posted February 21, 2014 07:07 PM            

A couple of recent articles have thrown new fuel on that denial engine by pitting one scientist against the other. Taken together and in light of comments from other scientists, the two articles appear to prove the opposite: Scientific debate is alive and well. The takedown of global warming science is just not happening.

The first article, written by Patrick Michaels and published in Forbes on Feb. 3, draws on professional criticism of the scientific community in a literary journal by retired climate scientist Garth Paltridge. Paltridge's point is that his profession has been corrupted. Scientists have been swayed by a majority, government-led opinion and have allowed politics to influence their interpretations. The Forbes article echoes his conclusion that not only has global warming been "oversold," to the detriment of scientific credibility, but that a rebound of more objective opinion is coming in which the entire global warming edifice will come crashing down and scientific credibility with it.

Like many critics of global warming science, Paltridge emphasizes the last 14-year period of flatlined recorded global surface temperatures, which I discussed in more detail in my article Thursday, Global Warming 'Haitus' Is an Illusion, Study Finds. He pooh-poohs the notion that heat could be trapped in the deeper ocean and labels it a desperate attempt to save the global warming hypothesis.

The second, written by David Rose and published Feb. 15 in the Daily Mail, cites scientist Mat Collins, associated with the UK's Met Office, as saying that science can't link global warming to changes in the jet stream at the top of the world that have caused severe storms in England. This is news because the chief scientist of Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, is on record appearing to say the opposite.

For the record, Slingo's remarks don't seem as far apart as the Daily Mail author indicates. Speaking broadly, she said there was no definite proof of a link between climate change and the storms but that "all available evidence" seemed to point to a connection. Collins, speaking specifically about the jet stream part of the equation, said, "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

Paltridge, the author of the Daily Mail article, and Michaels, the author of the Forbes article, imply that these views amount to a war of truth vs. lies. They believe there is an inability of climate change scientists to entertain contrary arguments and a lack of sensible scholarly discussion within the scientific community.

But the fact that those views are being discussed at all in the media illustrates that scientific discussion and dissent is prevalent. In addition to being a Met Office scientist, Collins is a scientist for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That panel is at the heart of many criticisms about global warming science (including those of Paltridge) for its attempts to cultivate a consensus and shape international policy, a blending of politics and science that for many chafes against the spirit of independent inquiry.

Yet independent inquiry and dissent persist. In my conversation with scientist Matt England this week he noted inconsistencies in the models and, far from brushing past them, used them as guides for future research.

"The science that we're in is all about the ability to make projections," England said, adding that sometimes predictions miss the mark. "The hope is as we go down the track we'll work out why that might be."

posted February 21, 2014 07:14 PM            

The first article, written by Patrick Michaels and published in Forbes on Feb. 3, draws on professional criticism of the scientific community in a literary journal by retired climate scientist Garth Paltridge. Paltridge's point is that his profession has been corrupted. Scientists have been swayed by a majority, government-led opinion and have allowed politics to influence their interpretations. The Forbes article echoes his conclusion that not only has global warming been "oversold," to the detriment of scientific credibility, but that a rebound of more objective opinion is coming in which the entire global warming edifice will come crashing down and scientific credibility with it.

Like many critics of global warming science, Paltridge emphasizes the last 14-year period of flatlined recorded global surface temperatures, which I discussed in more detail in my article Thursday, Global Warming 'Haitus' Is an Illusion, Study Finds. He pooh-poohs the notion that heat could be trapped in the deeper ocean and labels it a desperate attempt to save the global warming hypothesis.

posted February 24, 2014 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Media portrayals of climate scientists as a community split into warring factions are common.

---

No they're not. Not remotely so. This would only be true if the media you read is biased against science.

quote:

---

This part of the above article is also noteworthy:

---

I suggest you read your own, Judith Curry's response to Garth:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/02/garth-paltridge-held-hostage-by-the-uncertainty-mo nster/

Some telling quotes:

Why the surprisingly out of touch lack of understanding of what it is that makes the global climate change?

