An excellent article.  Thanks to all of you.

And is the Doctor Owen Hoffman the same Owen Hoffman who worked with me in Yosemite in the last century?

I have read all of Dan Botkin’s books, so I believe I know what he is saying. And he is not in the least saying what he is accused of saying here.

What he is saying is that change is permanent. Get used to it, folks. The earth will change. Human caused, sunspot caused, tilt in the earth’s axis caused—God caused. The earth is going to warm, and cool, and warm and cool again. We just won’t be here to see how it all comes out, because our bodies are changing, too. Next up for most of us, and eventually all of us—death.

Now you know how to read Dan Botkin. There is no such thing as a “balance of nature.” There is only perpetual change. Is he wrong? I sit on the very spot inhabited by ice sheets ten thousand years ago. What melted them? Global warming. And thank God, because I hate ice. There would not be a Seattle had not the forces of CHANGE melted the ice and freed the land.

That is how to read Dan Botkin. He “admits” to global warming. He just wants scientists to think for once about what they can and cannot do.

Wring your hands. Beat your chests. Call all of it irreversible. It is not irreversible. At some point in the future, all if it will change again. And change and change and change.

Is change human caused? Of course it is. But humans are part of the planet—part of the natural order of perpetual change. You don’t like the change? Tell people to stop having babies. And if you can’t force them to stop, you have change again. And change and change and change.

Bottom line: What are you going to do about it—you in the 98 percent? You agree and have peer-reviewed your agreement. That’s the wonderful thing about peer-review. You get to throw everyone else off the bus.

The trouble with Dr. Botkin is that he knows how to hang on—how to make people think. Believe me, we have had our own knockdowns over wind and solar power. I hate wind power and he does not. He rather has a whole book about what the human race can do to SOLVE global warming by eliminating fossil fuels.

Have any of the 98 percent read it? I doubt it. Because that book, like any Botkin book, comes with the humility to know what scientists cannot do. We can tinker and undoubtedly improve some things, but the earth will forever be out of our notion of balance, for after all, it is the earth.

Thank you, Dr. Runte.  I just checked and found that my local library has Dr. Botkin's book Forces of Change.  I'll read it as soon as I can.

Very good, Lee. Dan's classic work is THE MOON IN THE NAUTILUS SHELL: DISCORDANT HARMONIES RECONSIDERED, which is a second, wholly revised edtion of DISCORDANT HARMONIES: A NEW ECOLOGY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. For that volume, Dan was awarded a full-year fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., where we were colleagues, I on the staff and he a fellow. That was in 1978-79, after which he became chair of Environmental Studies and Professor of Biology at UC Santa Barbara, where we first met.

If anything, Dan has been consistent. He believes that scientists promise far too much when they talk about a "balance of nature." No one can promise any outcome when it comes to planet earth. Scientists rather need to study the dynamics of change and work within those parameters. From Thoreau and Lewis and Clark to renewable energy, Dan's books are all about understanding change.

On that score, his book about "solutions"--insofar as they are possible--is POWERING THE FUTURE: A SCIENTIST'S GUIDE TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Here you will find exactly what the alleged 98 percent of scientists claim they want--solutions to global warming--wind, solar, tides, and the eventual discontinuance of fossil fuels. Dan just will not say that change is human-caused alone, i.e., that we are somehow "responsible" for whatever change occurs just because it in fact occurred, and as much to the point, that simply by reverting to another behavior any change can be "reversed." 

The original environmental movement had that humility. I see none of that humility now. Just as likely, if someone pitched damming the Grand Canyon as a "solution" to global warming, those 98 percent of scientists would go along.

My thanks to the authors for their hard work.

Hi Lee Dalton, yes you and I worked together in Yosemite in 1969 and perhaps early 1970.  I never did obtain that elusive NPS permanent position, so I went on and got a Ph. D. instead.  However, I really enjoyed my work Yosemite as a park ranger-naturalist, and it was a pleasure this time to collaborate with my former Yosemite colleagues, Dr. John Lemons, Lyndel Meikle, and Ron Mackie, some 43 years later, to produce this special article for NPT.  Dr. Alfred Runte is also a Yosemite NPS alumnus, but I believe he worked in the park some years, if not a decade or so, after the rest of us had left (except for Ron Mackie of course).

