Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

[Torie]

For discussion, particularly about whether or not the matter of climate change as to what causes it, and the degree of such change, is, or is not, settled science, whether or not those experts who question various aspects of the prevailing CW are kooks or not, and whether or not, much of the CW is generated by the pack instinct, the desire not to be professionally punished, and/or to get the big bucks for research from the Feds.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'll bet the flat earth society would like some money (billions!) from the  Puppet McVon Pussygrabber administration for their rigorous investigations, too!

[Badger]

"Real Clear Investigations" is of course a wing of RCP, which gives serious caution about the article's reliability.  Equally telling is the fact they listed 2 's ientists whom have hardly been silent in the Obama years, and a third whom a tally DOES acknowledges climate  change is real rather than "a hoax" lime Trump,  but simply believes it's "not cataclysmic ".

Still,  it's hard to deny that climate change deniers,  rather than the overwhlming consensual of the scientific community will find a ready spot at Trumps table

[Virginiá]

I'd venture a guess that a good number of scientific subjects lack a unanimous consensus. Republicans have essentially been trying to push the idea that because it isn't unanimous, that the issue remains in deep contention and far from settled (a gross exaggeration). When I see this reaction from lawmakers, I really just see a bunch of old politicians with deep bias and a troublesome lack of scientific knowledge in general.

1. Are they kooks? No, for the most part, probably not. A good number are probably paid by the fossil fuels industry specifically for their work and that, in my opinion, takes from their credibility. This is a complex issue, and I'd probably say the scientists who claim Earth isn't getting warmer are kooks, but the ones who dispute how bad things will get may have some legitimate grievances. Then there is the issue of how to tackle this, and so on.

2. The pack instinct and desire not to be punished is a good perspective that I had not considered, Torie. I'd venture a guess that there are at least a marginal number of scientists who may fit loosely into this

3. I'm not exactly convinced that 4 years of a Republican presidency who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax is enough to change the tide even somewhat. I'd like to at least refer to the pack instinct again - the pro-CC pack is simply too big and too influential. People who suddenly "see the light" on climate change when federal money becomes available is not going to be seen as a valued change in the consensus. If 2% less end up agreeing once the GOP-initiated money starts flowing, that 2% drop will be seen as less significant than if it were to come "naturally." All we'd know at that point is that there were more opportunists than we knew about (??).

If we lose a quarter of climate scientists to the dark side, boy, I'd be worried then.

[Pericles]

Our planet is doomed at this rate. But of course Hillary Clinton did BAD STUFF with her EMAAILLS, so that's fine.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Our planet is doomed at this rate. But of course Hillary Clinton did BAD STUFF with her EMAAILLS, so that's fine.

Considering how little people paid attention to the issue during the campaign, I question how much effort Hillary would have actually put into this. Obviously, it's better to have a government that accepts the science, and doesn't promote the few deniers and the "do nothing and see what happens" people. But she wasn't exactly a hardcore climate or environmental activist

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Is this really a battle you think you can win?? Who would want to hang their hat on this movement?

[Ljube]

Climate science is certainly not settled. There are a lot of things the scientists don't know, can't explain, or simply guess.

For instance - the amount of warming per doubling of CO2 content in the atmosphere. They give a figure (varies), but can't say to which absolute point it refers to, i.e. is it doubling from the pre-industrial 200 to the 400 we have today, or further doubling to 800, or somewhere in between?

Anybody claiming to know what kind of temperature increase doubling of CO2 will bring is a liar or pretending to be Nostradamus.


A second thing is futility of any proposed action in terms of real reduction of CO2 emissions at punishing costs. When considering actions, an economic cost-benefit analysis should be prepared taking into consideration the cost of actions performed now against the potential cost of future, more efficient actions. Any unbiased cost-benefit analysis would always advise against any action now.


The current understanding of the Earth climate system is based entirely on theoretical thinking and is very similar to the once popular, but ultimately wrong four humors theory in medicine which was also the result of theoretical thinking (i.e. no way to experiment, postulate a hypothesis and then disprove it, etc... meaning no way to apply the scientific method). Until that problem is remedied, the climate science cannot be considered settled, or informative for decision making purposes. It can be consulted, but it must not determine the course of our collective actions.

