According to Futurama, Global Warming should be changed by Nuclear Winter. Look around! Zombies everywhere. We are the Last of Us! )))

Still tastes like chicken.

yeah, a netimporter of nuclear energy. Glad i live in france were electricity still costs 9 eurocent kw/h including tax. Which will only rise in the 'future' due to political reasons, not functional reasons. What is it now in the great green netherlands? 25-35 cents? Glad you are so well off you can  afford the cost. I prefer to spent it on me instead of rinkydink windfarms.

The most idiotic scheme ever. Wind. You only get subsidies for building them, not for maintaining them. So the incentive is to build more of mediocre quality (cheaper) who cares if they crap out withing 10 years. You just build a whole new one and pocket some more free money.

Econuts, large on ideals, short on common sense.

I kinda agree with that.

But people use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing.

I think that is wrong too.

When handled properly and if we decide to go for it 100%, then we can do anything...

So easy to point out flaws in hugely complex issues. I mean we have trouble enough predicting the weather for more than a week, and you expect perfect predictions in something that takes into account ALL the weather on earth in a period over years?

Yeah, you are buying into politics not science if you think the above article means anything other than what it quotes. That a prediction was slightly wrong, it doesn't even say the exact numbers. You are essentially trusting a journalist with all the source checking, I mean that never goes wrong? Journalists are the peak of ethics, and they only care about facts right?

If we cannot predict the weather for the next week, why would anyone think we can predict the climate over the next 100 years?

The process of science is indeed pointing out the flaws in the conjectures of others.  Without that process, we would still believe the earth was flat, fire was an element, and ether was what surrounded us and allowed us to breath.

When people insist that any result confirms the theory it's not a theory. It's a religion.

I would posit that the argument you advance is the deflection here.  Reality has failed to validate the models which predicted, based on the devout belief that rising atmospheric CO2 would force an acceleration of global warming via the greenhouse effect, that average temperatures would be much higher than they have turned out to be.

The 'point' is that the data do not support the anthropogenicity of whatever degree of global warming has occurred since the 'consensus' was arrived at.  Further that, in this case, their prediction that 'July will be hotter than December' turned out to be wrong.  The current climate change models have proven not to be the 'best explanation' for reality.  If what exists is not explained by a theory, the theory can't be expected to reliably predict anything.

I would agree that politics and science don't usually mix well (unless you decide to go to the moon and back) - politicians generally leverage things, not just science, to their advantage.

How do you know this is true?

How do you know rising CO2 levels caused Dinosaurs to dissapear?

How do you know rising CO2 levels are responsible for the current 1.3F rise in temperature?

None of these things are actually "known" though. They are theorized as the possible cause as the rise in temperature appears to coincide with the rise in CO2 levels. The climate system is unfortunately much more complex than this which is being shown again as people are finally being forced to defend global warming "science".

Firstly I said: CO2 levels are approaching levels not seen since Dinosaur times:  Source: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg We are not there yet, but we are approaching it. Notice the sharp increase in CO2 after being stable the last million years. 

Secondly, the Dinosaurs all died out, who is to say CO2 levels were innocent in the extinction? Do you have any proof of this? Models? Evidence? (see, your argument against you, no fun right? Either way, this was not meant to be a serious argument.)

Thirdly, it is irrelevant, as I perfectly explained earlier. We are not looking at your cabin temperatures last summer, we are looking at a global temperature increase since the industrial revolution. If the Industrial Revolution is not the culprit, who is? I would love for you to prove me wrong on this, and if you manage it, you will get the nobel price for sure. 

Excellent, you have proven that global warming does not follow a linear line. The point still stands. Look at the bigger picture than the last couple of decades. As I said earlier, it's complicated. If you look at the graph at the top of my post, you can see we may have turned a cooling period around with the industrial revolution, what do you think will happen when we are supposed to have a natural rise in temperatures, as well as the "possible" human made rise? 

Edit: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png found this. Notice the plateau in the 40's to 60's? This is not new, and we will very likely expect a sudden rise in global temperatures the coming decades if you believe that graph. Will that persuade you if it happens? Also notice that we haven't had a real decrease in global temperature since the 40's. That's a really long time for it just keep climbing or "plateauing". In 2040 if we keep going as we have, we will have had a steady increase in global temperature over 100 years, and that is probably unprecedented. 

Interesting blog! New gif for global temperature rise.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/08/Escalator_2012_1024.gif However, I would actually question this gif motives as well. Notice how he places his line below the "skeptic" average at the start, and above the average at the end to make it appear more "climby" than it really is. Fun gif to show difference of perception, and how stuff is twisted to politicize it as well.

Do you have any proof it caused their extinction?

Also, how do you explain the ice cores (Vostock and Antarctica) that shows historically temperature rising followed by CO2 going up (there is a simple explanation, but the rising CO2 did NOT re-ignite the warming).  A lag of 800 years?

No, your point does not.  I was not commenting on whether the relationship was logarithmic, hyperbolic, or linear.  No change is no change.  So the temperatures are NOT going up (does not mean they will not again), yet CO2 is still increasing (by 2ppm per year).  In medical terms, they say the patient has "flat lined".

And p.s.  There was no "plateau" in the 40s-60s.  There was actually a slight decline in global temperatures.  Better get your glasses out.

However, if you want me to examine your model of AGW, I will be glad to. No models created to date have been able to predict or explain the 17 year "plateau".  That is not me talking.  That is Phil Jones (you do know of him, correct?) and the IPCC.

Really? You're going to reference the Arctic ice "record regrowth"? 2013 was not as bad as 2012 (2012 was the lowest point ever so it's not hard to beat) but 2013 lows are still the 6th lowest extents in recorded history. It's overall still very much a downward trend over decades - unless you are somehow arguing that this 2013 rebound is magically the start of a new upward trend. One year does not magically reverse ongoing trends over generations. Why would you uncritically accept a single year out of context like this as somehow disproving anything? It reminds me of the way Creationists or ID people try to pick at little gaps in the fossil record or something else small and out of context as somehow disproving the entire theory of evolution...and yes, AGW is clearly a theory - but it's the one that makes the most sense with what we currently know.