*promote the science and not magic thinking!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 8:36am PST - promote requested by enoch.

Why does this have a NSFW label?

I'll remove it but it has to do with the thumbnail and it matching the title. NSFW changes the thumb to (small thumb) one i have chosen and is apropriate for my title. When a video is promoted,as this currently is, the thumb(if thats what its called) is in large version (different then small thumb which i created) and focuses on the gecko part of the video. Small NSFW thumb is more appropriate for what i am focusing on in the video.

...and now you know

There are some excellent explanations of how and why the 'appearance' of a 'global warming hiatus' can give a false impression of reality, how the system works, and what data must be ignored to give that impression/appearance.
Unfortunately, if I understood correctly, we can expect ocean surface temperatures to rise quickly soon, now that the circulation is slower (IPO higher), because it will be heated from above and below.
*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 10:00am PST - doublepromote requested by newtboy.

When your models continue to fail your agenda of global warming BS you invent deep water warming (IPO).

Whats the next excuse?

Hottest year on record except, of course, for all those places covered in snow. I wonder if the heat stopped hiding in the ocean: "It's virtually certain that California will have its warmest year on record, even if California has record cold in December." It's the warmest year even if it's simultaneously the coldest December (or winter) on record. That's what I call "useful" data. Maybe the heat only hides during certain months, and then comes out and then hides out again, like for the Holidays or something.

I gotta sympathize with the global warming folks who latch onto any data point they can use to promulgate the freakout... anything that justifies their existence (until they inevitably run out of improbable causes).

That's hilarious...invent? I guess they "invented" deep water and vertical currents too?

The climate models have not 'failed'. They are not designed to predict short term weather. They only predict long term global trends, and are pretty much right on by that measure (contrary to what Faux News seems to have told you). The models have always predicted colder winters and hotter summers, exactly what we're seeing.

You seem to think if the temperature goes down in winter, or one year is not hotter than the last, it's proof that 'global warming' is a myth/hoax. That's simply wrong. (I still have yet to hear a logical reasoning for anyone perpetrating such a 'hoax' though, scientists could clean up if any credentialed, peer reviewed climatologist could prove the hoax and sell that proof to industry, why has that not happened if it's about making money amorally?)

This 'invention'-deep water warming and IPO are not a new ideas, maybe it's just the first you've heard of them?

You're like a walking breathing parody of yourself.

I don't know whether you really can't wrap your head around concepts such as averages, or if you're just trying to be funny or something.

If you're honestly willing to ignore the vast majority of people who spend their lives studying a specific field for no other reason than you prefer trusting your gut, then the sympathy really needs to go entirely in your direction.

*nature *history

Adding video to channels (History, Nature) - requested by ant.

This guy's editing style drives me bananas. He speaks one sentence, cuts to a zoom to interrupt himself with the next sentence, then he interrupts that sentence, and again cuts to a zoom out to speak the next sentence. Repeat.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

As I'm sure you know, empirical data needs a theory in order to interpret it and make sense of it. So far, climate change models (i.e., the theories upon which their data is interpreted) have failed, by the proponents' own admissions. And they have not been able to disprove counter theories either. So the debate goes on within the scientific community. Meanwhile, activists, politicians, and "journalists" don't know how to come up with these theories, so they rely on what they know how to come up with: ideologies, rhetoric (which they, themselves, may not believe), hermeneutics and other poor substitutes for rationalist theory through which to interpret the data.

So far, all of the "arguments" I've heard in support of climate change draws upon the IPCC as the source of its "evidence." What they don't realize is that the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.

Since when do politicians decide on the "truth" about scientific fact?

That's not how science works.
You're just wrong. Models have not 'failed' just because Glen Beck said so.
The 'debate' in the scientific community ended over a decade ago.
You need to listen to someone else besides Faux news talking heads then. Scientists are out there, and right here trying to tell you the science, but if you don't like their data or conclusions you just claim they're liars and cut and paste a ton of right wing lies, confusion, and BS in rebuttal.
Find me a single SCIENTIFIC organization that still questions climate change as fact, and I'll show you an organization that's not really scientific but political masquerading as scientific.

Weather != climate.

moron.