On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:24:14 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , mcp
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:50:28 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:33:09 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:54:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:11:35 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:22:04 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?

It hasn't. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since
1998. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

That's quite true. No argument. But it's flat. Within the statistics,
it's been the same for the last 15 - 17 years, irrespective of 2014.
Didn't you know that? See http://tinyurl.com/ocohxuj for your
education (scroll down to get the whole article). This figure from
that article http://tinyurl.com/5jfe9p shows a flattening off after
~2000, as do others. Temperature data from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ ,
whose home page shows a similar leveling off from ~2000. Note that the
rise in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 closely parallels
the rise between 1910 and 1940, but nobody was ****ting in their pants
then.

It's cherry picking.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator.gif

The average temperature for that 15 - 17 year period is substantially
higher than the previous 15 - 17 year period.


We had this discussion about six months ago. You're still trotting out
the same poor science as you did then. You haven't learnt anything.
What a pity!

The science hasn't changed significantly in the last 6 months and 99%
of scientists working in the field still dissagree with you.

Does this stuff make testable predictions? Have any predictions
actually been borne out yet? If the answer to either of these questions
is "no", then it's not science.

If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect the earth would be a frozen
ball of ice. The theories do make testable predictions, you are
forgetting the timescale. The earth has warmed 0.9 degrees in the past
50 years, the annual variation in temperature is more than that.

See, the thing about, say, Newton's theory of gravity, is that it
allows one to calculate things like eclipses, and it'd then be pretty
obvious that Newton was wrong if the eclipse didn't happen. And guess
what. That's never happened, which is why it's called Newton's *theory*
of gravity instead of Newton's handwaving ideas about gravity. And what
makes it proper science is that Newton could be proved wrong *tomorrow*
if some eclipse or other showed up at the wrong time or place. That
distinguishes it from dogma or faith.

You are pronouncing the theory is flawed before the eclipse is due.