No no no, it's because people weren't evolved enough to grasp the proper way to use a thermometer yet!  Humans from the 1930's were like a completely different species, it was too difficult for them to comprehend the concept that a maximum temperature marker would need to be dropped down later if they were checking it near peak temperature.

You can get any answer you want when thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for.

One of the global warming signals I missed, until collecting the mail in my bare feet, is just how much hotter concrete is getting under the midday sun these days.

Oh wait, I remember how it used to burn my tootsies like all buggery 50 years ago.

Hehe, does anybody get the idea I thought the global warming debate was over 'like' 96 pages ago.... and that I'm just taking the piss to have a bit of fun... at the expense of 'so-called' global warming?

I love this shit - we might not want to mothball all those coal-fired electric plants just yet.

Here comes another Maunder Minimum?

If you want to deny something exists you can come up with all sorts of crackpot theories.

The facts are the facts whether or not you choose to believe them. After the facts everything else is just opinion.

People will still be arguing about this when the Earth has burned to a crisp

Logically speaking, if the Earth burns up or freezes over (latest prediction), the people wouldn't be alive arguing this.

Unless they left for some other planet like maybe Vulcan? 

Clearly, CO2 levels are causing the sun spot activity.

Here is the best way to stump global warming alarmists: Don't deny their claims, have them answer two questions: So what? What now? Either they have no answer, or they believe in some socialist redistribution of wealth plan. Either way, you win.

In hindsight, calling it "Global Warming" was a mistake, since the vast swathes of nincompoops of the planet thinks that their little corner is destined to get warmer, and cannot comprehend that warming on a global scale has far-reaching consequences that may, paradoxically, end up increasing rainfall in one place, making it colder in another, and turn the equator into one massive desert, all at once.

Calling it global warming was a mistake because the planet wasn't actually in a sharp warming trend to begin with.  We have been on a completely normal warming trend, with a multitude of recent(last few thousand years) and not so recent examples of both bigger and more rapid changes in both direction in tree and ice records.  To the contrary of every environmentalist's wet dream, our little blip of an increase wouldn't even be a footnote in the last thousand years.  The medieval warming period popped over a centigrade a century into the Greenland ice cores.  We only managed half that before it peaked in the late 30's, early 40's.

The only way they've maintained the charade this long is by doctoring the temperature record to show past temperatures to be significantly lower than they were.  Somehow, over the last 25 years, mankind magically became too fucking stupid to use a thermometer correctly and we've been "correcting" their errors in our infinite wisdom, as a more evolved species which now understands that it needs to reset the maximum temperature at a time other than when it's reading the maximum temperature.

I don't need crackpot theories to discredit global warming/climate change.... the idiots who keep moving the goal posts with the original global warming theory are doing a fine enough job on their own.  I mean, first it was global warming, but when real data didn't support that theory anymore, it was conveniently changed to climate change so's greedy corporations and governments could continue money grubbing in the name of saving the planet.  The emphasis was still on a warming planet, however.... until actual data started coming in to suggest that the planet may in fact be cooling and another ice age may be imminent.

Seems to me that the whole climate change thing is in tatters, with more and more people becoming skeptical and disbelieving of it all.... with evidence to support recurring natural events that have been occurring for centuries.  There were severe droughts and flooding back in Moses' day... and I'm sure they were all releasing cubic tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And yeah, when the subject comes up these days, I'm hearing people who were once believers calling the whole facade a money grubbing exercise by the powers that be.... and that's exactly what it is.

So that's why various non-medical scientists are called doctors.  And it answers a lot of unanswered questions....except for how long they've been pulling the wool over our eyes on various things.

I mean, are we absolutely certain space is out there.... and we're not residing on a giant bauble hanging from a humongous being's Xmas tree.

