...are actually attacking the climate change movement where it is weakest - in the science. You know, the part where hypotheses are tested against actual evidence. Hence the frantic calls by the climate change movement to do something - NOW! - before the long-term evidence is actually in (no evidence, no refutation of the hypothesis). And this is what makes the last decade's worth of actual world climate data so threatening (no warming), and why we don't hear too much about it.

The climate change movement is not about climate science, it's about radical policy choices that - surprise, surprise - empower central planners at the expense of ordinary Joes & Janes. These policy choices are so patently absurd - reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2020 in order to prevent climate change impacts that could reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2100 - that they are beyond the realm of rational debate....it's religion. And there sure ain't been much progress to be had in debating religions! Hence, debate the science, with the evidence....which is the way science is supposed to work.

"And this is what makes the last decade's worth of actual world climate data so threatening (no warming), and why we don't hear too much about it."

First of all, the fact that you are talking about 10 years worth of data shows that you haven't bothered to learn even the most basic facts of climate science. It was understood almost 60 years ago that the system was too noisy to determine trends over such short periods.

Secondly, here is the "last decades worth". The long term data is even more obvious.

"These policy choices are so patently absurd - reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2020 in order to prevent climate change impacts that could reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2100 - that they are beyond the realm of rational debate....it's religion."

Hmm, or maybe your numbers are wrong and its really just mainstream economics.

Funny thing is that you are proving the authors point about sources of data in the modern age as you certainly have come to and affirmed your position via "blog science" and op eds.

The essential fallacy of blueshifts position is this. Although any trend has its little ups and downs (like the stockmarket for example) there is no denying that carbon production has gone up enormously in the last 10 yrs but the world temp went in the opposite direction. Fail.

What you're saying, in essence, is "It was pretty damn cold yesterday. Climate change must be a bunch of hooey." You haven't bothered to try to understand the science, and its implications contradict your view of the world, so it must be bullshit.

businessanalyst:

The essential fallacy of blueshifts position is this. Although any trend has its little ups and downs (like the stockmarket for example) there is no denying that carbon production has gone up enormously in the last 10 yrs but the world temp went in the opposite direction. Fail.

Lol! First, can you even define a fallacy? Secondly, my link above showed that you are simply wrong about the last 10 years. Finally, you are ignorant. The standard understanding of climate tells us that the equilibrium temperature will eventually result in a 3 degree +/- 1.5 degrees celsius per doubling of atmospheric C02, i.e. its a logarithmic response. We are at ~390 ppm now and ten years ago we were at ~360. We don't expect to distinguish the response to this 8% change from normal variation over a 10 year time period.

Fail indeed.

Marcus61:

...are actually attacking the climate change movement where it is weakest - in the science. You know, the part where hypotheses are tested against actual evidence. Hence the frantic calls by the climate change movement to do something - NOW! - before the long-term evidence is actually in (no evidence, no refutation of the hypothesis). And this is what makes the last decade's worth of actual world climate data so threatening (no warming), and why we don't hear too much about it.

The climate change movement is not about climate science, it's about radical policy choices that - surprise, surprise - empower central planners at the expense of ordinary Joes & Janes. These policy choices are so patently absurd - reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2020 in order to prevent climate change impacts that could reduce GDP by 3-5% in 2100 - that they are beyond the realm of rational debate....it's religion. And there sure ain't been much progress to be had in debating religions! Hence, debate the science, with the evidence....which is the way science is supposed to work.

In what sense is it "not about climate science" for scientists to study data, construct models according to that data, and make predictions about future behavior? Do you believe "science" is simply a compendium of truisms? Science is a process -- a methodology -- for constantly refining our understanding of the physical universe. It does not stand on Absolute Unchanging Truths, it stands on accumulation of information and understanding. Likewise, science seldom claims Absolute Certainty of its models, although the scientific community can definitely have different levels of surity about some current model.

The very concept of "proof" has fairly different meanings, according to whether you're talking about mathematics, logic, or physical science (or, for that matter, a court of law). In mathematics, a "proof" is a logical demonstration that a certain mathematical construct MUST work in a certain way, and cannot work in any other way unless we suspend the known logic of mathematics. It's a very rigorous standard, for the very reason that it is possible to make such proofs over many (not all) mathematical models. In the physical sciences, "proof" means accumulating enough data -- via observation and/or experimentation -- to establish some degree of certainty over the issue in question. It's always possible that future information may lead us to tweak the model -- or even completely re-make it -- although that becomes less and less likely as more and better information accumulates to support it. We're just not very likely to acquire any new information that might make us re-adopt the Ptolemaic model of the universe. As the certainty of a particular model becomes more and more established, it can be extended to explain and support other, related models.

In public policy-making, as in the physical sciences, waiting for Absolute Certainty is a futile exercise. At some point, it's necessary to say that we understand and trust the model enough to: a) confidently make predictions on it and b) develop technologies (policies) for managing or mitigating it. If, at some point in the future, we WERE to suddenly acquire Absolute Certainty of an impending climate disaster, it would almost certainly be far too late to mitigate it.

So, policy-makers always need to ask "do we have sufficient confidence to proceed on this path?" In the case of global warming, there is a range of actions we could reasonably take, given a reasonable level of trust in the model. Certainly, this could include actions that would have long-term benefits, even if the model later proved wrong -- for example, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels would have benefits even if we knew it wouldn't affect global warming.

The fact that we can ferret out some contrarian scientists willing to poo-poo global warming is no reason to abandon wholesale any efforts to mitigate it or understand it better. Yes, contrarians can sometimes turn out to be correct. And, hey, who knows? maybe The History Channel WILL someday prove Bigfoot exists.

I'm old enough to remember when all the science, and all the scientists, were concerned about global cooling. It was a worldwide consensus that was a large topic of conversation on the first Earth Day, and was the primary focus of two UNESCO symposia in 1962 and 1964. Global cooling was "settled science" in those days.

I don't consider myself in denial when I say I don't think the science of global warming is all that settled.

"It was a worldwide consensus that was a large topic of conversation on the first Earth Day, and was the primary focus of two UNESCO symposia in 1962 and 1964. Global cooling was "settled science" in those days."

Well we won't get anywhere this time either, but you know I'll try anyway.

No it simply wasn't. There was some discussion of it, and the upward trend was decreasing but there was no world wide scientific consensus that Global Cooling would be the future.

There was a LOT MORE than "some" discussion of it. I lived through that nonsense, don't try to palm it off as some sort of passing idea -- it was the scientific paradigm for 20 years.

You say that but you've never provided proof that there was anything like the modern consensus that began in the mid '60's and has been affirmed repeatedly since then. 97% of climatologists believe that based on basic physics the world is warming and will continue to do so.

Yes, I did, and you dismissed it (without providing any evidence that the contention was wrong, by the way).

Actually, imbecile, the only "fallacy" operational is yours. Frauds who want to claim global cooling INVARIABLY claim 1998 as the starting period for their comparison. This is because, and only because, 1998 was a freakishly warm year. They are cherry-picking data, which is quite impressive to the ignorant, such as yourself. But they aren't impressing anyone who knows anything.

"All the scientists" were never concerned about any such thing. It was ONE ARTICLE in Newsweek. You remember exactly nothing. You're a tool, and a victim of oil company propaganda, which you regurgitate mindlessly.

"it was the scientific paradigm for 20 years." No, you ignorant dipshit, in fact IT WAS NOT. And you cannot provide a bit of evidence what says otherwise.

*** Yes, I did *** Actually, moron, assertion is not evidence.