Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[mOgliE]

"No temperature increase in 20 years"

Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making.

The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides.  Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search:

  http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

Of course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find.  The ocean is the usual culprit.  For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well.

The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point.  Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic.

Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes.  Scam?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo

And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo

Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.

The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.
It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.

[1714789907]

1714789907

[1714789907]

1714789907

[1714789907]

1714789907

[1714789907]

1714789907

[Spendulus]

"No temperature increase in 20 years"

Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making.

The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides.  Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search:

  http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

Of course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find.  The ocean is the usual culprit.  For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well.

The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point.  Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic.

Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes.  Scam?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo

And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo

Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.

The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.
It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.

If this (bolded) is the "real problem," then the real problem is that Warmers do not understand science, or how scientific facts are determined.  They do not understand statistical significance, or variance, or correlation.

And if that's the case, then you are being educated. 

if you are being educated, STFU and start learning.

[Spendulus]

Mrs. Sixpack says

Hey guys, I came across an interesting thriller. A friend sent me a copy of The Cassandra Sanction by Scott Mariani, knowing that it would interest me because it’s all about climate change, and also as a kind of joke as the hero has the same surname as me. It’s the only fictional book I’ve seen since ‘State of Fear’ that attacks the warmists with such ferocity. One of the characters is a beautiful woman scientist (has to be beautiful, of course!) who predicts a coming Ice Age. It’s a good read, and the science seems pretty solid to me. Nice to see a bestselling thriller writer weighing in on ‘our’ side in the fight! :-)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cassandra-Sanction-Scott-Mariani-ebook/dp/B012T976YW/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1438118371&sr=1-2&keywords=the+cassandra+sanction

Yes, State of Fear should be required reading.

It looks like Cass Sanction is not available on Amazon in the US.

[Schleicher]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

[tvbcof]

...

The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.
It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.
[/quote]

The chart I pulled up shows basically a flat line since around 2000.  The 'hiatus' over which there was much hand-wringing.  Alas, it doesn't show error bars.  If this 'hiatus' has been memory-holed, it has happened fairly recently.

It's actually quite difficult to show 'the average temp' in any sort of a meaningful plot for technical reasons (and political ones for that matter.)  No matter how one does it, though, it is quite accepted that the earth has been generally warming since about the last ice-age with various kinds of variation.  Much of the warming cannot have anything to do with forcing from humans burning fossil fuels since we were not doing so at these times.  That's my point.  I believe that a completely natural phenomenon has been latched on to in order to increase the wealth and power of certain groups.  It's a hypothesis that has much better explanatory power over the observations that I've been able to make.

The funny thing is that from what I read, 30% of the CO2 that humans have produced by burning fossil fuels has been released since 2000 which is when the computer model predictions started to go severely pear-shaped.  This in an of itself should completely destroy the theory of anthropogenic global climate change if the climate 'scientist' had any interest in science at all  Feynman explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

[notbatman]

...

The real problem here is the problem we the climate change believers.

FTFY

Did you know that socialism is a conspiracy promoted by the Tavistock Institute to centralize power and create herd mentality amongst the masses for easier control, manipulation and abuse by the ruling elites? I call socialist conspiracy on this global warming faux pas.

[tvbcof]

...

The real problem here is the problem we the climate change believers.

FTFY

Did you know that socialism is a conspiracy promoted by the Tavistock Institute to centralize power and create herd mentality amongst the masses for easier control, manipulation and abuse by the ruling elites? I call socialist conspiracy on this global warming faux pas.

I did not know that, and don't know what the Tavistock institute is.

When I finally decided to dive into the climate change issue (and I came in from the point of view the 'consensus' view was probably valid (or the 'left' so to speak) the first thing I ran across was the shenanigans on Wikipedia.  This was a phenomenon I'd seen in other sham/shill operations which I've been interested in (Zionist propaganda, naked short selling, vaccine issue.)  This put a bad taste in my mouth.  Next I moved on to the climategate e-mails and code/code comments.  That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach, and it did for a number of the scientists who 'flipped.'  Judith Curry in particular. 

Since then I've seen a steady stream of scammery and a steady stream of exploitation and a very clear incidents of hi-jacking the real environmental movement which did some good an necessary things to spur clean-up of the environment when I was a kid back in the 1970's.  Now they are almost totally a tool for the global elitists (esp, associated with the UN, IMF, WorldBank, etc) as far as I can tell.  And whatever Tavistock is, I would say that they may be on to something in associating the power structures behind corporate globalism with 'communism.'  The end result may be quite different in straight up economic system terms, but a lot of the lessons, tools, and tactics that they employ seem to be a good match for those used by the Soviets.