[Ljube]

"Real Clear Investigations" is of course a wing of RCP, which gives serious caution about the article's reliability.  Equally telling is the fact they listed 2 's ientists whom have hardly been silent in the Obama years, and a third whom a tally DOES acknowledges climate  change is real rather than "a hoax" lime Trump,  but simply believes it's "not cataclysmic ".

Still,  it's hard to deny that climate change deniers,  rather than the overwhlming consensual of the scientific community will find a ready spot at Trumps table

Badger, you are such an insufferable Dem hack. You even use their talking points.

Science never progresses through consensus. Brilliant minds are needed for scientific breakthroughs. You should know that.

[Shadows]

I don't think it is worth of me to write about it but I think people should read more - I have read dozens of books on a variety of issues - Israel-Arab relations (some include historical letters which British wrote), Different Economic philosophies & ofcourse Climate Change.

The whole history is fascinating - From the moment when Exxon's discovered it through the various climate conventions , the extent of damage already being caused etc. Since I earn pretty good money, I will probably retire @ 40 or something & work on this issue. If people actually read this issue, they won't be debating this.

I am genuinely concerned if the planet I leave to my grand-kids would be habitable because as of now it doesn't look it will be. My heart especially goes out to many poor island nations who are absolutely en route to be submerged very soon.

Nauru island today is obviously a case study of how to f**k up with over-exploitation of resources & rising sea level & climate change! The least bit people should do is to listen to the scientists - When 98 or 99% of the Scientists argue about something, there generally should be a damn good reason!

[Shadows]

Climate science is certainly not settled. There are a lot of things the scientists don't know, can't explain, or simply guess.

For instance - the amount of warming per doubling of CO2 content in the atmosphere. They give a figure (varies), but can't say to which absolute point it refers to, i.e. is it doubling from the pre-industrial 200 to the 400 we have today, or further doubling to 800, or somewhere in between?

Anybody claiming to know what kind of temperature increase doubling of CO2 will bring is a liar or pretending to be Nostradamus.


A second thing is futility of any proposed action in terms of real reduction of CO2 emissions at punishing costs. When considering actions, an economic cost-benefit analysis should be prepared taking into consideration the cost of actions performed now against the potential cost of future, more efficient actions. Any unbiased cost-benefit analysis would always advise against any action now.


The current understanding of the Earth climate system is based entirely on theoretical thinking and is very similar to the once popular, but ultimately wrong four humors theory in medicine which was also the result of theoretical thinking (i.e. no way to experiment, postulate a hypothesis and then disprove it, etc... meaning no way to apply the scientific method). Until that problem is remedied, the climate science cannot be considered settled, or informative for decision making purposes. It can be consulted, but it must not determine the course of our collective actions.

I could give you a lot of info & actually prove you wrong about the extent of warming & theoretical nature & what not.

But I am not sure if it is worth my time - Which is why I wanted to ask how educated you are? Ivy league ? Some decent college?

[Person Man]

"Real Clear Investigations" is of course a wing of RCP, which gives serious caution about the article's reliability.  Equally telling is the fact they listed 2 's ientists whom have hardly been silent in the Obama years, and a third whom a tally DOES acknowledges climate  change is real rather than "a hoax" lime Trump,  but simply believes it's "not cataclysmic ".

Still,  it's hard to deny that climate change deniers,  rather than the overwhlming consensual of the scientific community will find a ready spot at Trumps table

Badger, you are such an insufferable Dem hack. You even use their talking points.

Science never progresses through consensus. Brilliant minds are needed for scientific breakthroughs. You should know that.

That's such a flaming turd...

[Ban my account ffs!]

This issue sure brings out steady, logical arguments from everyone involved!

"I'm rich and I'll retire at 40 and do something about climate change because the world wont be habitable otherwise!  What??  I would back up that ridiculous, alarmist, chicken little position but you're probably not even educated!"

Yes SamTilden...Anthropogenic human induced catastrophic unprecidented global warming/climate change/climate weirding is accepted by everybody!  In fact there are almost no deniers so thats why the issue wasn't brought up in the campaign.  I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure it's because Americans are too stupid to be wealthy and able to retire at 40 and be Ivy League Educated!  Surely they'd know then! (They wouldnt tell you though because you're not educated or rich enough to even explain how its all worse than we thought)

I think global warming science defenders doth protest too much and it betrays a deep, fundamental insecurity about their beliefs on the issue.  

