Dear Hasbeen,

I'm curious to hear the reasons you think that so please elaborate. You have my fullest attention.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

"No. Let me restate in ways you might understand. The article "carefully selected" data from the IPCC and Hansen. Hansen has made several prediction. The article takes one of those and tries to pretend that that was his sole prediction."

No it doesn't. Can't you count? The article includes Hansen et al 1981 and then Hansen et al 1988.

It also expressly states "The overall rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 projected by Hansen et al in 1981 in the fast-growth scenario has been about 20% lower than observations."

You really aren't very good at this are you. Care to try again.

When it comes to a discussion on anthropogenic global warming, why is it that Hasbeen, Josephus, ttbn, Loudmouth, individual, runner and mhaze refuse to accept what the scientific community is saying? Why do they keep throwing up red herrings and irrational pseudo-scientific statements structured to dissuade people from accepting the conclusions of the scientific community? Are they themselves scientists? No! Do they have evidence that would change the conclusions drawn by the scientific community? No!

The answer is really quite simple: they all share something in common, being that they are all dyed-in-the-wool LNP adherents. They are just following the dictates of the political parties they support. That's why we get bombarded by stupid pseudo-scientific arguments buttressed by expressions of anger against anyone they think has a socialist bent. Their real interest is in protecting bourgeois interests - not protecting the planet; they are motivated by self-interest - not what is best for humankind. They are really interested in keeping the LNP in power - not in creating a better world.

To Mr. Opinionated.

You've asked why so many people in this discussion don't agree with what the scientific community agrees with on global warming, and why they seek other answers. Perhaps I can enlighten you about at least one set of reasons, because even if my name wasn't in that list of people that disagree with the conclusions, I am definitely one of the people who do disagree. It's not because of support for a political party, or out of greed either. Listen and listen well.

The first and biggest reason for disagreement with those conclusions is because of having a working memory that remembers the threatening predictions of global warming decades ago. How those predictions were wrong about the severity of the issue then and how instead of changing their tune, they just repeat their same predictions that the end is near. Another 10 years or so is all we've got before massive negative changes kick in such as costal cities being under water. (There are many other negative predictions said to occur within 10 years, that haven't happened in more then thirty). The first and biggest reason to disagree is because many people have a working memory. The older the person the longer they have to go on to see the unreliability of the global warming sciences.

Second and third reasons aren't in any order of importance but they are on par with each other's validity. Over the years there have been other explanations come to light besides the unreliable predictions of global warming. Sunspots and solar activity affecting the climate, as well as the theory of a warming phase and a cooling phase. Don't be surprised when one conclusion is found to be unreliable then people will latch onto and seek a different one.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The other reason is the fact that the scientific community isn't as unified in Global warming conclusions as they are believed. In fact there are even stories that stick out that suggest scientists don't all agree on this matter but toe the line in support to avoid losing their jobs at a university. Some have even changed their stance right after they retire. This shows a corruptive nature in the climate scientist's community. And again because people have a memory, over the years hearing these stories ensures more disbelief in the on-goingly unreliable conclusions of climate scientists. Adding more to this, are reports of global tempatures being wrong, either not lining up with the predictions, or have someone else point out that the data itself is inaccurate and this really isn't the hottest year globally as is reported.

A forth reason requires a bit more research into the matter. However looking at the article SteeleRedux pointed to has a wonky observation. Even in the article there are multiple predictive models for global warming changes. One low, one medium, one high. This is there on both years a predictive model is reported in the article. This multiple predictive models in the same model really dismiss the idea that any of them are accurate when global tempatures over the years get close to one of the models one year and close to another one a different year. Conmen play this kind of shell game, scientists should not.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I don't think you are in a position to argue against anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.