Given these unquestionably impressive theoretical credentials that demonstrate a very clear understanding of the basic physics of the radiative processes for both solar and thermal radiation in the terrestrial atmosphere, how is it then that these authors have failed to grasp the climatological significance and impact of the steadily increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, which unchecked, will cause the global surface temperature to increase, and thus seriously disrupt the established climate?

Perhaps Garth thought the climate system too complex to model (by himself), convinced himself that all the climate process uncertainties made climate modeling intractable, and then went astray with his tangential “entropy production” approach as supposedly providing the basis for understanding the nature of global climate change. It should be clear by now that the basic physics of the climate system physical processes can, and are being modeled successfully, that strict conservation of energy, angular momentum, etc. can be maintained, and that very realistic climate simulations can be generated with the current climate GCMs, including determination of the climate system response to large volcanic eruptions and to the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Then, on the other hand, there is the perplexing material that was posted here earlier by Garth Paltridge. To me, that material appeared totally at odds with the thinking that was evident in Garth’s 1976 book on Radiative Processes in Meteorology and Climatology. Garth should go back and re-read his own book to see if he still remembers the concepts of atmospheric radiation as he once understood them back in the 1970s.

Perhaps there has been a change in his political outlook that explains his thinking. Wanting to believe that the Climategate emails were leaked, instead of having been hacked, then deliberately taken out of context, misrepresented, and misinterpreted, is quite telling. So also is Garth’s select list of the “There are those who . . .” categories.

These political sentiments are then punctuated by the utter nonsense about climate science being some sort of post-normal or post-modern version of what might otherwise be considered “normal” science. This kind of talk is nothing less than some overly-exhausted psycho-babble borrowed from the social sciences where the parties involved have no real clue as what they are really talking about. Physics provides the basic foundation for conducting climate science, and climate science profusely draws and uses information and data from all of the other scientific disciplines.

But Garth has somehow failed to include the end points of his select list spectrum. He left out the one obvious extreme end point – There are those who feel compelled to deliberately distort, misrepresent, and lie about climate science in order to confuse and bamboozle the public on behalf of fossil fuel interests (notably at the Heartland, Cato, and George C Marshall Institutes). (Like Patrick Michaels, for instance. - AG)

As Garth notes, it is therefore not surprising then, that “it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of [crossed out] politically correct opinion”[/crossed out by Judith] (in reality) a fully demonstrated understanding of current climate science. “Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things.” (As we've been talking about ourselves. It's not that it's skeptical that prevents it from being published. It's that it fundamentally doesn't convey an understanding of modern climate science. -AG)

Why would anyone want stuff that is patently erroneous, irrelevant, or otherwise deficient to be published in the long-established climate science literature? Clearly, there has to be some sense of quality control to define what we reliably understand in science, and what we don’t. Why not just trash out the junky stuff in the web-blogs where that is already happening? Should anything of value be uncovered, it will surely survive the thrashing, and then it will make it into the peer-reviewed climate science literature and become recognized as a recognized part of current climate knowledge. (Indeed. This makes rational sense. - AG)

Rather surprisingly, Garth complains about the miserable quality of available climate data.

On the contrary, there is an abundance of excellent climate data. The available ice core data provide a very precise and detailed record of changes in principal atmospheric radiative forcing gases CO2 and CH4, including a detailed record of changes in oxygen isotope ratios from which to deduce changes in global temperature. Likewise, there is available a precise and essentially complete HITRAN data set of line parameters for all atmospheric gases that matter, permitting accurate calculation of the radiative forcings and feedback responses necessary to construct realistic models to study changes in terrestrial climate over all geological time scales.

To be sure, it is not like we have all the climate data that we need or would want. In fact, no amount of climate data will ever be sufficient.

As a more specific point to Garth: simply by running statistical correlations between the different proxy variables that may have incorporated various aspects of global climate change is not the optimum way to gain understanding of global climate change. The climate system is too complex and too variable to be understood in terms of statistical correlations alone. Detailed physical models of the climate system, and how the climate system changes, are needed to characterize the information content and climate context of the tabulated data that are used climate proxy variables.
...