[Ljube]

I don't think it is worth of me to write about it but I think people should read more - I have read dozens of books on a variety of issues - Israel-Arab relations (some include historical letters which British wrote), Different Economic philosophies & ofcourse Climate Change.

The whole history is fascinating - From the moment when Exxon's discovered it through the various climate conventions , the extent of damage already being caused etc. Since I earn pretty good money, I will probably retire @ 40 or something & work on this issue. If people actually read this issue, they won't be debating this.

I am genuinely concerned if the planet I leave to my grand-kids would be habitable because as of now it doesn't look it will be. My heart especially goes out to many poor island nations who are absolutely en route to be submerged very soon.

Nauru island today is obviously a case study of how to f**k up with over-exploitation of resources & rising sea level & climate change! The least bit people should do is to listen to the scientists - When 98 or 99% of the Scientists argue about something, there generally should be a damn good reason!

100% of doctors argued for the four humors theory. Did it make the theory right?
Nauru Island is just an example and while possibly tragic (we are not sure about that yet), it only affects a small number of people.

I will certainly not retire at 40 or something (I am already 42). I plan to work till I am 70 at least. I love my job.


I was once a blind follower of the global warming orthodoxy, until I actually took the time to study it. The more I read about it, the more questions popped up and I realized that the theory was undeveloped and hollow in places. Eventually, I understood the reason for it - the theory is purely speculative (a mind experiment) and does not depend on real life or lab experimentation for reaching conclusions. It's a trial and error theory.

Now, I sympathize with the plight of the people of some small island, but to base the world accepted policy on that would be folly. There are more people who will suffer from the effects of that policy than those that will be potentially protected by it. It's far better to just help those islands in need than to bring everybody down.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Yes SamTilden...Anthropogenic human induced catastrophic unprecidented global warming/climate change/climate weirding is accepted by everybody!  In fact there are almost no deniers so thats why the issue wasn't brought up in the campaign.  I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure it's because Americans are too stupid to be wealthy and able to retire at 40 and be Ivy League Educated!  Surely they'd know then! (They wouldnt tell you though because you're not educated or rich enough to even explain how its all worse than we thought)

I think global warming science defenders doth protest too much and it betrays a deep, fundamental insecurity about their beliefs on the issue.  

I didn't say there weren't deniers? You seem to be living proof, bud.

I'm not insecure, just frustrated that people won't pay attention and do what's necessary to protect the future. And when those people are in my party, it's even worse.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Watching the Trump-cult's heads explode will be one of the few funny payoffs of having to deal with President Pussygrabber. (Although I'd be satisfied if they'd just start using them.)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes SamTilden...Anthropogenic human induced catastrophic unprecidented global warming/climate change/climate weirding is accepted by everybody!  In fact there are almost no deniers so thats why the issue wasn't brought up in the campaign.  I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure it's because Americans are too stupid to be wealthy and able to retire at 40 and be Ivy League Educated!  Surely they'd know then! (They wouldnt tell you though because you're not educated or rich enough to even explain how its all worse than we thought)

I think global warming science defenders doth protest too much and it betrays a deep, fundamental insecurity about their beliefs on the issue.  

I didn't say there weren't deniers? You seem to be living proof, bud.

I'm not insecure, just frustrated that people won't pay attention and do what's necessary to protect the future. And when those people are in my party, it's even worse.

I can accept scientific findings about our climate.  I can accept that there is a greenhouse effect.  I can accept that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2 and that it is having an impact on our climate.

But with that I have to accept that there is a stochastic factor here.  We can analyze our weather and our climate until the cows come home... but we can't accurately predict it based on what we know because that's the very nature of a stochastic process.  I have to accept that our models are mere playthings that, while complex and big, really don't tell you anything more than what the game SimEarth could back in 1991.  I also have to accept that we have only scratched the surface.

I can accept these things while not accepting the increasingly toxic, desperate, emotional, unscientific, authortarian, and regressive brand of activism that dominates action on climate change.