Well, Owen, congratulations on that PhD.  We've exchanged some communications, but I wasn't aware of that.  You and Ron are two of several folks I remember from Yosemite for whom I've always had very high regard.

Keep smiling and have a wonderful Christmas!

Hi Owen, Yes, I was on the seasonal staff in Valley District from 1980 through 1983. A very memorable time indeed. When the concessionaire asked that I be--how should I put it?--"retrained," I began my research on YOSEMITE: THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS. I am slowly revising it now. Little has changed, and then again everything has changed, led by academic attacks on wilderness. It just wasn't like that in the 1980s when the history of the achievement seemed secure.

Meanwhile, all of us who were privileged to be a part of those "days" have much to be thankful for. To be sure, this debate reminds me of what Environmental Studies used to be like, again, when our best idea needed no apologies. At least on that point we all still agree.

Its pretty evident that a warming climate is vastly affecting the central valley of California.  It's not a stretch that 20 years from now people will be saying "remember when the Central Valley was one of the most productive food production regions in the country".  The way it's going, it will be a desert.  They are depleting the ground water at a rate that is unsustainable, and southern California's population is not sustianable, and will collapse under a long term drought.  I wouldn't doubt we see a mass migration out of LA in the coming decades.  People cheer 3 inches of rain and think the problem is solved, but that's not nearly going to recover the demands placed on the water resources.  This problem just doesn't stop and end in California.  Same thing has been happening in most of the interior west, in Texas, and many other areas of this country.  

And I don't take this site that seriously.  It's just mere entertainment.  The battles of the free Earth are not going to be won in the discussion forums of NPT. It seems this site is a battle between a lot of people that don't like the NPS because they were once slighted by an action around their "local park", and a lot of retired personnel that once worked in the system decades ago. I can't speak for everyone, but i've already long forgotten about the original article and whatever ECbucks stance was.

Gary, the really frightening thing about it all is that water woes are not unique to California.  Here in Utah, water is vastly overexpended.  Las Vegas is still trying to pirate ground water from Snake Valley to slake its ever growing thirst and waste.  But as long as most Americans are still able to have water coming out of their faucets when they want it, nothing will change.

When the water no longer flows, it will be much too late.

Ohh those days are coming closer and closer, Lee.  I saw it in the Wood River Valley of Idaho when I lived there.  People just sucked up ground water like it was unlimited and dosed it on kentucky blue grass which was not even close to being native to the great basin desert.  Just last year, people's wells started going dry from the "unlimited abundance" that they thought they had under them.  And that is in "underpopulated" part of the lower 48 that has suffered through a 5 year drought cycle that has not been very pretty.  It's not going to be fun during the next few decades watching the desert regions implode (the new rust belt), while a good portion of the US population sits next to depleting water sources.  In my opinion, it's already not very pretty.  The money people are going to save on "cheap gas" because of the fracking wars will instead be spent on increasing food prices due to the drought having its way on vast regions of this country.  And as they deplete the Ogallala aquifer to fuel the breadbasket, it's only going to hit a tipping point.  Fortunately, urban gardens and farming in old industrial warehouses is becoming a booming cottage industry in places like Japan and old industrial rust belt areas, so not all is lost.  And maybe some will realize that water is more precious than oil.  Eventually, more will figure that out when their faucets do go dry.

I think that human activity (data tampering) at GISS/NOAA/CRU is responsible for most of the reported warming over the past century. This should be the focus of CSU, if they were not just bunch policitcal hack activisits. The CSU is hardly credible and anyone with a credit card can join these fear mongering alarmist charlatans.

Kenji the dog joins UCS

Here are some real science facts:

* Artic sea extent is at a 10 year high.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

* Greenland ice sheet has gained a record amount of ice this Autumn.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

* Satellite temperatures are far more accurate than surface temperatures, and they show that temperatures are not warming, and are nowhere near a record.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

* The surface temperature record which the claims are based on has huge geographical gaps of no data, shown in gray. They have an error of at least half a degree, yet make claims of record heat at 0.01 degrees.

Junk science and fraud at its absolute worst.

* And even with all their endless data tampering, GISS is still below zero emissions scenario C.

These claims of record heat by NASA and NCDC are not even remotely credible. They are in defiance of all corroborating science, and are complete utter nonsense. 

The NPS should not persue any policies or regulations regarding climate change fraud.

