Professor Philip Stott on LBC last night explained how this statement is a statistical con and meaningless
You have a period where the planet warms say 1970-1999 (and rememeber in the 70s the planet was cooling and ecomentalists where predicting an ice age) the planet then stays static for 10 years neither warming or cooling, so the last 10 years have been static, however because of the previous rise the temp is at a current high therefore the last 10 years are the warmest on record even thou there has been ZERO warming for the last 10 years. This kind of twisting and miss reporting seams to be pretty common when you look at most pro climate change reports, and in this case you turn a period of time that statistically goes against your desire of climate change and make it a panic headline so the sheep can all start bleeting again.
the other problem is that records only go back a tiny amount of time, we know from other data sources that in the middle ages and during the time of the Romans the climate was several degrees on avg warmer than it is now, so even in this tiny tiny time span of 2 thousand years temp has fluctuated vastly more than we saw recently.
It's made even worse as many papers and Websites, particularly the BBC News website will have that as a main headline with little if any detail. A lot of people in this day and age will just glance at headlines and assume it's a done deal. It takes a concerted effort to seek out the truth or alternative opinions and unfortunately too many people can't be bothered and are happy with their little lot as long as they can have a little moan now and again knowing full well it will change nothing.
If you drip feed all these little snippets people will end up believing whatever they are being fed. It worked very well with the Terror campaign and war in Iraq.
All part of a devilish plan by the Government maybe !!!!!!!!:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
I believe so, we are energy junkies in the west, especially for oil and we all know this can not go on for ever. We have been to war twice recently for oil i mean terrorism.
They are making the data fit to wean us of our dependency on energy
Not sure I see the relevance. The warmest on record means the warmest on record, ie the average temperature of each year in the 2000's has been higher than any other year prior to that since records began, about 150 years. What have the warming since 1970, or the stasis in the last 10 years got to do with it? They are still the warmest on record, and at least some of that heat has had to come from greenhouse capture.
Well that of course applies either way (doesn't it just!!). The difference of course is that the laws of physics show that the wishful thinkers (aka GW deniers) rank with Canute's advisers when it comes to rationality. Never since Bishop Wilberforce has so much effort been squandered in so many attempts to bolster entrenched belief against evidence and theory.
Why do we coming up against this same old rubbish? The extra greenhouse energy is pushing the average temperature up. Any underlying trends overlay that rise. Plot annual average temperature over as many past years as you care to name, and you'll see a zigzag line representing hotter and cooler years. Overlaying that you'll see longer-term trends (most notably 11 years because of the sunspot cyle). But until about 200 years ago, the statistical underlying trend of all that was flat: no average rise in temperature. However, from about 1800, the line has shot up in a typical hockey stick curve. This rise is way outside any previous trend, and the only theoretical (not hypothetical) basis for it is greenhouse capture from the extra 100ppm of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere since then.
I repeat my challenge yet again: 100ppm CO2 captures a lot of heat, so where is it going if it isn't warming the atmosphere? Greenhouse warming is simple physics, so anyone with GCSE science should be able to answer that, and there's a Nobel Prize awaiting if you do.
Surely the fact that the Romans were growing grapes all over England indicates that 2000 years ago, temperatures were considerably warmer than those we are seeing now.
And I repeat again:if the cloud cover has increased due to other factors (say vastly increased particulate levels), the increased albedo may mean there has been no net anthropogenic warming.
Yawn.
So we have a bunch of "proper" scientists in one corner of the ring, and "GasDad" et al in the other. I'm assuming none of you sceptics/deniers are scientists? Or if you are, you're either not in the climate arena, or you're just ... dare I say it .... not very good? I seriously doubt scientists with recognised climate credentials would lurk on AVForums, and if they are, what are they doing arguing with the general public?
Do you all have opinions on e = mc2 as well? "It's a lie/con etc!".
