The scale here is quite interesting. The deviations from the actual temperature records could not be contained on the graph. I can not post the graph in this comment box, so please take a look at:

GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED
ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS
Per Year from 1851 to 1984

contained in the following link:

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=404

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/survey.html

Interesting, not that opinion polls make good science.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

If some company wanted to pay me to express my opinions on corn ethanol, or soy based biodiesel, I might be tempted to take their money. The downside would be that I would be attacked from that point on as being a shill to whoever it was that paid me. It would not, however, mean that I was wrong.

From an interview in Sciam five years ago:

"Lindzen agrees with the IPCC and most other climate scientists that the world has warmed about 0.5 degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. He agrees that human activities have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 30 percent. He parts company with the others when it comes to whether these facts are related. It's not that humans have no effect at all on climate. "They do," he admits, though with as much impact on the environment as when "a butterfly shuts its wings."

They also mention that he is fat and smokes cigarettes...

Seriously, though, here is where I would critique Lindzen. Anyone who equates the fact that we have increased CO2 content of an entire planet 30 percent and destroyed half of the forests on the same planet with the flapping of a butterfly wing has blinders on. It is hard to put stock in anything he says when he also says things that blatantly wrong.

His critique of the temperature graphs chips at global warming, but is buried by coincidental evidence like melting ice shelves, disappearing glaciers, record breaking hurricane seasons, truncated cold seasons, heat waves, forest fires, drought, and deluges, which by themselves don't mean much, but collectively, are getting hard to ignore. His critique of the temperature graphs are no doubt valid, but they are also imcomplete and inadequate. The weather is changing.

Also from Sciam:

From the late Asimov, "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

It is interesting to note that in 1988 when James Hansen made his famous senate appearance, Lindzen was uttering the same garbage: warming has leveled off.  And he used the same cherry picking technique.  Almost 20 years later now...tell me why anyone should care at all what he has to say these days?

It is equally interesting to note that he makes his case on advocacy websites, op eds in the WSJ and industry sponsored conferences, but not in the peer reviewed scientific literature anymore.  There is a reason.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

jabailo: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189

Feel free to search the guide before your next questions.

You're welcome.

During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.

Well, this raises a lot of points.   For one thing, I don't see a lot of data on what the effect of SO2 should be.   Other than a correlation (which doesn't imply causality) I want to know what SO2 does.

Ok, now to the coup de grâce.   If what you say is true, then the real problem is not a superabundance of CO2, but a lack of SO2.   We are not so much facing high CO2 levels, but a dearth of natural SO2.    If we want to solve this problem, we need to look into the geothermic processes that would normally be creating the vast amounts of SO2 needed to regular our planets temperature.

Last point, I really think that all this data, with is multivariate gases and particulates points more towards the cosmic ray thesis of Hans Svensmark, more than any anthropogenic theory.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

SO2 aerosol is produced by burning coal, and in many industrial processes, as well as by volcano eruptions. While the latter occurs naturally, none of the above are a positive from a human-based point of view.

Sulfates were the leading cause of acid rain, which damages infrastructure, and agricultural and natural ecosystem productivity. For example, many lakes in the Adirondacks became abiotic (ain't nothing living there) and forest productivity declined and tree mortality increased as a result of sulfate-driven acid rain. It also creates major health problems downwind (asthma, etc.) when present as an aerosol.

All of the above were caused by persistent sulfate outputs at coal burning plants and other industrial activities, which is what caused the EPA to regulate it through a cap-and-trade scheme. This is why the temperature remained stable during increased industrial activity post WWII.

I can find a bunch of citations, but do not see the need for it as the above is well established in the literature.

Transmission out.

If all years since 1916 have been warmer, that only means that 1916 was a cold record
If all years since 1956 have been warmer, that means 1956 was the second cold record since 1916
The same for 1976 and 1992.

We can use this argument to say that if 2005 is a warm record (and one can argue that one year is not a trend), it means that the precedent record was some years ago (I read 1998 somewhere). Then if we are in 2004, we can reasonnably say that
"each year since 1998 have been colder" and conclude there is a "global colding".

So this page means nothing (according to me)

You are correct about the evidential strength of the two facts you quoted.  But why do you ignore the fact of the ten hottest years on record in the last fifteen, and the others?  And how can you look at the graph and still claim there is no conclusive trend?

Only one way: being in denial of an obvious reality.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

also, if your theory is to be believed, then why couldnt they find any colder years since then, to use for their values in 1956, 1976, and 1992? even if they are picking the coldest years, then the coldest years are getting warmer as well arent they? and what does that mean? warming.

and lets not forget the really good graph provided, not to mention the 20 hottest years in the last 25.

Anyway, I wont go in the jillions of hard core facts I have that all point AWAY from CO2 as a cause, driver or even a contributor to climate "change" (just like the quadrillion of facts that all point AWAY from there being any god(s) in this universe, yet ignorami continue to believe...familiar scenario isn't it?)

I just want to put up a challenge in the form of a BET with anyone who's interested:

I will bet you $100,adjusted for inflation, that the average yearly temperature 20 years from now (2027) will be SIGNIFICANTLY COLDER than the same average for 2005 (or any year between 1900-1940 or 1980-2007). Any takers?

I wonder if you will still insist that AGW is just around the corner when you fork over your money to  me? Probably. Once ignorant and easily swayed, always so...

- Anthropogenic Global Warming is the name of a evil, moralistic DoomsDay Cult with gullible scared morons as members. Shame on you!