Has global warming stopped?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Look closely, I think you missed the 02-06 graphic.

No I didn't. That does not give the mean global temp.

It's a still photo showing temperature anomalies over that period of time. You don't know how to interpret those, do you?

I found the data that backs up the story. Global warming stopped in 2000.

There's a reason, Gary, why the only place that will support this nonsense is called junkscience.com:

Wrong guess dog, that was from NOAA. I just grabbed it from junkscience's web site. Care to try again?

Care to link me to that graph on NOAA's site?

The link is on the top of the graph. I have seen this same graph in several places.

I tried that web address. It ain't taking you to that graph. Check it out.

It takes you to the data they made the graph from. If you want to regraph it go ahead. I can see that the numbers on the data match the graph. Why are you resisting the truth?

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

[LuzyC 0]

I love you sweetie...

OK , [/font][/size][/color]

Thank you Luzy! Merry Christmas!

uh oh, mags has competition for mawilson's affections...........

Mags is always a sweetheart of everybody here..

I just can't wait to see her when she ''cutely pout '' to her hubby when she wants more cats!

I tried that to Gary but no effect.. no more new cats in the house..

My hubby gonna spank me her soon for keep hijacking this thread!!!..sorry...

[GaryC 7]

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

The site is called "junkscience" because man made global warming is founded on junk science.

Edited December 20, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

[GaryC 7]

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

Try this one. What is the reason for the insistance of all the links? You think I am making it up?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

Try this one. What is the reason for the insistance of all the links? You think I am making it up?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

I got your back Gary! The earth temp has been many degrees warmer than today and many degrees colder. It will be so again one day. Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

That money could be better spent on a myriad of other things that would better mankind and civilization. Like providing cheap pollution-free nuclear power or desalinization plants to provide water to make the deserts bloom and feed the world.

The poor countries are the ones that will bear the cost of this man-made global warming hoax with being condemned to perpetual poverty.

Poverty is the is what destroys the environment not capitalism. You want to see environmental destruction just go to one of these poor third world countries, now that is pollution. You can go to any city in America and never see such destruction.Because capitalism is the only way to clean the environment. Capitalism lowers the birth rate, creates incentive to clean and protect.

The worst polluting countries of all time were socialist countries, because there is no check on government when the government controls everything.

By the way Devilette, Who are you trying to convince with these Left-wing extremist kook web-sites. Just by listing such web-sites undermines your case, These are for freaks only, not normal people. Their goal is the extinction of humans from the face of the earth. Who is signing up for that? Duh....

Edited December 20, 2007 by Don_Joy's Prince

[GaryC 7]

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

Try this one. What is the reason for the insistance of all the links? You think I am making it up?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

Try this one. What is the reason for the insistance of all the links? You think I am making it up?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

Actually, Gary, it goes up to 2006 if you look closely. It shows that we were at a warming rate of .6C in 2000 and ended at about .7C in 2006. The graph visibly goes up from 2000 onward. If you care to see it, that is.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

I am all for getting away from fossil fuels. If we decrease the CO2 output at the same time so be it. It will at least make the GW nuts happy but in the end will change nothing. But instituting draconian measures to reduce CO2 will harm our economy. Did you read what came out of the Bali GW confrence? They want the devoloped countries to pay the less developed countries hundreds of billions of dollars because we got to emit CO2 for all these years while we were becoming industrialized. That is the real goal of the GW nuts. To tear us down so they can build up the rest of the world.

[GaryC 7]

Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

But it doens't. Try it for yourself.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/.../co2_mm_mlo.dat

takes you here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/

Why don't you link to the actual data or at least to some outlet that one can take seriously rather than taking garbage of a site called junkscience.com at face value?

Ok, if you insist. Here is one from NASA. Are they reputable enough for you?

Okay, here's what that link reveals.

I suppose that "+" really settles it.

Try this one. What is the reason for the insistance of all the links? You think I am making it up?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

Actually, Gary, it goes up to 2006 if you look closely. It shows that we were at a warming rate of .6C in 2000 and ended at about .7C in 2006. The graph visibly goes up from 2000 onward. If you care to see it, that is.

Both graphs are from the same source. Yours is only land readings. Mine is the ocean/land temps taken together. That is the real temperature of the planet.