Perhaps the overarching issue that appears to be holding Garth hostage in the climate science debate is that dreadful climate uncertainty monster.
...

More importantly, uncertainty does not in any way prevent us from understanding how the climate system works. From this, it follows that uncertainty should not be used as the excuse for political inaction to condone doing nothing to control the ongoing global warming problem that is caused by the burning of fossil fuel by humans.
...

However, the justification for initiating and taking political action (that may have significant economic consequences) to curtail global warming (note also that not taking political action may have equally significant economic consequences), requires a clear understanding of the nature of the uncertainties (and certainties) that exist in the climate system. And there may be additional uncertainties (as well as surprises) that develop as part of the economic consequences.
...

This brings us to the topic of global climate change aspects that are of the more certain and deterministic kind – the stuff that depends on very basic physics that have been well understood for many decades, if not centuries. More specifically, in the climate context, this refers to the radiative forcings that drive global climate change, and include in particular, the anthropogenic greenhouse gases are being accurately measured and monitored, and their radiative parameters that are likewise accurately known and understood.

As in all measurements that have ever been made, there are always going to be some uncertainties. And this applies to the greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations and their spectral absorption line parameters. But these are very minimal uncertainties that are inconsequential in determination of the contribution that these gases make to the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

In short, we need to start getting used to understanding the fact that atmospheric CO2 is the principal control knob (the solar luminosity remaining fixed) that governs the global surface temperature of the Earth. The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 stands at about 400 ppmv. With zero atmospheric CO2, the climate of Earth will plunge to a snowball Earth state (global annual-mean surface temperature of – 30 °C) and kill off most everything that is alive. (Something similar to this happened about 650 million years ago).

With the atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing to about 4% (40,000 ppmv), the global annual-mean surface temperature will rise to about 60 °C, a temperature extreme that will very likely kill off most everything that is alive. (This has not happened in the geological past. But it could happen in the future if all the CO2 that is locked up in the carbon reservoirs was released into the atmosphere). (Alarmist! - AG)

To summarize, (1) there is no credible uncertainty as to identifying atmospheric CO2 as the principal control knob that governs the strengths of the terrestrial greenhouse effect; (2) there is no credible uncertainty as to identifying atmospheric water vapor and clouds as the temperature dependent feedback effects whose distribution in the atmosphere is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation; (3) there is no credible uncertainty as to identifying the ongoing anthropogenic increase of atmospheric CO2 as the principal cause for the ongoing global warming.

It is very important to differentiate between those aspects of global climate change that are well understood in terms of basic physics (for example, the increased global warming due to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases), and those aspects that are known to be chaotic in nature (the unforced natural variability). The former is predictable, the latter is not.

Supported by this basic understanding of our climate situation, policy makers have now both the compelling need and the full justification to act responsibly and start taking positive steps to begin curtailing the continuing growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Sensible action would be to promote energy conservation, impose a true-cost responsibility fee on carbon, encourage alternate forms of energy generation, and continue educating the public as to why all this is necessary in order to best protect our current way of life.

These conclusions are all based on well-tested principles of physics and on direct observational data, and not on arbitrary assumptions or guesswork. As the global temperature continues to warm, more and more thermal and latent energy continues to accumulate within the atmosphere, thus providing more fuel and impetus for stronger and more extreme weather events. This is what can be expected from further global warming. And that clearly seems to be what has been happening as the global temperature continues to increase.

...(uncertainties listed)

However, none of these uncertainties materially alter the fact that the global temperature continues to rise unabated (with some unforced natural variability superimposed), as the direct result of continued increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Policy makers should take heed to act responsibly and start taking positive steps to curtail the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. To not act is to continue playing Russian roulette until climate disaster eventually hits home. http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/02/garth-paltridge-held-hostage-by-the-uncertainty-mo nster/

posted February 25, 2014 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

We are talking about the jet steam, which was the cause of the recent bitter cold. Your own IPCC scientist said there is no evidence pointing to it being related to global warming. I said nothing about climate. Of couse, he will be all for that.

