Love it...did we not realize we were being manipulated even back then?

Warming is done...and it wasn't man, nor is it man's fault for the coming cold and wacky weather experienced every 400 years. It's called a Grand Solar Minimum.
These grand minimums map our perfectly, time and time again and have been responsible for past mass migrations and the collapse of many civilizations.
Check out the incredible work done by David at adapt 2030 on his youtube channel. (find out what's really happening with weather in other parts of the world through eyes on and local reports).
Also...see http://suspicious0bservers.org Ben's work is just as incredible. Get your Earth, Solar and Space weather report free every morning.
PS...he uses NASA and NOAA resources.

97% is a magic percentage. 100% of anything makes even the dumbest sceptical but 97% keeps the uninformed from questioning. It is scientific. :)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Menkin had it right. This is a perfect description of climate hysteria.

Wasn't he some kind of really smart guy or something? I think I heard that somewhere.

As Einstein is said to have remarked: "When everyone is thinking the same thing then no one is likely thinking."

When you are not allowed to challenge a theory with science you don't have science.

You have religion.

Thank you preimert1! LOL

Remember: "60% of doctors who smoke, smoke Camels. 30% of the doctors who tried camels eventully went back th their wives"

Statistics works well when based upon data about real things. It gives results upon which sample spaces for probability calculations can be produced. The problem with statistics when applied to weather and local weather patterns is that, as can be inferred from Tuesday's episode of Startalk where the climate scientist explained that the future climate needs not be predictable, which he seems, as does the IPCC, not to be predictable but by statistical analysis of statistics, through many models, one can obtain good guesses about the results of the unknown weather patterns far into the future because errors will cancel out. But there is no way to predict weather far into the future, so there can be no statistics without data, in this case weather in the future. One can, from assumptions about the continuation of today's statistics, use probability theory to make wild guesses upon the assumptions about future statistics, but averaging statistics to get an imaginary future statistics, as done in meta-analysis data mining in medicine where it is presumed that real information can be gained form combining experiments all designed in different ways, is a bit irrational and must contradict some valid epistemological rule.

That's one of the significant clues: no one talks about benefits of global warming, not even a cost/benefit analysis.

Just look at the actual data on CO2 from Mauna Loa. Its online. Ask yourself how can any natural phenomena be so uniform over so long when all the other variables are changing all over the place? Mauna Loa is in the dust wind plume from China so how could its variation since WWII not have shown up in the CO2 data? Is someone cooking the books? I know of no other measure of natural change which does not vary over time including temperature.

We live in an interglacial warming period which still has 4 degrees C and 9-10 feet of sea rise to go before the next glaciation begins. If it happens fast as a result of human activity that is good as when the big freeze hits and we are all instructed to burn fossil fuels to keep from freezing the Earth there will still be some. New York can easily survive ocean rising 10 feet but it cannot stop a mile thick ice sheet grinding down from Quebec. Humans expanded from Africa into Europe because of warming otherwise the Neanderthals would still rule.

CG, we absolutely do NOT know that CO2 is the culprit. Absolutely not. The ONLY climate models that correlate recently use water vapor as the fundamental greenhouse gas, and various feedback mechanism hypotheses. The contribution from CO2 as a green house gas is an order of magnitude from being enough for the recent warming.
This does not mean CO2 is not the culprit, but I can find absolutely no technical paper showing the physic-based analysis of what is going on. This is nothing but correlation, and the data to date are completely inadequate to allow the enormous economic consequences of really addressing carbon emissions.
Like my brother likes to ask "real" religious people: "If god told you to kill your son, like he did Abraham, would you do it?". I ask climate-zealots: "If you really believe CO2 is the problem, the only solution for the next 20 years is nuclear. Why are you not screaming for nuclear power?"...because they don't really believe it...

First, the sensors were place at locations to test for global warming, in places they knew would be ot, like in NYC brick enclosed courtyards or at the place jet engines give off heat! Scientist only have figures, not boots on the ground. Second, notice they never mention government programs which are meant to change weather. Why, because it is only meant to control people. I loved how Epstein used the rules of logic to asses the claims.

It's all about the numbers. To quote Gladstone once again: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

I'm not so sure the costs of global warming will be so high. Certainly for some parts of the globe it will be, but other areas in the north prone to permafrost and such could become useful for agriculture and other things.

After reading how they fudged the data to come up with 97%, I am surprised they didn't fudge a bit more and say 100%. You could categorize the publications differently and come up with any percentage that matched your agenda. My eyes always glaze over as soon as I hear "scientists agree".

I was working on a project once that was based on using chemical wastes in commercial products. A highly respected company contacted me about how we could work together. As it turned out they had a valley full of a synthetic rubber like substance as result of one of their processes and had accumulated there for about 40 years. I was looking for something to upgrade petroleum distillation residue that was actually a poor grade of asphalt. Their business manager and I were not technically proficient in this field but we arranged a big meeting with our "experts". I introduced my asphalt scientist and suggested that he explain the composition and potential for modifying it into useful products with the addition of polybutylene like substances. Charlie peered over his glasses and opened with "Well, there is asphalt and then there is asphalt". Both of us business types were mortified but all the scientist murmured and leaned forward in their chairs. Thus a day was spent in interesting discussion but no one concluded anything and there was no agreement on how to proceed. In later situations, I used the climate Nazi approach and excerpted the opinions that matched my objectives and put the brain with that opinion in charge of making it a reality. This did not always work but it was better than sitting around doing nothing.

I won't go so far as to say science is for sale, but it has become heavily politicized.

That is a figure intended for the useful idiot masses. Many of us here are not them.

Just this morning I was contemplating the decade of research I have embarked in that has lead me to be very, very sure that I know something very few know. Why is that? Because the media has been telling people that what I found has been "widely debunked". I like to ask people, "Really? Which study was that?" and watch the blank stare... We live in very interesting times. Science isn't just dead. It's swole up like a balloon on the side of the road and covered with flies...

I might add, my own feeling always has been: man's effect of the climate, if any, is insignificant when compared to the greater forces of nature. I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise.

I thought that figure was bogus when I first heard it. David Friedman- son of Milton- debunks the 97% thing on his blog. Pretty much what I wrote earlier on this when I first read of it. The "scientist" in question pretty much put any scientist who believed the Earth was warming to any extent, regardless of how much they thought man was responsible, into the category of Believer, which might even include me!
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/se...

I wonder how long the 97% fiction can be maintained, now that the "deniers" hold the Trump card.

maybe the climate discussion will end with the new administration. it is long in the tooth.

Most people don't know the difference between climate politics and climate science. They are two very different things. Science seeks to understand while politics seeks control and power.