The vast majority of papers that come out these days on climate change are utter garbage.  They're like those car commercials "drive a new Lexus today for only $599/mo with zero down at signing"... yeah, if you have perfect credit.  Like those car commercials, climate papers these days assume the worst case scenario.  The kinds of papers that prognosticate more backne and armed conflict and sad dogs and wetter farts are all doing so based on the least likely outcome as defined by the IPCC.  You know what they say about assume.. it makes an ass out of u and me.  Climate scientists won't get published if their paper assumes a moderate warming which, of course, leads to a moderate change... anymore than a commercial that promises a new Lexus at advertised leasing prices based on the average credit score will sell cars.

These papers and the issues they cover dominate climate change coverage. It is those kinds of papers, and then stories about how weather events have a "climate change fingerprint" based on bad assumptions and a good amount of handwaving and smoke and mirrors, that form the bulk of climate change coverage these days.  Meanwhile, the real data collection and proxy collection and papers dealing with actual global climate are only discussed in backwaters by those who are more informed.. and are increasingly done by non-western scientists who still have a modicum of professionalism.

Regarding the tactic of blaming weather on climate change.  Keep in mind that for years, as a skeptic, I had to put up with alarmists screaming that you can't use individual weather events to prove or disprove climate change.  It takes many many years, even decades, to find any discernible signal.  Yet Matthew was billed as THE WORST HURRICANE EVER and proof that climate change was knocking at our door... even though we had a record period without a major hurricane hit in the U.S. and no real trend in tropical storms globally... and that Matthew really was a run of the mill hurricane.

I think the best thing to do is this:  Be concerned about climate change.  But make the main focus of your environmental actions not climate change.  Tackle deforestation.  Tackle improper forest and grassland management.  Tackle unsustainable water or resource usage.  Champion more efficient uses of energy.

If you make climate change the crux of every environmental argument... you're gonna lose sight of what's important and everyone else is gonna ignore you.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes SamTilden...Anthropogenic human induced catastrophic unprecidented global warming/climate change/climate weirding is accepted by everybody!  In fact there are almost no deniers so thats why the issue wasn't brought up in the campaign.  I'm not sure how that works but I'm sure it's because Americans are too stupid to be wealthy and able to retire at 40 and be Ivy League Educated!  Surely they'd know then! (They wouldnt tell you though because you're not educated or rich enough to even explain how its all worse than we thought)

I think global warming science defenders doth protest too much and it betrays a deep, fundamental insecurity about their beliefs on the issue.  

I didn't say there weren't deniers? You seem to be living proof, bud.

I'm not insecure, just frustrated that people won't pay attention and do what's necessary to protect the future. And when those people are in my party, it's even worse.

I can accept scientific findings about our climate.  I can accept that there is a greenhouse effect.  I can accept that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2 and that it is having an impact on our climate.

But with that I have to accept that there is a stochastic factor here.  We can analyze our weather and our climate until the cows come home... but we can't accurately predict it based on what we know because that's the very nature of a stochastic process.  I have to accept that our models are mere playthings that, while complex and big, really don't tell you anything more than what the game SimEarth could back in 1991.  I also have to accept that we have only scratched the surface.

Generic Denialst Argument #6. "Models are unreliable"
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

With a side helping of #61 "Scientists can't even predict weather"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

Same old tired sh**t from people (I'm being generous) who refuse to see what they're literally living through.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Snowguy716: Your whole argument is based on one thing: you doubt the legitimacy of climate science. And unless you can provide evidence, your claims don't deserve to be taken seriously. You're a denier.

You say that "moderate" climate change papers are dismissed and discredited, however, no evidence is provided. I'd be more than happy to examine what you have to show. All available, credible evidence that I have seen shows that we are heading for above 2C warming, with possibly much more to come ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/1402277-global-warming-2-degree-target/).

The other part of your argument seems to be that climate change isn't sexy or it is a detriment to other environmental causes. Bruh, Climate Change is a banner that is tying together environmental movements on a worldwide scale like we've never seen before. It's the Genghis Khan of environmental movements. So I don't get where that idea comes from. Look at what just happened in North Dakota.

[dead0man]

I hope you've got your reading glasses, Snowguy knows his sh**t.  He's like one of those atheists that knows your holy book better than you.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy716: Your whole argument is based on one thing: you doubt the legitimacy of climate science. And unless you can provide evidence, your claims don't deserve to be taken seriously. You're a denier.