[galdur]

Tavistock has pushed a variety of socialism called Fabianism. It approaches its goals gradually rather than revolutionary. Kind of through attrition. It´s named after Fabius, the Roman who tired Hannibal down back then. Look up Fabianism, I think you´ll understand developments in the last decades much better.

[salinizm]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

THAT I could agree with. Banning should not be a solution.

banning is not a solution for such problems.. they must find another way to solve it..

[galdur]

If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.

[Wilikon]

If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.

The only way for the warmists to win 'their scientific argument' will be by force, banning and insults, not by reason.

[galdur]

If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.

The only way for the warmists to win 'their scientific argument' will be by force, banning and insults, not by reason.

Facebook is fast becoming the main media. And other social outlets. The more that common people discuss things the more the credibility of the garbage media and politicians and all their propaganda and agenda baggage evaporates.

[Hippie Tech]

February showers (it rained again last night and this morning) bring March flowers... that is unless hell freezes over for a few days...

[Spendulus]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase. 

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.

[valta4065]

You have three errors in your lecturing. We take them one by one.

No, the surface temperature is not primarily due to the temperatures at the Earth's core.  Study the "radiation budget", here is a link.  This is very well established science.

Here is the answer from a prime "warmer resource,"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

Common sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.

Here is a brief discussion of the energy budget.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit.

The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit. Three orbital variations contribute to interglacials. The first is a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, or eccentricity. The second is a shift in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the obliquity. The third is precession, or wobbling motion of Earth's axis.[1] Warm summers in the northern hemisphere occur when that hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Earth is nearest the sun in its elliptical orbit. Cool summers occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during that season. These effects are more pronounced when the eccentricity of the orbit is large. When the obliquity is large, seasonal changes are more extreme.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Finally, you have a rather interesting statement.

... making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

No scientific findings support the certainty in your statement (bolded.)  They cannot, because this is outright speculation.  Here is the statement corrected to a reasonable level.

... IF CO2 produced by man makes the Earth hotter this MIGHT CHANGE salinity which MIGHT AFFECT ocean currents which MIGHT influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

That's obvious speculation, why not just state it as such?  Obviously it isn't factual or supported by scientific findings.  It's totally reasonable to discuss as speculation, but it's unacceptable to consider or promote as fact.

At least you're trying to discuss.

1/ This point was to make you understand that the most important is not the total heat but how it's distributed. Earth core heat is reponsible for the most part of energy dissipated on our ground BUT has low impact on climate because it's very equally distributed. It just provides a "base temperature" everywhere of something like 200°.

2/"Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit."
That would be true if we were sure that only that cause Ice Age. But we're absolutely not. Variations of Sun activity, Earth's orbit and salinity of oceans. All of them have an impact. Of course Earth's orbit is a FUCKING IMPORTANT one that's for sure. But not the only one to consider, and at similar Earth's orbit, you might have or not an ice age depending on other factors such as salinity.

3/ Ok fair point. You're perfectly right as it is speculation. But not based on nothing, it's based on simulation. Of course simulations are by themselves outrageous speculations as you try to create a model of reality, which will never be complex enough to be sure of yourself.

[valta4065]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase. 

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.

But here is something I don't understand. The graphs show an increase. I mean they DO!
Unless we don't have the same definition of increase of course but... Well as an engineer with a good formation in statistics I feel like I do ^^

[Spendulus]

You have three errors in your lecturing. We take them one by one.

No, the surface temperature is not primarily due to the temperatures at the Earth's core.  Study the "radiation budget", here is a link.  This is very well established science.

Here is the answer from a prime "warmer resource,"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

Common sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.

Here is a brief discussion of the energy budget.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit.

The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit. Three orbital variations contribute to interglacials. The first is a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, or eccentricity. The second is a shift in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the obliquity. The third is precession, or wobbling motion of Earth's axis.[1] Warm summers in the northern hemisphere occur when that hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Earth is nearest the sun in its elliptical orbit. Cool summers occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during that season. These effects are more pronounced when the eccentricity of the orbit is large. When the obliquity is large, seasonal changes are more extreme.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Finally, you have a rather interesting statement.

... making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

No scientific findings support the certainty in your statement (bolded.)  They cannot, because this is outright speculation.  Here is the statement corrected to a reasonable level.

... IF CO2 produced by man makes the Earth hotter this MIGHT CHANGE salinity which MIGHT AFFECT ocean currents which MIGHT influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

That's obvious speculation, why not just state it as such?  Obviously it isn't factual or supported by scientific findings.  It's totally reasonable to discuss as speculation, but it's unacceptable to consider or promote as fact.