It's easy to copy and paste opinions from www.globalsceptic.org or whatever your site of choice is, but how about putting your money where your mouth is and asking a "proper" scientist your questions? Or publishing a paper and getting it peer reviewed? Tip: having a blog doesn't count.
Or if that doesn't grab you, how about actively researching your viewpoint to get all the facts? You have the internet at your disposal!
Yes, we can all argue until we're blue in the face about the "hockey stick", viticulture and so on but I'll stand by the fact that nobody here knows what they're talking about.
I do have my fingers crossed that Copenhagen ends with some progress, where the people in the right place realise that the science is real.
Why does everyone get hung up on CO2?I don't deny that CO2 contributes to MMGW, but there are far more effective ways of reducing MMGW than reducing CO2 levels.Are we trying to reduce MMGW or just raise money using the environment as an excuse?
Methane accounts for 18% of MM GHGs and CO2 for 56% (National Academy of Sciences USA figures).Reducing Methane to 15% would have a greater reduction to MMGW than reducing CO2 to 0%

The last 10 years have been plenty warm enough to grow grapes in England. English wine is booming. And tbh, I have no idea what variety of grapes the Romans grew, what the quality was, whether it was red or white wine, whether it really was 'all over England', and how much was produced. Without those figures, it's difficult to draw any conclusions. My daughter's house in SE England had a flourishing open-air grape vine in the back garden when she bought it in 2003.
I fully agree. Note my emphases. If you can prove that these figures exactly match the greenhouse warming, can show why such an effect so fortuitously stabilises at the original temperature, and can show why it didn't happen on Venus, then you will have answered my question and the Nobel Prize awaits.
I didn't know I was in a corner - I'm just arguing against some of the absolutes of DPinBucks and others - when in reality all we have is working (set of) Hypothesis.
That doesn't mean I necessarily think the 'broad stoke' of the hypothesis of MMCC is wrong, just that I'd rather see science presented as science, rather than as so often happens in these debates as almost religious dogma.
In other words I'm not sceptical about the idea of MMCC, but rather how it is increasingly presented.
That is an incredibly bad analogy - the special theory of relativity (from which the above is derived) is a theory that has been tested time and time again. It is a well defined and demonstrated theory, in the sense that any theory that replaces (should that ever happen) have to account for all the predictions and models from the special theory of relativity.
Theories of MMCC, and the models that accompany them have not been tested to the same level.Can you not see the difference ?
I realise (short of waiting 100 years or so) it's rather hard to actually test many climate change predictions and models. But they are predictions, not the racing certainties that DPinBucks etc., allude to. If those shouting loudest added a few 'probables' into their statements I'd be happy.
The science may be real, but the manner in which it is presented creates doubts for many. Especially the manner in which sceptics are dealt with - point out the fallacy of their science, but don't resort to personal attacks.
I too hope there is progress, the cost of the insurance (because that is what we are really talking about) is around 2-3% of GDP globally - almost certainly a cost worth paying.However that cost will fall disproportionately on the poor of the world (in terms of diverted funding for projects etc.) and I do wonder how 'they' would vote.
Not sure I follow those figures. Assuming you refer to molecules of each gas (I'm not sure what else '18% of GHGs' could mean), then we currently have 18 molecules of CH4 per 56 CO2, and hence 26 of other greenhouse gases. That doesn't make sense: most GHG molecules are water.
However, let's ignore that for the moment. Each CH4 molecule traps as much heat as 8 of CO2. So removing 3 molecules of CH4 would be equivalent to removing 24 of CO2. So to get the same effect we can have a 15/56/26 or a 18/32/26 mix of CH4, CO2 & others. That doesn't bring the CO2 level to zero; in fact it's less than halved.
Mind you, that being said, you may have a point. However, comparing CO2 & CH4 in this way is fairly complex. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a very long time. Methane is quite reactive and soon burns to CO2 and water. That's not to say that human activity hasn't increased the overall level, but bringing it down might (I say might) be more difficult.