You say that "moderate" climate change papers are dismissed and discredited, however, no evidence is provided. I'd be more than happy to examine what you have to show. All available, credible evidence that I have seen shows that we are heading for above 2C warming, with possibly much more to come ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/1402277-global-warming-2-degree-target/).

The other part of your argument seems to be that climate change isn't sexy or it is a detriment to other environmental causes. Bruh, Climate Change is a banner that is tying together environmental movements on a worldwide scale like we've never seen before. It's the Genghis Khan of environmental movements. So I don't get where that idea comes from. Look at what just happened in North Dakota.

Skeptical Science is probably not the most credible source from which to base your arguments Runeghost.  But it's par for the course. 

So I'll post from a skeptic's blog.  But it's okay.  Instead of focusing on how to use handwaving and debate tactics to "shut down" your "denier opponent"... this one simply lists 500 papers related to climate change published in 2016 in scholarly journals that are skeptical of climate change alarm.

They have broken it down into 3 pages because 500 is quite a lot.  They include the abstracts.

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/#sthash.TEHhpG7I.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-2/#sthash.3pMvK0Ps.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-3/#sthash.JBtfPm0f.dpbs

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Snowguy716: Your whole argument is based on one thing: you doubt the legitimacy of climate science. And unless you can provide evidence, your claims don't deserve to be taken seriously. You're a denier.

You say that "moderate" climate change papers are dismissed and discredited, however, no evidence is provided. I'd be more than happy to examine what you have to show. All available, credible evidence that I have seen shows that we are heading for above 2C warming, with possibly much more to come ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/1402277-global-warming-2-degree-target/).

The other part of your argument seems to be that climate change isn't sexy or it is a detriment to other environmental causes. Bruh, Climate Change is a banner that is tying together environmental movements on a worldwide scale like we've never seen before. It's the Genghis Khan of environmental movements. So I don't get where that idea comes from. Look at what just happened in North Dakota.

Skeptical Science is probably not the most credible source from which to base your arguments Runeghost.  But it's par for the course.  

So I'll post from a skeptic's blog.  But it's okay.  Instead of focusing on how to use handwaving and debate tactics to "shut down" your "denier opponent"... this one simply lists 500 papers related to climate change published in 2016 in scholarly journals that are skeptical of climate change alarm.

They have broken it down into 3 pages because 500 is quite a lot.  They include the abstracts.

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/#sthash.TEHhpG7I.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-2/#sthash.3pMvK0Ps.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-3/#sthash.JBtfPm0f.dpbs

What a very intimidating looking gish-gallop. And it IS a gish-gallop. The blogger (and by extension you) is simply listing papers without grasping them, so long as they appear to be "anti-global warming". Then you adopt the pretense you're proving something.

For example, take the first one I grabbed at random. (From the bottom of the third link):

"Towards a physical understanding of stratospheric cooling under global warming through a process-based decomposition method"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3040-8

I'm confident that through heroic effort you can engage your couple of brain cells and understand that the authors of said paper are not, as you deceitfully claim, "skeptical of climate change alarm", but just exploring one particular aspect of it: the cooling stratosphere.

One that is examined in further context elsewhere. For example, here:
"Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming"

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/09/vertical-human-fingerprint-found-in-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now kindly take your feces-mongering self and sod off.

[PresidentSamTilden]

So my issue with all of this data is that it doesn't present a unifying reason why the consensus is false. Any cause is acceptable as long as it disagrees with the hypothesis that human emitted Co2 is causing climate change. Let's take a look at a few of the headlines from the section:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what is causing the warming? Is it other planets? Is it Geomagnetic? Cloud Cover? Richard Nixon?

As a counter, here is a paper that analyzed 11,944 papers on the topic, and concluded that 90+ percent confirm the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming. (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002).

Now, let's take out Occam's razor. What's more likely to be correct: A smaller coalition of denying papers, with many different explanations that contradict each other, or a much larger group that all centers on one conclusion?

[Ban my account ffs!]

So my issue with all of this data is that it doesn't present a unifying reason why the consensus is false. Any cause is acceptable as long as it disagrees with the hypothesis that human emitted Co2 is causing climate change. Let's take a look at a few of the headlines from the section:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what is causing the warming? Is it other planets? Is it Geomagnetic? Cloud Cover? Richard Nixon?