Beachdumb:

Please note the following concerning the graphs and comments you submitted in response to our article:

1. The first graph you showed from the Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut Centre for Ocean and Ice (Denmark) (http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php) shows total Arctic sea ice extent for 2005–2014. As we mentioned in our article, sea ice extent is an indicator used in making forecasts and conclusions about the state of the Arctic; however, sea ice mass and volume often are more useful indicators. Further, had you read the text accompanying the graph you should have noted that based on satellite measurements the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago and that in particular during the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated.

2. The second and third graphs you show also are from data collected by the Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut Centre for Ocean and Ice. The second graph simply shows, for Greenland, this season’s daily contribution to the surface mass balance in Gts (blue line) compared to mean curves from historical model runs. The third graph shows the accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line) compared to a couple of other years. The grey area shows the high and low mean accumulated surface values for 1990–2011. If you had read the very same report that you took the graphs from, you would have read that based on satellite observations over the past ten years or so that Greenland is losing about 200 Gts of surface mass ice per year.

3. The fourth graph you showed is without much scientific merit. This graph has appeared on numerous climate change denialists’ websites. Why is it irrelevant? Because as we explained in our article sound science concerning temperature data typically covers longer time periods with the inclusion of running means. The data presented in this graph also begin, basically, with 1998–one of the warmest years of the recent past and therefore using it to draw an inference that there is a downward temperature slope, say, to 2014 is misleading. Choose another starting year and you get a different graph. For example, if one plots global mean temperatures and uses confidence intervals, one finds that from 1999–2010 there has been an increasing trend of 0.175 C per decade. One also finds that 2010 was the warmest year of the recent past, followed by 2005; forecasts are that 2014 will be the warmest year on record, or at least a close runner–up. 

As we also stated in our article, many recent observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia with widespread impacts on human and natural systems–the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. The changes also are unprecedented with respect to both the amount of change and the rate of change. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the earth’s surface than any decade since 1850. The period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30–period of the last 800 years and likely the warmest 30–year period of the past 1400 years.

4. In presenting your fifth graph, you neglect to state that all general circulation models, of which there are about 14 or so in common uses, contain different gaps in coverage. Scientists know the gaps, but take them into account when studying the utility of the models or when making projections based on various scenarios.

5. Finally, your sixth and last graph is irrelevant. It appears to be an old graph of one of Dr. Hansen’s three scenarios that he used when alerting the world to global climate change in 1988. This graph, which you present, is not used in making assessments of on–going global climate change or future projections.

Dr. John Lemons

Dr. Owen Hoffman

This graph, which you present, is not used in making assessments of on–going global climate change or future projections.

Of course it isn't because it proved the past predictions horribly wrong.

For example, if one plots global mean temperatures and uses confidence intervals, one finds that from 1999–2010 there has been an increasing trend of 0.175 C per decade.

I though you were an expert in math.  If so you are well aware that in proper trend analysis the start year has no more influence than the finish year, or any othe year for that matter.  1999-2010 may indeed show a rising trend.  Its a different period.  For the last 18 years, the trend has been flat despite steady increases in CO2 emmissions.  That's not what the AWG models predicted.  The AWG models have been horribly wrong. 

Perhaps you might benefit in these types of discussions if you knew the difference between 'predictions' and scenario 'projections when used in global climate change science.

(carried over where I posted on wrong thread)

I'm so sorry John, let me correct myself.  Your "scenario projections" have been horribly wrong.  Its tough keeping up with this Orwellian double speak. Oh, and the "predictions" have been horribly wrong as well. 

Increases in regional droughts and floods

Do you mean like California?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-caus...

Just another example of the alarmist citing natural fluctuations as "evidence" of AGW.

<<LIMA, Peru (AP) — With temperature data showing 2014 currently tied for the hottest year on record, the U.N. weather agency on Wednesday rejected claims that global warming has paused.

The World Meteorological Organization said the global average temperature in January-October was 0.57 Celsius (1.03 Fahrenheit) above average, the same as in record hot year 2010.

The ocean temperature set a new record in the nine-month period, while land temperatures were the fourth or fifth highest since record-keeping began in the 19th century, the WMO said in a report released at U.N. climate talks in Lima and at its headquarters in Geneva.

"The provisional information for 2014 means that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement. "There is no standstill in global warming."