Starkers, I'm not so sure there are an increasing number of skeptics, aside from vocal people on forums and Facebook. I challenge you to ask 10 random people "how much has the Earth warmed in the last decade", and you will get answers ranging from 5 to 20 degrees F. For one, our schools are shoving it down childrens' throats, and the average parent isn't engaged enough to correct their knowledge. Two, news media, entertainment, and politicians are shoving it down our throats, never providing numbers to back up their claims but always trying to scare us. Three, if you publicly attempt to refute claims of global warming, even using actual facts and data, you are declared an ignorant denier, yelled down and shunned from discussion on the topic. In that kind of society, it is difficult for anyone but the truth seekers of the world to look at the issue with a critical eye. There aren't many people I know who are willing to be truth seekers, if that means you go against the societal grain. There's just too many sheep.

You don't want the truth. What you want is for people to agree with your opinion.

What I want is for opinion to line up with facts, and that includes factoring in facts that don't support preconceived notions, something both the alarmists and the deniers repeatedly fail to do. It's not as settled as they think, one way or the other; they're only looking at data selectively. That is bad science. In fact it's far closer to a religion. That's right Fuzzy, your opinion on climate change is akin to a religion.

The truth will set us free. If the deniers are right, that's a lot of worry society can shrug off. If the alarmists are right, we still have time to act. If it's somewhere in the middle, technology through capitalism can provide the solution; or enforcement with guns works too, but I don't like that idea. What we MUST NOT do is act rashly until we have learned the truth. And unfortunately that truth is very difficult to determine with climate models. Anyone who wants to take drastic action to solve a problem we don't even know for sure exists can go pound sand.

Strangely enough, I've had people who previously argued black and blue with me that global warming is a fact come back with the alternative point of view, and not just one or two of them, either.  Then there were those who were sitting on the fence, with quite a few since rejecting the theory.... and that's all it is.... a theory.

You're spot on about the theory being forced down our throats from all corners, but that's the power of the corporations seeking to profit from the lie it is.  They're not going to give up easily on it... there's still a percentage of the worlds wealth they don't have yet.  And the last bloke who tried to shout me down over it got a short sharp hit to the solar plexus and had the stuffing knocked right out of him.  Yeah, he got right up in my face and was finger pointing and spitting, and when he refused to cease and desist I sat him on his arse and gasping for breath.

No, I don't !!!   In fact, I don't have an opinion until such time as somebody tries to force this global warming crap down my throat.  I'm not one to swallow bullshit. As for the truth, that will become self-evident when true scientists who aren't driven by a monetary agenda produce data to the contrary.

This will not be resolved by 'true scientists' for the simple reason that 'climate science' is not 'true' science and never can be.  It's nothing more than an elaborate 'peer-reviewed' computer game.

It's "true" science, it's just dealing with a lot of variables that can't be fully measured.  You can draw some pretty accurate data despite that- this is the foundation of scientific statistics.

Data aren't 'drawn' - they're measured.  GIGO applies, to the max, in climate 'science'.

And this is precisely why global warming/climate change theories fall flat on their arse.... immeasurable variables and too much supposition.... computer models based of iffy projections.

Yeah, right!   That's like saying you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  I mean, a builder isn't going to build a house on immeasurable variables and come up with something that'd meet building code standards.  It may be habitable [for those willing to compromise] but the finished product would be found to be wanting.... like the global warming theory.  And a flawed theory at that!  Given it is based on immeasurable variables, doctored data and lopsided computer models, proponents of man-made global warming/climate change continue to struggle to sell the theory to rational, thinking people.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/scientists_warning_of_global_cooling_once_again.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Is mini ice age coming?

Asked and answered.

Just can't help it:  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

If only that was new news...

Although I guess it did get steeper with their latest revision, but really, same old shtick.

Interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11762680/Three-scientists-investigating-melting-Arctic-ice-may-have-been-assassinated-professor-claims.html

"The oil industry or else sinister government forces might be implicated" or "I can only think of the oil lobby but I don't think the oil lobby goes around killing people." - Peter Wadhams

..and here is some bio information on Peter Wadhams: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pw11/. He runs the Polar Ocean Physics Group: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/pop/

"Steven Goddard" is a well known kook with no relevant training or credentials. His statements about Venus are laughably false, such that even a small child could debunk them, given the same data. Far from a trustworthy source, except perhaps as a source of unintentional comedy. He's barely a cut above Richard C. Hoagland.