boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

It has been reported that 2015 was the hottest year on record, by a wopping 0.2 degrees. I guess I will have to lower my thermostat by 0,2 degrees to make up the difference. 0.2 degrees---- thermometers are not that accurate. 0.2 degrees is below the standard deviation of temperature accuracy. The scale of temperature differences on the planet are about -40 to 125. I seriously doubt that o.2 degrees is of any signifigance. 1 or 2 colder than average days will drive down that 0.2 degree increase. I wonder if I will be able to shed my winter coat this year.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Thanks for the warning. I'm tuning my air-conditioner up .2 degrees from now on. BYW, I thought that the lowest Antarctic temperatures reached into the -120's.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

no more worries about climate change... turns out it was a hoax, we have to worry about the Muslim Invasion now!!!! ...and CHINA!!!!

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Boberic is one of UHH's premier Climatologists, don't you know? You can tell how professional and respected his scientific training and experience is by his adherence to the scientific method and his ultra technical fact-based arguments that are chock full of sophisticated scientific terms that most often consists of, "I seriously doubt..."

Oh, in addition, further evidence of his scientific brilliance is revealed by the fact that he is able to measure the global average temperature from one single location on the Earth, simply by determining whether or not he needs to shed his winter coat at his home on Long Island. Obviously, if he is able to determine all by himself the global average temperature by standing on one single location on the Earth using such a simple and effortless method that requires no gauges or scientific equipment, nor calculations, then his scientific brilliance would by definition have to be far superior to all of the worlds' thousands of Climatologists who had to spend all those years getting trained in advanced, rigorous PhD programs as well as spending several more years of research in the field and then publishing all those peer reviewed scientific journal articles.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I think you are totally unaware of your own logical argument fallacy. This is what is known as "argument from authority." You simply cite the appropriate authority who has the answers, because you yourself are unable to understand or explain it. If I wanted to, I could simply say that Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, and former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, disagrees totally with the man-made Global Warming scare. Then I would not have to think nor provide any data or evidence to back up my argument. Pretty easy, huh?

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

You are misusing the term. I'm not using argument from authority to make a logical argument. Rather, I'm pointing out that he has not based his claims on any substantive evidence or calculations and has no expertise in that scientific field to be making the sorts of scientific claims he is purporting to be making. Huge difference.

Sorry, but if you don't have the scientific training and expertise in the discipline to even understand the topic being discussed, then the idea that you can convince people that you are smarter or more knowledgeable than all the other experts in the discipline who have actually presented their evidence and calculations, then you have not even presented any valid logical arguments. The burden of proof has not been met. The only people who would be convinced of such nonsense are those who are scientifically illiterate and delusional about their knowledge.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You ARE making the argument from authority when you reference in a previous post "the worlds' thousands of Climatologists who had to spend all those years getting trained in advanced, rigorous PhD programs as well as spending several more years of research in the field and then publishing all those peer reviewed scientific journal articles."

I'm still waiting to hear one scintilla of evidence, or data or any factoid from you disputing Boberic's claim. This is typical of so many Global Warming arguments. The Global Warming Deniers usually come armed with information, and the Global Warming Believers come armed with nay-saying, ridicule, argument from authority, etc... Rarely any science.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Steve, this indicates that you don't understand burden of proof. You also don't understand the scientific method. Arguments consisting of, "I seriously doubt...", or "I find it hard to believe..." are not scientific arguments. You cannot convincingly refute science with mere skepticism or disbelief. Skepticism alone is not a valid scientific argument. This is a logical fallacy called "Argument from incredulity" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

You have to instead be able to address the entire body of evidence that the mainstream science has presented on the subject of AGW, and then show that your theory explains the data better than the mainstream science has already done. Boberic hasn't addressed the peer reviewed science. The only way that Boberic would be able to offer a convincing scientific argument is to refer to the peer reviewed studies already published, in a scientific manner, and then offer his counter evidence and counter theories. He has not even begun to approach anything along those lines.

You just heard on right wing media that the mainstream science is a hoax, etc., blah blah blah, and you've decided to gullibly swallow the science denial arguments whole. What you don't seem to understand is that you have swallowed corporate propaganda from the fossil fuel industry who has a huge financial stake in manipulating public opinion in order to protect their profits to continue to keep our society hooked on their products. It is privatizing the profits and socializing the costs. You have hitched your wagon to the wrong side and you don't even realize it. They have successfully gotten you to become 100% skeptical of the mainstream science, and 100% gullible to swallow the disinformation and fossil fuel industry funded propaganda. Sad.

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

Wow! Two fools patting each other on the back for their stupidity