Lolol....

Is funny coz is tru

true as that may be, firewing, I think yell wants to debate another topic.

yes and once you start challenging the Social Authority of those attempting to rally political pressure in favor of a "scientific" solution by challenging the hypothesis, you are attacked --in the name of Science

>>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!

Also an interesting fact

US NOAA weather stations show temps on average 1 degree higher than they should be.

What this means is we are .6 degrees under the 'median' established by AGW advocates.

Ofc a firing squad will show up to my door for this 'inconvienant fact'

>>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...

Sure.  There's no reason an architect can't interview a meteorologist and then write an article.  Go ahead and click on the link to the former IPCC meterologist, that's what it's there for.

I feel like you're making fun of me Selur,

I open a thread complaining of conformist groupthink orthodoxy in a manner reminiscent of the Soviet Union,

and you respond by
a) sending Al Gore down the memory hole and
b) complaining my sources are politically unreliable

There 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?

We have had and will contiune to have periods with faster than trend warming and of course with slower.

and regardless of that fact that 2000-2010 the trend was almost flat- it was still by far the warmest decade on record.

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

when the model doesn't match the observations then question the premise of the model, don't holler that mystery observations will confirm authority

I know that if outside energy is present in greater force in the atmosphere for years, and then, isn't present, it may well not be trapped by a greenhouse effect.

If there were no greenhouse effect, we can expect the outside energy to escape.

The absence of outside energy in the atmosphere is EVIDENCE in support of that theory.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_annex.pdf

Figures A.9 and following show they figured it would go straight up, as would be expected if heat was being trapped.

>>1) Is the Earth warming- I dont think there can be any dispute that it is.<<

Seems undisputed that temps flatlined for a decade, which isn't consistent with the greenhouse theory.

>>2) Does an increase in atmospheric CO2 contribute to that? - I think that again is certain. The scientific model pedicts that if tmospheric CO2 continues to increase then global temparatures will continue on an upward trend.<<

But temperatures didn't increase, and CO2 didn't dip.  This makes the greenhouse gas theory highly unlikely.  Heat can't be trapped AS HEAT, SOMETIMES, and other times just go away. 

>>3) Can they accurately predict from year to year what future temparaures will be? -  Nope  all they can do is predict a trend.<<

They didn't accurately predict a trend, they totally failed to predict a decade of flat temperatures.

you are a social traitor zarf

you question the authority of the praesidium

the hypothesis is settled

it is time to find the observations that will uphold it