Serious AGW and/or Discover Magazine fail; about halfway down through the 'Halted Global Warming' article is the 'No support for warming slowdown' article from a month ago.
Seriously, can one of the AGW faithful please clarify? Are there any of them left around here?
A) Is Yu Kosaka, U of C, and/or the NOAA part of the consensus that the globe is warming or no?
B) Is Yu Kosaka, U of C, and/or the NOAA part of the consensus that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the most significant driver of the rise in global temperatures?
C) In the consensus around 'CO2 mediated anthropogenic global warming', is there any conditionality for the time frame and/or remediation (by that I mean mediation by another source not necessarily remediation in the sense of it being fixed). By this I mean, when I hear proclamations of 'CO2 mediated anthropogenic warming of the globe' if I consider this to be correct for this Wednesday or every third week for the next 15 yrs., or for the next 5 years until some catastrophe, breakthrough, or other undiscovered phenomenon displaces or disproves it, am I a skeptic or part of the consensus?
D) Why are scientists who have only recently begun to study and model complex systems as part of the interplay between man, each others, their resources, and the environment regarded as 'right' and considered part of the consensus; while economists who have been studying and modeling complex systems as part of the interplay between man, each others, their resources, and the environment regarded as 'wrong' and excluded from the consensus?
E) This one is more of a philosophical question than strictly climate-related one, but isn't the use of Occam's Razor in the modeling of complex systems synonymous with reductio ad absurdum? Is a, by design, simple cube model of the Earth's known complex climate system rational? Is it any more sensible than spherical cows in a vacuum (as it were) or invisible pink unicorns (if you follow me)?
Personally, I'm just missing the disconnect of how the Pacific cooling has been happening for a decade and, with all the models and computing power (not to mention all the people studying every aspect of it and every other ocean), we haven't known about it. The same way I was confused when the same Scripps institute showed that the (then largely unknown) effect of particulate aerosols could easily be as large or larger than CO2 and could easily wholly offset or radically amplify the effect of CO2 (which other scientists have proposed as the reason for the non-warming).
I mean, since the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed and we didn't just discover that the Pacific ocean exists and isn't boiling into the atmosphere, how did the models get to be (or start out) so wrong? To me it seems that it's almost like there's some sort of underlying truth that there is no direct evidence of but that is, nonetheless, true.
Like it's all a conspiracy without any overtly malicious intent and where the conspirators profess their partaking in the conspiracy and affirm each others' beliefs despite what any evidence, no matter how rational or not, significant or trivial, would suggest.