Climate skeptics point to a perceived hiatus in the temperature rise since 1998, an exceptionally hot year, to support their claims that man-made warming is not a big problem. Most climate scientists reject that idea. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University said the long-term warming trend is combined with natural variations that tend to be cyclical, with a period of lower-than-average warming followed by a period of rapid warming.>>

Owen. If 2000 was the highest temperature ever and the 13 of the next 14 years were the same temperature then, 14 of the last 15 years would be the hottest on record.  Yet, the trend would be flat for those 15 years - despite a steady increase in co2.  The predictions have been horribly wrong. 

2010 was the warmest year on record. Globally, the ten hottest years in record have all been since 1998 with 2005 and 2010 being hotter than 1998.

Looked at another way, in the 20th Century there was only one year in the top ten. In the 21st Century, there have been nine years in the top ten. With only one more month to go, 2014 may be the hottest year on record.

the climate is warming - there is no fact you can point to that denies that. You can argue that CO2 is not the cause.

I still think it was a very poor editorial choice for NPT to give a forum to climate science denialists and give the false impression that there's pervasive uncertainty about this issue. This fiasco was a disservice to your readers.

Current global climate models accurately reflect long-term trends in observational data of climate change when natural and anthropogenic carbon dioxide are included.  When anthropogenic green house gas emissions are not included, an increasing trend in global warming is not evident. 

For further reading, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

Current global climate models accurately reflect long-term trends in observational data of climate change when natural and anthropogenic carbon dioxide is included.

Baloney.  Please provide examples of models that ten years ago accurately forecast the recent 18 year lull in rising temperatures. 

I still think it was a very poor editorial choice for NPT to give a forum to climate science denialists and give the false impression that there's pervasive uncertainty about this issue.

Yes, rdm24, let's "hide the decline".  Why are you so afraid of an open discussion of the issue?  Not so confident in what you want to believe?

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm:  

<<Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.>>

Owen,

You said that sea ice extent is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. But history tells us it was like that 60 years ago.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/

The sea ice extents are larger and ice is getting thicker. NSIDC just said this was just another extremely ordinary year for sea ice.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/12/extremely-ordinary/

History says 75 years ago Greenland's ice was catastrophically loosing just as many Gts. Ever wonder why they called it Greenland?

http://trove.nla.gov.au

How can it be irrelevant? It just copies of all the major climate data (NASA, Hadcrut, UHI, and others) from satellite systems, surface records, and allows you to plot using the data. Might to be too complicated for you guys. There is actually much more accurate satellite data (RSS TLT) that shows 2014 as being quite an ordinary year. In fact also shows the continuing 18 year cooling trend.

I have seen the considerations and projections based on made up data, the only way to claim 2014 is the hottest year ever.

(edit) this satellite image black is no data, the fill is "made up" data

I think an organization with a name like yours would actually be concerned about what is being "modeled". The models and projections have been wrong and very wrong. 

In fact also shows the continuing 18 year cooling trend.

The trend that not a single AGW model predicted (sceneriod) 20 years ago. 

From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/12/extremely-ordinary/.  

The NSIDC conclusion about an "ordinary" increase in ice in November 2014 is with respect to the increase in Arctic ice compared with ice cover during the previous months in 2014.  However, comparing Arctic sea ice in November of 2014 with past Novembers from the satellite record, NSIDC has this to say:

<<Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for November extent over the satellite record is 4.7% per decade.>>

Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record.

Which would be totally consistent with a flattening trend in temperatures but inconsistent with a claim that CO2 causes global warming.

Give it up, already EC.  If people actually cared about your constant harping on this subject, you'd have at least a few people chime in saying you are right.  Stick to real estate, which doesn't take any scientific knowledge.  This site was a lot more readable a few weeks ago when you weren't on here hijacking every thread 24/7.  And I take it, since you were in Hawaii, you didn't stop by Mauna Loa to tell all the scientists that their efforts are meaningless and wrong, according to YOU! 

Testing current climate models against existing instrumental records indicates that increases in CO2 is the primary cause for global warming.  Climate models are unable to reproduce observed long-term averaged trends in global temperature rise, unless human-caused increases in CO2 are added into the models.  No other factors can account for this long-term upward trend in temperature increase.

Global climate models also replicate other climate outcomes, subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm.

We wrote our rebuttal article “Global Climate Change and National Parks: Another Response” in reply to Dr. Daniel Botkin’s article because we believed he had used scant and highly questionable information in making his conclusion that a significant amount of global climate change is not attributed to humans and, in so doing, could influence others’ thinking in a way that might have adverse impacts in national parks and protected areas by, for example, sowing doubts in the minds of non–climate change scientists.

