Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

[HAL 9000 96]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

No need to get so defensive about your POV. I think I have explained it several times- you need to understand the difference between climate and weather to understand the observations and the time scales being made here.

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

No $hit Gary- science is not a static endeavor. Expecting the scientists to cater to your POV is even more antiscientific and illogical to those of us that review evidence and revise conclusions as well as mechanisms as the evidence is obtained.

As a scientist that caters to being able to separate the phenomena being looked at and misunderstood (no offense) by you, I strongly beg to differ and I implore you to set aside your rushing to conclusions before having a firm understanding of what it is you are concluding.

I don't "expect" any scientist to cater to my POV. However, until recently the consensus was that global temps would rise in a more or less linear fashion as CO2 levels went up. They had their models and everyone seem sure that they were right. When those models turned out to be wrong because of factors they didn't take into account they are now modifying them. Good, that is what I would expect. All I have been saying is they STILL don't know all the facts. Even when they modify their models with this new data they still cannot say what is going to happen. I have a personal opinion. It's one you don't share. I am still going to maintain that despite their revisions they still don't have it right. Just watch what happens in the next 8 years. The change in the consensus will happen. CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Then I really wonder what evidence you will need to convince yourself of what scientists have long suspected (scientific reasoning... nothing trivial there). If ever. Then concluding as you do that CO2 is/isn't a pollutant isn't exactly scientifically sound when you indeed are "waiting" for "proper" and true evidence to make a more complete picture.

Fact is, all the evidence that lends any real weight in the GW debate that you bring here, will always indicate that CO2 IS in fact, a causative agent of warming. Be it weather or be it climate. That I glean from months of having read the same data over and over. Arguing the cherrypicked data to favor the lack of causation is also extremely unscientific.

All you have to do, POV aside, is accept that it very well COULD be a causative agent, factor, or whatever you want to call it. Don't jump the gun by virtue of what you think could be a weather pattern (and confusing for climate) when the GW argument is quite altogether a different phenomenon.