increase in the data plotted on the Y axis IE temperature change.

Seriously, put your tin foil hat back on, else the government might find out you're disagreeing with them.

So skepticism not only means I don't know how to read scientific data, but I also wear a tin foil hat/am nuttier than squirrel poop.  The burden of proof is on you and your camp, if you can't prove it, then step off and stop besmirching those who point out the flaws in your theory and logic as crazy.

Look at your chart again.  We're on par with 1981.  The data is incredibly variable.  It is not consistent.  Rather than blaming CO2, perhaps you should all be looking at the sun and the changes in solar activity.  We do get most of our heat from the sun.

Maybe if people could stop calling each other names for a moment, there could be a sensible discussion? Just a thought.

I'm used to it.  Myself and few others here are regularly the target of vicious character assassinations by people on this forum who don't like our point of views.

Personal comments edited.  Please keep it on topic folks.  

Seriously.  Time outs can and will be used.