Edited December 20, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

I am all for getting away from fossil fuels. If we decrease the CO2 output at the same time so be it. It will at least make the GW nuts happy but in the end will change nothing. But instituting draconian measures to reduce CO2 will harm our economy. Did you read what came out of the Bali GW confrence? They want the devoloped countries to pay the less developed countries hundreds of billions of dollars because we got to emit CO2 for all these years while we were becoming industrialized. That is the real goal of the GW nuts. To tear us down so they can build up the rest of the world.

Getting away from fossil fuels will necessarily decrease CO2 emissions. That's the future whether the US wants to believe in the negative effects of CO2 or not. The assistance to developing nations is to steer them away from repeating the same mistakes we've made for decades. It's the right approach. The developing nations will develop. They have to. It would be wise to help them develop in an ecologically sensitive manner seeing that they have multiples of the population of the developed world. India and China each have a larger population than the entire developed world combined. Imagine if they become energy and environmental pigs like we have become over the years. You'd be buying bottled air to breathe.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

Actually, Gary, it goes up to 2006 if you look closely. It shows that we were at a warming rate of .6C in 2000 and ended at about .7C in 2006. The graph visibly goes up from 2000 onward. If you care to see it, that is.

Both graphs are from the same source. Yours is only land readings. Mine is the ocean/land temps taken together. That is the real temperature of the planet.

The graph above is from your link, Gary. It shows the global temperature. And it hasn't stopped going up as you initially claimed.

[GaryC 7]

Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

I am all for getting away from fossil fuels. If we decrease the CO2 output at the same time so be it. It will at least make the GW nuts happy but in the end will change nothing. But instituting draconian measures to reduce CO2 will harm our economy. Did you read what came out of the Bali GW confrence? They want the devoloped countries to pay the less developed countries hundreds of billions of dollars because we got to emit CO2 for all these years while we were becoming industrialized. That is the real goal of the GW nuts. To tear us down so they can build up the rest of the world.

Getting away from fossil fuels will necessarily decrease CO2 emissions. That's the future whether the US wants to believe in the negative effects of CO2 or not. The assistance to developing nations is to steer them away from repeating the same mistakes we've made for decades. It's the right approach. The developing nations will develop. They have to. It would be wise to help them develop in an ecologically sensitive manner seeing that they have multiples of the population of the developed world. India and China each have a larger population than the entire developed world combined. Imagine if they become energy and environmental pigs like we have become over the years. You'd be buying bottled air to breathe.

This isn't "assistance" it's reperations. And I am not willing to destroy our economy to do it. You think the Iraq war is expensive? Try the hundreds of billions of dollars that they want us to give! Let them do it on their own. I have had enough of being the worlds piggy bank.

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

Actually, Gary, it goes up to 2006 if you look closely. It shows that we were at a warming rate of .6C in 2000 and ended at about .7C in 2006. The graph visibly goes up from 2000 onward. If you care to see it, that is.

Both graphs are from the same source. Yours is only land readings. Mine is the ocean/land temps taken together. That is the real temperature of the planet.

The graph above is from your link, Gary. It shows the global temperature. And it hasn't stopped going up as you initially claimed.

Yes it does. Look again at the one I posted. Since 2000 the temp has not gone up. Your only looking at the land temps, I am showing the land and sea temps. The oceans are part of the planet are they not?

Edited December 20, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That link presents the same data I presented earlier and I can't find the evidence there that the warming is over - the curve is going up. It ain't flat let alone is it receding.

That graph stops at 2000. Mine goes on to 2007. The whole point of the OP was that global temperatures stopped going up in 2000.

Actually, Gary, it goes up to 2006 if you look closely. It shows that we were at a warming rate of .6C in 2000 and ended at about .7C in 2006. The graph visibly goes up from 2000 onward. If you care to see it, that is.

Both graphs are from the same source. Yours is only land readings. Mine is the ocean/land temps taken together. That is the real temperature of the planet.

The graph above is from your link, Gary. It shows the global temperature. And it hasn't stopped going up as you initially claimed.

Yes it does. Look again at the one I posted. Since 2000 the temp has not gone up. Your only looking at the land temps, I am showing the land and sea temps. The oceans are part of the planet are they not?

Here's the graph for Land-Ocean temps from your link - still a rising trend past 2000: