What a time for the forums to explode. Serves me right for bothering to link sources that will probably be ignored...
Short version follows:
Arctic ice. I know, it's long. All you idiots yammering over the disappearance need to read it though. Massive hole in the "established" science on the topic.
Stop picking on poly sci majors and go after Richard Lindzen or something. Trashing them for talking about poly sci topics(AGW has like 20 billion just in US government funding behind it regardless of your refusal to admit it) is low.
Stop using GISTEMP. Seriously, even Jones doesn't like it, and his numbers are just as cooked. Try these instead. They aren't being manually altered, and show the actual trends.
For those of you confused by this Mumbles directed information, both my reply and his post were et. Hopefully, it makes sense to him. Well, ok, I'm not really hopeful, more like resigned but too stupid to stop posting, but humor is the only thing left to live for so I have to do something.
Lastly, as there seems to be some serious confusion here, usually because you're idiots that don't know what you're talking about, some minor clarification. Apparently, no one bothered to read the transcripts, so no one knows what "statistically significant global warming" means. No Mumbles, it's not because they picked the time frame of 1995-2009. Read it. For those of you too fucking lazy to be wasting our oxygen supply, it's because warming trends of equal significance to even the high estimates of the current one just happen to predate industrialization.
I also read the transcript for the hearing as well. I know I'm supposed to be a redneck conservative that only reads blogs(I'm not real sure rednecks actually have computers to start with, but I'll work with it anyway), but this particularly stupid back and forth just bugged me. Especially since a certain someone, frequently named, persisted in posting more visuals to GISTEMP...
New material, smoking nonsense.
As you say "grossly overblown" is a subjective term but that doesn't mean it’s totally unquantifiable. Certainly if I had swagged some numbers for second hand smoke from memory and happened to say the risk was 40% greater rather than the 20-30% greater that you mention I don't think anyone would say that I had "grossly overblown" the risk. However if I claimed that the number was 70% then the term "grossly overblown" might in fact be applicable.
I'll explain why you look like an idiot, along with most of the adult population. Non-smokers have a 1.4%(males)-1.3%(females) chance of developing lung cancer before they kick the bucket. How do you feel about that 20-30% increase now?
Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about(which should include congress and other legislative bodies when debating a subject and writing laws in regards to it) isn't going to get excited over second hand smoke. It's not even a tenth the concern that first hand smoke is, that only makes it up around 17% among males. Females, who more commonly smoke in a less irresponsible manner, are under 12%.
It's more in line with things like drowning in your bathtub than it is a threat to public safety. Instead, they've made it illegal in many states for people to allow smoking on their own property based on a cancer scare of mythical proportions, the food in those restaurants and clubs has far more of an impact on both cancer rates and heart disease. At most they should have mandated common sense ventilation practices(something any business with a brain already has), which negates the already minor risk almost entirely.
I know, sob stories galore, so and so died, so and so has asthma. Shit happens. To everyone. If there's anyone out there that doesn't have a relatively close relative that went or is currently going that way, lucky them.