---

This is internally inconsistent. The jet stream is part of the climate if it caused the recent bitter cold, is it not?

posted February 25, 2014 04:07 PM            

There is no mention of IPCC in your article, so who is my IPCC guy? Mat Collins? Never heard of him. How could he be my guy?

And this:

quote:

---

By your logic (lack thereof), the IPCC scientist is internally inconsistent.

---

Is a ridiculous statement. Who are you referring to? Mat Collins? He seems rather consistent in his opinion, doesn't he? Dame Julia Slingo? Your article says:

In actuality, Slingo's remarks don't seem as far removed from Collins as the Daily Mail author indicates. Speaking broadly, she said there was no definite proof of a link between climate change and the storms but that "all available evidence" seemed to point to a connection.

posted February 25, 2014 04:34 PM            

COLLINS, Matthew

posted February 25, 2014 04:44 PM            

All three are choosing to disagree with the IPCC consensus. Here’s what the IPCC’s latest report actually says: “There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” Here’s what a paper published by 17 senior IPCC scientists from five different countries said last month: “It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.” They go on to say that blaming climate change is a politician’s cheap excuse for far more relevant factors such as “what we do on or to the landscape” — building on flood plains, farm drainage etc.

As for recent gales caused by a stuck jetstream, Dr Mat Collins, of Exeter University, an IPCC co-ordinating lead author, has revealed that the IPCC discussed whether changes to the jetstream could be linked to greenhouse gases and decided they could not. “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jetstream to get stuck in the way it has this winter,” he says, in a statement that raises questions about Dame Julia’s credibility.

In 2012, the Met Office agreed: “There continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.” So please will Lord Stern, Dame Julia and Mr Miliband explain why they are misleading the public about the science?
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-sceptics/

posted February 25, 2014 04:53 PM            

Mat Collins, Exeter University Professor in climate systems, said storms driven by jet stream that has been 'stuck' further south than usual

He told The Mail on Sunday there is 'no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter'
Appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 17:07 EST, 15 February 2014 | UPDATED: 11:38 EST, 16 February 2014

One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.

Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual.

Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

His statement carries particular significance because he is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office.

Prof Collins is also a senior adviser – a ‘co-ordinating lead author’ – for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo.

Last weekend, she said ‘all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’ in the storms.

Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But he said this has nothing to do with the storm conveyor belt.

He said that when the IPCC was compiling its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change last year, it discussed whether warming might affect the jet stream. But, he went on, ‘there was very low confidence that climate change has any effect on the jet stream getting stuck’. In the end, the possibility was not even mentioned in the report.

Prof Collins declined to comment on his difference of opinion with Dame Julia.

Five months ago, in a briefing on the IPCC report to Ministers, Dame Julia conceded the consequence of warming for rainfall ‘is not simulated well’ by climate models – though they are the basis for most of what she and other scientists say about the effects of climate change.

Last April, after the temperature fell to -11C in Aberdeenshire, the coldest April temperature for more than 100 years, Dame Julia said the cold winter and spring might also be due to global warming, because of ice melting in the Arctic.

Professor Collins' statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo.

Meanwhile, the Met Office has continued to issue questionable long-term forecasts. In mid-November, two weeks before the first of the storms, it predicted persistent high pressure for the winter, which was ‘likely to lead to drier-than-normal conditions across the country’.

It added that its models showed the probability of the winter being in the driest of five official categories was 25 per cent. The chances of it being in the wettest category was 15 per cent.

Infamously, in April 2009, the Met Office promised a ‘barbecue summer’ – which then turned out to be a washout. It forecast the winter of 2010 to 2011 would be mild: it was the coldest for 120 years.