When thinking about whether to write our reply, all of the coauthors were concerned that a lot of Dr. Botkin’s article merely focused on the question about the human attribution of global climate change. We debated the wisdom of writing a reply because it might seem to give legitimacy to a question that has been settled for some time within the scientific community. That is, as we pointed out the question of human attribution to global climate change is settled by about 98 percent of published global climate change scientists.

Despite our initial misgivings about writing a rebuttal article, we decided doing so was warranted because of the prominence of Dr. Botkin’s article as a feature in National Parks Traveler. 

However, in reviewing the information and interpretations used by ‘Ecbuck and Beachdumb’ and various replies to them we do believe that there is little to be gained by continuing to respond to their incessant use of dubious scientific information and erroneous conclusions. Again, the reason is because constant replies to such information and interpretations lead to possible confusion within non–experts about global climate change and about whether there is significant disagreement among such scientists when, in fact, there is none. 

Given our views, we tend to agree with the comments submitted by ‘rdm24’ and Gary Wilson. Put differently, there are a lot of questions about science and policy that is ripe for research and discussion, but the fundamental question of human attribution to global climate change is not one of them. 

John Lemons

Owen Hoffman

Lyndel Meikle

Ron Mackie

In other words, we can't defend our position anymore so we are taking our ball and going home.  

I'd like to thank the authors of the article for their patience.

When it is time to move on, your job well done, there will always be that guy living in his own world who will try to tear you down. Walk on by.

Beachdumb and EC

I just don't get why you think all these people are so stupid or devious to try to warn others of this giant pot hole (global warming)  looming down the road. Wouldn't you guys at least slow down instead of telling everyone else no problem, full steam ahead and these guys and their friends (the greater majority of the scientific community) are just blowing smoke up everyones behind.

If you think the earth can take this same kind of abuse for another 100 years you are living in fantasy land.

Thanks to John Lemons, Owen Hoffman, Lyndel Meikle and Ron Mackie for stating their case. 

This isn't a game, EC.  There is no ball, and there is nothing to be won.  If it was a game, you'd be sitting at the bottom of the standings, with a good chance of drafting second after Beach.

You are right Gary - its not a game.  Pursuing the path of your AGW fantasy will have meaningful negative impacts on us Americans and be devastating to the third world. 

Stop feeding trolls and they just might go away.

The IGNORE button really does make life a lot more peaceful on here and allows one to enjoy some very pertinent posts.

Agreed on the IGNORE  button. Spread the word.

To National Parks Traveler

11 Dec 2014

Re: Recent Prof. Dan Botkin piece on “Global Warming” & National Parks,   the UCS rebuttal and the NPT staff submitted rebuttal.

I am retired from two former careers: I served as a Captain in the US Navy, during which I had command of Naval Reserve Intelligence Units, in the New York area. Concurrently I worked as a Certified Management Consultant [CMC] for over 30 years. I have had a deep interest in the global warming controversy and I have followed the opposing arguments for years as the stridency has increased.

I have great regard for our National Parks and I am one of those lay people referred to in the second rebuttal of December 4^th as the intended audience. The writers say they want to serve “people who are not experts in global climate change but who want solid, verifiable and current wisdom…”

I’ll begin with an observation about the UCS rebuttal and those few virtues they say they wish to uphold. In my opinion, their rebuttal to Dr. Botkin falls short of delivering those virtues: solid, verifiable, current wisdom. Best example, one that Botkin points out: None of the models so widely touted as the foundation for global warming forecasts have been validated by solid standards for computer modeling. Plus, the emerging empirical data are simply not tracking to corroborate claims about human caused warming.

It seems to me Prof. Botkin presented clear, concise, and persuasive information. in making the case challenging claims that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is the prime mover in what are called disastrous rates of warming. The Prof. could not go on at great length in this forum. Yet he is taken to task for providing thin support, among other criticisms. As I understand his reasoning in the NPT article and in his other books I have read, he acknowledges some human factor in warming causation, but disagrees with assertions about it being the dominant cause.

