August 2014 Warmest on record, globally

[Old Greg]

you have to understand what he is doing here.
when the sea ice extent was cooperating with the models, it was the most important measurement ever.
Now it's not cooperating, he switches to ice volume.

just more confirmation bias

Are you subject to confirmation bias?

[EternalOptimist]

Are you subject to confirmation bias?

If I had a hypothesis that I was strongly emotionally attached to, I would watch out for it, certainly. I am sure you would too

[Old Greg]

If I had a hypothesis that I was strongly emotionally attached to, I would watch out for it, certainly. I am sure you would too

You seem to be emotionally attached to the hypothesis that AGW is incorrect. You even add the emotionally charged C for catastrophic to make CAGW?

So do you think that things you say on 'C'AGW are influenced by confirmation bias?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CAGW

CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.[1]
It's not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog comments at the New York Times[2] and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008,[3] and is likely to have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific view on climate, regardless of whether or not "catastrophic" outcomes are implied.
As for motivation, it's an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old "anthropogenic global warming" — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century,[4] so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding "catastrophic" gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism.[5] Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders getting flooded out; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move them inland; no catastrophe. And so on.

[pjclarke]

Global temps to August 2014

Still flatlining

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind

[SpontaneousOrder]

Is all of this info from one of those books which you haven't read?

[EternalOptimist]

You seem to be emotionally attached to the hypothesis that AGW is incorrect. You even add the emotionally charged C for catastrophic to make CAGW?

So do you think that things you say on 'C'AGW are influenced by confirmation bias?

I dont think you understand how the scientific process works. Someone proposes a hypothesis, they try to work it up into a theory. They make predictions. The onus is upon them to prove their case, usually by experiment and observation. Falsifying a hypothesis is not a hypothesis itself.

pj claiming that increased antarctic sea ice is 'a puzzle'. I claim that it falsifies a lot of the hypothesis

[Old Greg]

I dont think you understand how the scientific process works. Someone proposes a hypothesis, they try to work it up into a theory. They make predictions. The onus is upon them to prove their case, usually by experiment and observation. Falsifying a hypothesis is not a hypothesis itself.

pj claiming that increased antarctic sea ice is 'a puzzle'. I claim that it falsifies a lot of the hypothesis

So why do you use the word 'catastrophic'?

[EternalOptimist]

So why do you use the word 'catastrophic'?

Harold Camping was a catastrophist. Chicken Licken as well.
Anyone who predicts that London and New York will be under water is predicting a catastrophe.
arn't they ?

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, have you just discovered that there are such things as facts?

I am a bit slower than the rest of you. Just like a prop I knew who when penalised for a late tackle said "I got there as soon as I could ref"

[pjclarke]

You seem to be emotionally attached to the hypothesis that AGW is incorrect. You even add the emotionally charged C for catastrophic to make CAGW?

So do you think that things you say on 'C'AGW are influenced by confirmation bias?

One of the more stupid debating tricks of the “skeptics” is to oscillate between Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you’re very silly, and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they’ve invented they switch to if it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?

To which the answer is always some variant of if you can’t imagine anything between “catastrophic” and “nothing to worry about” then you’re not thinking. But I’ve got bored of saying it, so I thought I’d write it down and link to it instead.

If it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we? – Stoat