In 2007, the Met Office said that globally, the decade 2004-2014 would see warming of 0.3C. In fact, the world has not got any warmer at all in this period.

posted February 25, 2014 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. The jet stream is a contributing factor in the climate. It's very easy to verify this.

---

posted February 25, 2014 07:37 PM            

quote:

---

But you would not have made such an infantile comment if the person you never heard of agreed with you.

---

You seem to think that it matters to me whether one scientist or another agrees with me. It doesn't. If Mat had agreed with the other lady, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. Nor vice versa.

If you want further clarification on your article, here it is:http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/

And what does Mat think?: "We now know that the surface of the Earth is warming as a result of Mankind’s activities." http://www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/userfiles/file/mudancasclimaticas/proclima../file/publicacoes/cenarios/ingles/projectionsofafutureclimatechange.pdf
You can see all of his publications here: http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/mc369/publications

quote:

---

And I'm sure the science of jet streams and man-made climate change is about as proven and reliable as the flawed models, the bad math, and anything else the alarmists adhere to.

---

I see a sentence like this as you throwing things together in a hodgepodge fashion in order to dismiss it. Jet streams affect the climate. The climate is influenced by man. It is proven and reliable. The models aren't all flawed. There's no bad math to speak of, and certainly not to adhere to. Virtually all of the wrong thinking is on your side of the topic, the same as ever. No amount of opposing proclamation is going to invalidate the facts.

quote:

---

Do I have to adjust the focus button for you to get you to ever see what's in front of your face?

---

No. I'm obviously capable of researching on my own. You said that he was one of my guys, like I'd referenced him at some point prior.

quote:

---

As for recent gales caused by a stuck jetstream, Dr Mat Collins, of Exeter University, an IPCC co-ordinating lead author, has revealed that the IPCC discussed whether changes to the jetstream could be linked to greenhouse gases and decided they could not. “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jetstream to get stuck in the way it has this winter,” he says, in a statement that raises questions about Dame Julia’s credibility.

In 2012, the Met Office agreed: “There continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.” So please will Lord Stern, Dame Julia and Mr Miliband explain why they are misleading the public about the science?

---

quote:

---

Stop twisting things to fit your argument.

---

I'm not. I don't need to. You seem to keep coming back to this line: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jetstream to get stuck in the way it has this winter." You notice that the article frames this sentence as evidence that global warming hasn't and doesn't affect the jetstream. I notice that the sentence says no such thing. Sure, I'll be the Sherlock to your Watson, if you like. The sentence doesn't disprove a link. The sentence speaks to a lack of evidence. Just because there is NO evidence of something doesn't necessitate the separation that is proposed. As Mat says in your more recent article, "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge." That's all. It's simply not a connection they can reasonably make.

quote:

---

A while back, you seemed to smirk and rather succinctly claim that it was accepted (by the alamists, no doubt) that it was caused by the loss of arctic ice.

---

Hmmm...this seems like a bit of reading into what I said. Quote where I, myself, said anything about the jetstream relating to Arctic ice thinning.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. The jet stream is a contributing factor in the climate. It's very easy to verify this.

---

This is a true statement. I didn't base it upon anything related to Arctic Ice. Even in this conversation we're talking about it in relation to the polar vortex, which is an event in several climates.

quote:

---

I guess you disagree with the IPCC if you say otherwise? Perhaps you and Julia should converse. Great to see you go against the IPCC for once!

---

I'm not. I don't know where you get all of this imaginary interaction.

quote:

---

In summation: The cause of the cold snap was the jet stream getting stuck. And according to Collins (who is an IPCC climatologist) there is no evidence pointing that to being caused by global warming (and he claims that he is speaking for the IPCC and that they discussed it and agree with this conclusion). Julia disagrees and says all available evidence points to a connection. These two statements are indeed in contradiction with one another.