Why is it so out of the question for the UCS and so many of like mind to give any credence to numerous serious recent studies showing that many disaster claims are ill-founded on many basic assertions? Prof. Botkin points out some of these in the UCS article: 1. Supposed Human Caused Rising Sea Levels as human caused. 2. The Frequency of Major Storms. 3. The Severity of Recent Storms. 4. Frequency of Extremely Hot Days. 5. Frequency of Wild Fires? These are so often cited as increasingly severe disasters of human causation. Botkin makes the case that these claims are not well supported and that public policy should not be driven by them while possibly solvable environmental issues go unaddressed.

Why should we accept condescending claims from a wide circle of zealous believers who assail us with such pronouncements as: “The science is settled”; “97% of world scientists support these assertions”; The discredited  “Balance of Nature” theory; and that all claims to the contrary must be vigorously rejected? These claims of consensus and worldwide agreement have been exposed as invalid, and antithetical to the rigors of proper scientific method. None of this consensus business can be respected as science. It should be seen as politics wrapped in pseudo science.

I agree with Prof. Botkin in his sensible exhortation that we reject name calling and vitriol that deflect attention from practical efforts at solutions in the way that Olmstead did at Boston’s Back Bay Fens Park. This should be our model for present day policy.

Let’s face it folks, there has been far too much cant and even clear evidence of fraud in these matters by entities in England, the US and elsewhere. The examples are so well known they need no further recitation here. We need to admire authoritative voices of reason and defend them from irresponsible rejection and charges of heresy. There are increasing numbers of voices of reason speaking out. I think Professor Dan Botkin comes across as one to listen to.

In closing I must declare that this attempt at scholarly rebuttal does not burnish the UCS reputation. There is too much evidence here indicating they favor only the AGW point of view and refuse to fairly acknowledge any challenging findings. This does not enhance the dialogue.

I do applaud the National Parks Traveler for making all this material available on the web on a topic that deserves widespread serious attention.

Kenneth L.Purdy, Captain, USNR, Ret, CMC

Ken - it's damn nice of you to say such nice things about Botkin, an old high school classmate and friend of yours, just like it was nice of him to acknowledge your help in editing his book right there along with his wife and all of his other colleagues. ["Moon in Nautilus Shell", pg ix]

I mean, as far as listing all your admittedly nice career credentials, you might as well mention your bias as well.

I've been around bombs. Never really cared much for bomb jokes.

I mean, as far as listing all your admittedly nice career credentials, you might as well mention your bias as well.

Once again, Rick, lacking the skills to address the points made, attacks the author. 

Quietest 3 years for twisters on record

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/13/tornado-drought/2024006... exact opposite of the AGW predictions.  The AGW models have been horribly wrong. 

An excellent summary about the evidence and causes of global climate change can be obtained online as a pdf issued by the US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society of the United Kingdom. I consider these organizations to be highly credible sources of scientific information.

Climate Change Evidence & Causes

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

The document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities.  Here are two brief excerpts addressing issues that have been raised repeatedly on this and other discussion threads by adament climate change deniers:

Does the rate of warming vary from one decade to another?  Yes. The observed warming rate has varied from year to year, decade to decade, and place to place, as is expected from our understanding of the climate system. These shorter term variations are mostly due to natural causes, and do not contradict our fundamental understanding that the long-term warming trend is primarily due to human-induced changes in the atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?  No. Since the very warm year 1998 that followed the strong 1997-98 El Niño, the increase in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decadeof rapid temperature increases. Despite the slower rate of warming the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. A short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arisingfrom human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.

Much more pertinent information is contained in the main report.  I highly recommend it for further reading.  http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

A short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arisingfrom human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.

It doesn't invalidate his "understanding" it does invalidate his claim.  Claim, global warming is caused by increasing CO2.  Fact, CO2 increases dramatically over nearly two decades and temperatures remain flat.  Rational conclusion?  CO2 does not cause global warming.  The models have been horribly wrong.  To say it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

Owen, am I correct in thinking that at lease some of the denial spouted by deniers is due to slower warmnig of the atmosphere while oceans are continuing to become warmer and warmer?  Our oceans are heat sinks that will at some point become the tipping mechanism.

Correct?

Lee, you are correct. Much more information about this can be obtained from the joint NAS/RS report, which has been authored by a collective team of climate scientists and peer reviewed.   I find that "global climate change deniers" are actively engaged in a political campaign repeating the same pseudo facts over and over again in online media.  I have a very high regard for the following report. It's worth your time to look through. 

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-ch...