1950 to present seems like a big ole cherry to me...
True. If you look at 950 to present, it makes his point even more.
Mike - only if the point is that the climate changes naturally. The current climate is not outside the ordinary variability of climate.
The planet has been warming since long before 1945 when human activity started producing significant carbon dioxide. Therefore Ryan is giving a false impression (i.e. being dishonest) in cherry picking the warming since then.
Various scientists have stated that we need to see between 14 and 20 years of no temperature rise to be statistically relevant. We are at 16 years and counting. We are about 10,000 years into the Holocene interglacial. Temps peaked during the holocene optimum during the bronze age. The temps were several degrees warmer than the present with much less CO2 in the atmosphere. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were also warmer than the present with a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere. The previous interglacial, the Eemian, was also much warmer with a lot less CO2 than the present. There were no other climate forcings to cause this. CAGW is a failed hypothesis. Although the IPCC ignores it, there has been a lot of peer reviewed papers published in the last two years that debunk the CAGW hypothesis. The IPCC still includes a lot of non peer reviewed information in its report as the latest leaked draft shows. Global warming is the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown Man!
Are you a climate scientist? Me neither.
I'll side with 97% of the experts (who study this every day) who say it is real and getting worse. #NoKoch
spurt=drip under pressure
97%? According to whom? A masters degree thesis? That is a figure that only includes 77 people of 79 (a statistically insignificant sample) out of over 3000 replies to over 10 000 surveys sent.
The questions asked relate to points of agreement between alarmists and most sceptics. In other words even if they used legitimate statistical techniques and a large enough sample the questions would not tell us anything.
Sorry to hear you have no cock, but you should check your spelling.
The 97% who only have a job and a grant due to the "crisis" and have no incentive to see it in any other terms.
Three points: First, not an especially convincing idea to refer to a SkepticalScience web site bit, since the proprietor of that place was caught red-handed deleting comments that undermined his decidedly non-skeptical viewpoints on global warming: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
Second, regarding that 'stairstep' graph, it is disputed in great detail here: Blog Memo to John Hockenberry Regarding PBS Report “Climate of Doubt” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/blog-memo-to-john-hockenberry-regarding-pbs-report-climate-of-doubt/
And third, nobody is actually denying whether 'global warming is happening, or if it is real', skeptics are saying - using huge amounts of mind-blowing detail to support their point when you care to go looking for it - that the IPCC has not conclusively made the case that human-induced greenhouse gases are the primary driver of global warming.
Claim 'cherry-picking' all you want. Leave out half the story on the skeptic side of the issue, and prompt people to wonder if you are actually advancing a political agenda.
I dont understand the 'cherry picking' point in this case. There is really nothing to cherry pick. The simple facts are that the global warming community predicted steadily rising temperatures for the 21st century, and for the last 16 years the temperatures have not risen at all. Thats not cherry picking, thats observing facts that disagree with predictions.