• Sherry the Cherry

    Jan 31, 2013 - 10:35:25 AM

    1950 to present seems like a big ole cherry to me...

  • Mike

    Jan 31, 2013 - 03:21:15 PM

    True. If you look at 950 to present, it makes his point even more.

  • Eddy Aruda

    Jan 31, 2013 - 03:47:25 PM

    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!

  • Russell C

    Jan 31, 2013 - 04:43:13 PM

    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.

  • Andrew Kerber

    Jan 31, 2013 - 06:51:41 PM

    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.