slifty!

>>here is nothing in the article of any of its links to indicate that real Scientists predicted that temparatures would increase in a straight line by a consistent amount year ion year.

You would have to be an idiot to expect such a thing- predictions of trends are just that- nobody in their right mind would suggest that for each year it should be exactly on the line?<<

Really?

Here is the OFFICIAL IPCC Assessment, the first one from 1990.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UCFlhvaPWAi

Here's the Annex where they give predictions.  They have a range but as you will see on page 336 of the report they do in fact predict that whether emissions are stable at 1990 levels or whether 1990 levels are cut in half, the temperature will in fact go up every year.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_annex.pdf

See why some of us will NOT roll over for IPCC?

>>As for the "missing heat" nobody suggests we have a complete understanding of short term mechanisms, but there is plenty of published reaserch ( by real peer- reviewed scientiss) which suggests that "The planet

algore.com

He IS hollering, still, that current trends will bring palm trees to the Antarctic

>>Co2 IS a greenhouse gas - the physics behind it are well understood - if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere,  average temparatures will tend to increase over time. surely you are not disputing this?
Nobody expects temparatures to go up in a straight line each year.<<

is this a joke? 

We were told the Consensus was that temperatures would go up in a straight line every year.  Al Gore?   Inconvenient Truth?  Nobel Prize?  Vague recollections stirring maybe?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/29/global-warming-alarmism-when-science-is-fiction/

The Greenhouse Effect means simply put, energy (solar heat) enters the atmosphere and doesn't leave.
If it's not present as heat, that energy in an equivalent form has to present SOMEWHERE, in a proportionate amount.
If it left the earth THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

The absence of heat is evidence directly challenging the notion that Terran levels of CO2 are anywhere near enough to trap solar energy like on Venus.

Yes Venus has a greenhouse effect.
It also has no oceans, no limestone and an atmosphere thick with acids, much denser than our own at sea level.

Rather than sink into Soviet science and repeat your conclusion and explain away the observations in light of the settled conclusion, do some real science and evaluate the conclusion in light of new observations...

>>Its religion not science that sticks to old dogma and ignores any evidence that conflicts with its belief system.<<

Soviet Science does that too, because it has a mission!

For instance, despite no drop in CO2 levels, temperatures over the past decade have been observed to be flat.

That's the observed facts.

If as you say, science does not ignore evidence that conflicts with its belief system...then it's time to reconsider whether pollution drives climate...

But you don't!  Instead of accepting the failure of AGW theory to explain flatlines you insist that until and unless evidence to the contrary is developed into a contrary complete and proved model of terrestrial climate, it doesn't count...

...and we can go forward accepting that pollution drives climate, except we haven't discovered the arbitrary, unexplained, massive climate process (on an order of magnitude equal to the missing heat energy of the entire planet for a decade) that is stealing the trapped heat and storing it.

How simple! Glory to the social authorities! Down with the rebels!

what I was taught in graduate school is that there is no certainty possible.  What you CAN achieve is professionally respectable procedures for selection and evaluation of evidence, in support of a hypothesis.

For instance, we cannot KNOW the population of France in 1150. We can make an educated guess, explain what evidence we think will support that guess, and then collect and evaluate it in such a way that peers will review it and say "yes he did not make serious mistakes in what to look for and how to consider it".   The highest goal of our profession would be, to have our peers say "there is no disagreement possible except with the original guess, for if we disagree with that guess it is time to find evidence that will support that contrary guess".

Now of course they will come along and say "Yes I agree with you the population of France was X, but a better test is canal traffic and taxation."  Or "The Population of France was Y, and the evidence is more grain and less sheep for trade wool".  You don't want somebody saying "I rechecked your math, and I come up with Y not X" cause that means you suck.

And then the whole profession benefits, because Adam says the population of France was X and look at the amount of mills; and Bob says Belgium by the same measure had a population of N; but Charles says Adam was wrong and the population of France was Y; and Doug contrasts the calculations of Adam and Charles; and Ed applies the Charles way to Belgium and re-evaluates Bob; and Frank reconsiders Ed in light of Doug; and Gilbert applies the Marxist critique of Adam; and Helen rips Charles for his chauvinistic ignorance of female economy in the Middle Ages; and by then Ichabod can write a history of the history of the population of France and make some nice zingers at his old profs.  All this makes it easy-peasy for Jake, Kelly and Lou to get graduate degrees which means they can teach Mike, Ned, Ollie and Paul how to guess at the population of France in the correct manner, having taught them a false simplistic way at the BA level.

But Soviet science says "The Party likes Guess #15" and then God help whoever seeks to challenge the Party. To challenge the Party is to overthrow the state!

And this is what I see coming with global warming and homosexual history and other "science"

Egghead: Let us suppose that industrial pollution drives climate, and explore all the evidence in support of that hypothesis
Me: Bearing in mind it might not drive climate, and the evidence may demonstrate that fact if we remain open to it.
Egghead: <taking out notebook> why should one wish to suppose that, Comrade?

I mean I don't forget I'm talking to Queequog and Raoul and Steve here, who only know from Ned Ollie and Paul how to guess the Kelly way.

> Mace wrote:

>  Either the US government hopes to recoup its investment or hopes that a slowed decline in GM will prevent a major collapse in US manufacturing and strong localised recessions.<

C govt doesn't give a damn, the Senate and House figures it can barter more $$ to bailout a failed GM every year to get their own goodies, the Presidents figure they can blame the need for a bailout on the last Administration, this is the new normal and we are headed to Greece.

I have been INSTRUCTED by keynesian obamanites that there is no potential debt crisis as the world economy will continue to buy American bonds at whatever level is necessary to keep the US govt afloat, as none of you dare suffer an American collapse

I suggested this was betting that the entire human race was too stupid to stop enriching America at their own expense and they said it wasn't stupid it was smart!

me I think you're not that dumb.

dumb enough

but not THAT dumb

it's their thing, they call it "Hand of God"

No, they are "discoveries" based on the postmodern prejudice that homosexuality is fully normal and therefore MUST have been accepted, so, go find evidence of it!

Such scholarship belongs in the same bin with "Celts = Phoenicians"

"I was not claiming that Christ committed gay deeds. I was implying that there was a large chance that he had, as in that time they were deemed as normal."

Not in Judea, it was a capital crime. 

Good causistry btw.  "I don't say you operate as a men's room 'attendant'; I merely imply that there's a measureable probability you have done so, as it's a legal act enjoyed in every large city"

""By who?"
The Romans, the dominant civilisation at that time (and the Greeks alike)."

Actually what a few celebrated was more like what we call, "child molestation".  And even those were regarded as inferiors who had wasted themselves.   Note well: they were not sinners in need of redemption, but rather, inferior specimens who had identified their true level and would be restricted from overreaching themselves.

"This is quite rapidly turning into a religious discussion pitting Christianity vs. the rest."

And that's a problem, why? You guys seem pretty insistent there be a right and a wrong way to run a railroad, might as well be a theocratic morality as a secular one.

Plato was spouting bullshit about what he wanted to see happen, which is about as solid authority as holding you endorse my views since they are posted online

tres gauche!