---

You keep summarizing for some reason. Julia also says and said, "In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen." "We have seen exceptional weather. It is consistent with what we might expect from climate change." She associates the weather with what she anticipates from climate change. Mat didn't disagree with that assessment, did he?

posted February 25, 2014 08:18 PM            

Why did you even post that man is causing warming? What does that have to do with anything? WTF? I didn't say Collins disputed manmade warming. Do you seriously have trouble understanding my point?

posted February 25, 2014 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

Why did you even post that man is causing warming? What does that have to do with anything? WTF? I didn't say Collins disputed manmade warming. Do you seriously have trouble understanding my point?

---

I'm equally flabbergasted. Here you have a guy, Mat Collins, who some say contradicted his superior, because you wish to prove the premise that "climate change" i.e. global warming had nothing to do with the jet stream or the polar vortex.

Do you not normally go about talking about the climate in terms of trying to deny global warming?

Isn't the title of this thread, "Current IPCC Scientist Refutes That Global Warming Has Effect On Jet Stream"?

Are you NOT trying to use this as some excuse to validate your wild ideas about global warming?

In conclusion, why would you ever be surprised that I turn around, and expose any scientist that you attempt to use for this cause as the global warming alarmist that they are?

quote:

---

I posted that climatologists are saying the cooling from the vortex wasn't caused by man. You scoffed and posted links that showed it was caused by a lack of arctic ice. Is it not a good presumption on my part to assume that you agree with articles you post?

---

You were claiming at the time that climate scientists were distancing themselves from the assertion that the polar vortex had anything to do with global warming. My articles were merely to show that a random search of articles wouldn't bring up any disagreement that the polar vortex was related to the overall global warming. You were stating something rather than posting evidence of your statement.

It's interesting going back to the post now, because there's one line about arctic warming (not loss of arctic ice), and from that you made the claim that I asserted myself that it had to do with the loss of arctic ice. That's bizarre, is it not? My other article could be the source of this claim you've made, but I made it clear that I thought it was an entertaining piece. None of the scientific part of that article laid the polar vortex blame on arctic ice. Then you ended the thread by not posting an article to back your assertion. That was the 12th.

Nine days later you post this article on a thread of its own, because something must have been wrong with the last one.

This one claims some dispute between two people of the same organization, an undisciplined scientist and a more disciplined scientist. The latter just wanted to correct any notion that their organization can prove a link between global warming and the jet stream we call a polar vortex. He states that the evidence isn't there, and that they don't know for certain whether global warming is playing a part in the weather events this winter. That's fair-minded and objective.

Now you want me to have a problem with one scientist or the other, or at least concede that the jet stream isn't tied to global warming. I don't know if it's tied to global warming any more than Mat does.

posted February 26, 2014 11:36 AM            

If we were in court, then my questioning of the experts would be sufficient for me to sway the jury. I wouldn't have to be personally verbose.
Not that I really think I was verbose in my last post. Only a few moments would be necessary to read my whole post aloud.

Verbosity can go in your favor. Ask John Edwards, the Gemini, who probably never had a want for words, and did exceptionally well in court.

posted February 26, 2014 07:35 PM            

I correct you, because you speak inaccurately about the subject. If you kept your strange opinion to yourself, I would not have a problem with you holding that opinion. People hold all kinds of weird opinions privately, and I'm fine with that...mostly (on occasion a friend will expose some unusual bias that I find strange, but I usually leave it alone). To give you an idea of how you appear, it would be like if someone were pleading in earnest that people put their trust in Obama. You wouldn't just sit around, and let something that bizarre go without a word, would you? You would consider yourself to have a very grounded and valid point to propose the opposite. Plus, you wouldn't ever really be able to lose that debate, would you? You could cite enough material to put your opinion on very solid footing, right? This is the position I have with you on global warming. Nothing in sight suggests that you'll ever win this debate. You think the temperature plateau suggests a change. I see no retreat in temperature, so I'm far less confident in your predicted outcome.

January 2014 was the globe's 4th warmest January since records began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA. January 2013 global land temperatures were the 4th warmest on record, and global ocean temperatures were the 7th warmest on record. In the Southern Hemisphere, land temperatures were the warmest on record. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2636

^ This through the polar vortex.