At least you're trying to discuss.

1/ This point was to make you understand that the most important is not the total heat but how it's distributed. Earth core heat is reponsible for the most part of energy dissipated on our ground BUT has low impact on climate because it's very equally distributed. It just provides a "base temperature" everywhere of something like 200°.

2/"Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit."
That would be true if we were sure that only that cause Ice Age. But we're absolutely not. Variations of Sun activity, Earth's orbit and salinity of oceans. All of them have an impact. Of course Earth's orbit is a FUCKING IMPORTANT one that's for sure. But not the only one to consider, and at similar Earth's orbit, you might have or not an ice age depending on other factors such as salinity.

3/ Ok fair point. You're perfectly right as it is speculation. But not based on nothing, it's based on simulation. Of course simulations are by themselves outrageous speculations as you try to create a model of reality, which will never be complex enough to be sure of yourself.

1.  Um, no, Earth's core is not responsible for the major part of energy dissipated.  Please help me out a bit here, just check the facts before posting.

Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget


2.  A necessary condition is the orbital changes, and that is a necessary and sufficient condition.  Changes in incoming radiation overpower things such as salinity.  In fact, changes in salinity occur randomly and chaotically in a chaotic system, don't they?  There is no argument here to be made regarding salinity as a driving force behind ice ages.  In fact, it's not the salinity but the changes in ocean currents, isn't it?  And those are not static and certainly will change with time.

3.  Arguing simulation of a mathematically chaotic system?   You really want to go down that road? 

 Instead of focusing on an issue of the type IF A THEN IF B THEN IF C THEN IF D MAYBE....

Why not just stick to reasonable certainties?  IF WE GET HIT BY A BIG ROCK FROM SPACE WE ARE FUCKED.

Let's call the above an 4IF argument.  Fair enough? Is this what you've got in support of AGW? 

LOL...any reasonable person would demand far better than that.  Because we can prove almost anything using a 4IF dialectic.

[Spendulus]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase.  

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.

But here is something I don't understand. The graphs show an increase. I mean they DO!
Unless we don't have the same definition of increase of course but... Well as an engineer with a good formation in statistics I feel like I do ^^

Alrighty.  Then you yourself can step through applying the formulas to the raw satellite data and proving for yourself that there is no significant trend.

But do me one favor - after you've proved that, get mad.  Get mad at people that fed you propaganda and lies.  Not me - I'm just a guy that pointed out that bit of math. I can't change it, it is what it is.

And it isn't this - this is a con game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw

[valta4065]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase.  

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.

But here is something I don't understand. The graphs show an increase. I mean they DO!
Unless we don't have the same definition of increase of course but... Well as an engineer with a good formation in statistics I feel like I do ^^

Alrighty.  Then you yourself can step through applying the formulas to the raw satellite data and proving for yourself that there is no significant trend.

But do me one favor - after you've proved that, get mad.  Get mad at people that fed you propaganda and lies.  Not me - I'm just a guy that pointed out that bit of math. I can't change it, it is what it is.

And it isn't this - this is a con game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw

Well OK gonna do that this weekend in my spare time.

But considering the data I've found, if what you say is true, well first I'd be really surprised, and then I'd like to know what statistical treatment they went through to give such results.

Any idea of where you can find this raw data?

[Spendulus]

I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."

I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase.  

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.

But here is something I don't understand. The graphs show an increase. I mean they DO!
Unless we don't have the same definition of increase of course but... Well as an engineer with a good formation in statistics I feel like I do ^^

Alrighty.  Then you yourself can step through applying the formulas to the raw satellite data and proving for yourself that there is no significant trend.

But do me one favor - after you've proved that, get mad.  Get mad at people that fed you propaganda and lies.  Not me - I'm just a guy that pointed out that bit of math. I can't change it, it is what it is.

And it isn't this - this is a con game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw

Well OK gonna do that this weekend in my spare time.

But considering the data I've found, if what you say is true, well first I'd be really surprised, and then I'd like to know what statistical treatment they went through to give such results.

Any idea of where you can find this raw data?

http://wp.me/P7y4l-9yA

I'd ignore the chart on "ocean heat content."  Nobody had a clue as to ocean heat content until this decade.  Rest of charts look okay.

Here is a simple reference on the UAH satellite data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

From this discussion you have the methods of interpreting the satellite data.

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

From this you can click on a graph and go to the time series measurement tool

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Any of those have a "download data" button.