Why is it that, every time we get a prediction from the theory of AGW, they have to change the estimate - and it's always in the same direction?

I predict this crowd is full of corrupt politically correct hypocrites like Algore..

I am ready to believe the opposite with some concrete non fudged evidence to the contrary.

I don't know where you got that chart or what it measures? But here are the actual Mona Lisa Monthly Mean CO2 Concentrations (ppm) for every month since 1958 until the present. It looks like a pretty irevocable, month by month, steady rise to me, with no levelling off, but then I not in your camp!

Pardon me, try this, the NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 Data site.

Yeah, 'co2now.org', that's a pretty "reliable" organization.

I here you have to genuflect when you enter the building.

Nothing but junk science (and it has nothing to do with Wiener photos)

The subject has already been debunked. No further discussion is necessary : )

This is just freaky. The other day, I happened to get into a conversation with a guy who just finished his residency at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. When he mentioned he was going to specialize in nephrology (kidney issues), I mentioned that if you rearrange the first five letters, you get phrenology -- and he was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. I had to go to Wikipedia to convince him I wasn't just BSing.

I think his ignorance is actually a good sign. At least, I hope so.

J.

Steve

If Al Gore is so worried about sea level rising why does he have a million dollar property on the beach in California.

I know that cow flatulence is a major source of CO2 so therefore I propose we eat more steak in order to help combat the problem. I love steak but I am only one man. HOw about some help here.

Not phrenology, that's about lumps on people's heads not rocks in them.

Pardon me, try this, the NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 Data site.

One of the problems I have the the AGW cultists is illustrated in this chart.
It shows a low of 315.71 ppm (0.03157% atm concentration) to a high of 393.18 ppm (0.03932% atm concentration, a difference of 77.47 ppm (0.007747% atm concentration). This is hardly a smothering blanket.
I have a really hard time believing that this is catastrophic, especially since all the empirical evidence shows that it is not.
While the evidence shows a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature there is absolutely no proof that changes in CO2 levels are caused by temperature changes. In fact, there is proof that they are not. The Lake Vostok ice core data shows that temperature change precedes CO2 level change by, generally, 200-800 years. This is consistent through approximately 420,000 years of data. That which follows cannot cause that which leads.
This data fits modern observations well. The Little Ice Age ended about 1850 with a corresponding increase in temperature. CO2 levels were observed to be increasing after 1940.
http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/

absolutely no proof that changes in CO2 levels are caused by temperature changes.

should read:

absolutely no proof that temperature changes are caused by changes in CO2 levels

crampless,

While the chart I posted does indeed show that CO2 levels as measured at Moana Loa have been increasing as predicted, the temperature as observed (two different measures, blue and green dashed lines) have NOT tracked with the increase in CO2 nor with even the lowest prediction of the IPCC.

The data is not cooperating with the theory. Real scientists would, at this point, be looking for a new theory. The AGW gang are instead looking to fudge the data (and have been caught doing so).

When you can't predict the weather more than three to five days out, why would you claim that climate predictions are a science

That is exactly what the climate scientists have been predicting accurately from a decade ago. For eight years, this site since it began in 2003, has been ridiculing the theory of global warming, even in harsher terms earlier on, but nevertheless, the slow gradual but inexorable rise in carbon emissions continues and corresponding gradual but slow steady rise in global temperature, year after year, trending upward, exactly as predicted by the climate scientists a decade ago. What are you waiting for to convince you? Now the planet is at its warmest since tempertures were recorded over a century ago. I suppose it will take another even warmer decade, or two, with even more severe climate, and then it will be too late to reverse.

It is a pity that we can't have an eclipse that measured exactly what Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted- a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919, making Einstein and his theory instantly famous E=mc2. But global warming is not so dramatic even though as predicted by the same scientistis we have had a measurable increase in extreme weather as predicted, about five or six years ago.

Had you any better explanations that would have predicted the CO2 emission and consistent temperature rise in the last decade, with an increase of harsher storms, the why's and how's? If someone did with their theory, we never heard them.

crampless,

Both charted measures of global temperature are trending down and ever further away from the IPCC predictions.

We've had your "eclipse," and the experimental results are dis-positive of the theory.

But who are you going to believe? Theory, or your lying eyes?

That's one of the many things that's bothered me about the AGW frenzy - the insistance that (1) there wasn't time to see if the theory was confirmed by reality (as in "We're gonna have 50 million refugees in 10 years if we don't IMMEDIATELY cut carbon usage to Dark Ages levels!") or (2) that there was to be no questioning at all of the theory, data, adjustments to said data, or of the results compiled from data of dubious value, run through adjustments of dubious value, and peer-reviewed by people who actively excluded people who didn't believe as they do.

Oh, and if you weren't a 'climate scientist', your opinion was completely worthless... no matter if you had a PhD in paelobotany or meteorology or whatever. Only a 'climate scientist' could opine on it all... what against, seemed like a crock of shit.

Steve

Global warmers are totally adverse to anything that will reduce CO2 emissions from man in any appreciable way unless it suits their purpose.

For example. Nuclear power would greatly reduce our dependance on oil and coal. yet we cant have new nuclear power plants. Oh hell no. even though they are clean, cheap, reliable, and would greatly reduce CO2 emissions for the comparable power generated via coal or oil.

Nope global warmers want us to just go back in time 100 years. The elite would be able to use cars and everyone else gets to use bicycles. THe elite could have warm homes and everyoe esle would freeze as they cant even use coal or wood to heat their homes.

Al Gore can have a 10000 sq foot home and drive around in SUVs, we can have hovels and walk whereever we go. Bono can create a huge CO2 footprint to protest global warming but we cant drive a car to work.

Steve C.- "Now the planet is at its warmest since temperatures were recorded a century ago." The key words being "recorded a century ago." The earth is 4 billion years old. That means there are 40 million "centuries" that we have no data for. What do you think the chances are that several, or thousands, of those "centuries" were warmer than the last? Pretty good, don't you think? And until we know what made those centuries warmer (or colder) than ours, (we won't and probobly can't), this whole Gw thing is bullshit. I'm sorry, I mean "climate change". No, wait- now it's "severe weather events." In otherwords, something that is "trending (maybe) in the last hundred years means nothing if you don't know what happened in the other 4 billion years. Not a trend, but junk science.