As a counter, here is a paper that analyzed 11,944 papers on the topic, and concluded that 90+ percent confirm the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming. (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002).

Now, let's take out Occam's razor. What's more likely to be correct: A smaller coalition of denying papers, with many different explanations that contradict each other, or a much larger group that all centers on one conclusion?

The consensus isn't necessarily false.  But the consensus position is quite vague: that at least half the warming since 1950 has been caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases and other human activities.

Many of the papers I linked to are exploring the other 50% and seek to nail down the human component more accurately by more completely understanding how the climate works through real world proxies and observations with a reluctant focus on global climate models.  Others are positing alternative theories, which should not be discounted as long as they are following the scientific process.

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans and that predictions are actually much worse than they are, based on the highest authority in climate change science (the IPCC).

There is a contingent of high level climate scientists that believe that to be the case as well.  Others share a much more skeptical and conservative view...that the human component was a minority of warming in the 20th century, but does show a bigger proportion through time.  I think, in my limited capacity as a layman, that these scientists have a more robust knowledge of the climate without the ideological hangups that climate scientists like Michael Mann or other laymen like Bill McKibben have.

The point is to have an all of the above approach.  There is no one driver of climate or its changes.  There are countless ones that constantly change.  Greenhouse gases are an important one...but are just one part.  The changes in solar activity during the 20th century were also very significant in human history.  And through further study, we are learning that solar changes impact climate more than, but also completely differently than the IPCC or the models assume.  Complex relationships between ozone, clouds, and ocean cycles with changes in UV radiation, which varies much more than overall solar irradiance changes, contribute to warming and cooling as well as regional climate change.  The models assume a basic "solar constant" that has an almost immeasurable effect on global temperature change. They need to be updated...but that might reduce the expected amount of warming...so instead such science is criticized and dismissed.  This is the kinda thing I have an issue with.

One can also explain, as the cited paper does, warming by blaming it on a reduction of cloud cover.  Of course this might involve assumptions that the consensus rejects...but the global climate models don't accurately deal with clouds...so it is not easy to counter the cloud argument.  Instead, such papers are dismissed. 

In 2008, for example, the global temperature went down quite a bit from previous years...and the deepest solar minimum in a century and an increase in global cloud cover are the likely culprits, along with a La Niña.

When skeptics started screaming about the sudden slowdown of warming after 2000, rather than investigate...first, the slowdown was simply denied.  Then there was panic and all kinds of straws were grasped...it's La Niña!  The heat is being sequestered into the deep where we cant measure it!  Then they just subjected the temperature record to new adjustments, known as the "pause buster"...which increased the warming trend since the 90s by arbitrarily making the late 90s cooler and recent times warmer.  Now the pause is treated as if it never happened.

You can argue such adjustments are legitimate...but something like 3/4 of adjustments increase the warming trend.  And these adjustments are done frequently.  The early 20th century is much cooler today than it was 20 years ago. 

I also have a problem accepting papers that claim global warming must be caused by increased GHGs because "the models couldn't produce the amount of warming unless we add the human component."  This becomes moot if your assumptions about non human components don't change with the introduction of new evidence. 

This ideological drive to only accept one answer leads to increasingly random and incorrect predictions...like that hurricanes, snowstorms, and El Niño could become both more or less frequent and both more or less intense due to human made climate change.

The argument that "my side has way more papers" falls short if you have the system set up to encourage your side and discourage the other.  And I wont accuse you of this...but look at Runeghosts response to me.  That attitude is very common with this issue and serves as proof that ideology, belief, fear, and emotion are in control...and no matter what, those things are always poisonous to science.

[Doimper]

The current understanding of the Earth climate system is based entirely on theoretical thinking and is very similar to the once popular, but ultimately wrong four humors theory in medicine which was also the result of theoretical thinking (i.e. no way to experiment, postulate a hypothesis and then disprove it, etc... meaning no way to apply the scientific method). Until that problem is remedied, the climate science cannot be considered settled, or informative for decision making purposes. It can be consulted, but it must not determine the course of our collective actions.

lol lol lol lol

Glad to see the "I know better than the overwhelming majority of people with a PhD in the topic I'm discussing" crowd turning out in force