Somehow, you seem to know more than anyone on a number of subjects, as I have noticed in this thread and others. I am not just talking about other posters here, I am talking about professionals, who have been educated, trained and worked for years in their areas of expertise (in many areas, not just climate science). The scientists are wrong, the economists are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, etc.
Lawyers are employed only so long as the law is too complex for the layman to understand. As a result it is in their best interests to muddle things up. Lawyers can argue "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" into "can make it illegal to have one on you, buy one, have too much ammo for one, have one loaded in your own home, and outright ban them completely" and you expect honesty from them? The legal profession is a nightmare of self advancement, it's why so many people seriously advocate killing all the lawyers to fix society. When lawyers argue that plain English is a horrendously complex series of legal rulings twisting it around into the exact opposite, you're an idiot to go along with them. Black is not white simply because someone rules it so, it just means the legal framework is corrupt.
Keynesian economists are wrong because it's economics for retards fixated with a need to control things. Throwing up your hands and let the market take care of it's own problems is a scary idea. The ruling class needs to feel that they can solve all problems, so the theory is pushed in universities despite having been bunk all along. Wiemar republic anyone? Money is just paper, an economy is driven by production.
Scientists aren't scientists, they're people with degrees in a variety of fields. Most of them being referenced are professors. Norman Borlaug was a scientist, he was studying specific problems and researching ways around them. If you'd asked him about something outside his work without having him read up on the data used to make the presentation, Joe Blow would have been just as likely to be right. Some guy teaching chem 101 that reads an article without ever looking at the data they used to achieve their assumptions is not a scientist. They're a teacher. You have bought into an appeal to authority, without even checking their source, just as all those employed people with busy lives have in spite of their degrees. I checked. As such, I can indeed claim to be far more knowledgeable in this area than the vast majority of the peer reviewers and survey respondents that just happen to have degrees in vaguely related fields. Actual educated climatologists are all but non-existent. The people working on this "problem" aren't climatologists either, they're physicists, geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, paleo-climatologists.
The people you keep deriding for not being peer reviewed climatologists are people that actually do know what they're talking about. A retired meteorologist that was studying weather 60 years ago knows damn well that it's a crock of shit when they claim hurricane activity is abnormally high, it's not even high, let alone abnormal. There's a reason so many of these skeptics are current and former weathermen. It's their job to know that shit.
These people at the CRU are hardly the first scientists to fake results for funding. They're not even unusual. The length of time their con job has gone on isn't unusual either.
Nobody could predict that the sun remained so calm for the last few years... hardly any sunspots, the sun is cooler than normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It's fucking normal dude. The change from this cycle to the last is a small fraction of the change over the course of a cycle, and the cycles themselves didn't blunt the warming during the 80's and 90's. This is the exact same trend in solar activity that we had then. They did predict it, it's why the purple has that ever so slight decline in your slide starting in the 80's. You're arguing that something they wrote off as a rounding error has now magically screwed their whole trend up.
Or the occasional volcano, like in Island a few years back that blasts a blanket of particles into the air.
What volcanoes? The only halfway relevant volcanic eruption we've had in this time frame was the one in Iceland, and it was a 4, Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens were both significantly larger eruptions with major impacts, and global warming continued unabated through the 80's and 90's. Volcanic activity is low, not high.
From what I've read, once these things were incorporated into the models, they WERE able to model the temperatures reasobably well.
This is the reason why no-one should base long-term conclusions based on just an incidental misfit to 10 years of data.
Either the change in solar variance and the minor volcanic activity is more powerful than the increasing CO2, or it's not. We have accelerated global warming factors, but global warming is going in reverse. From what you've read, you should be able to grasp the fallacy in explaining a total change in direction with something that had little to no impact on the rate of climb previously.
