I guess it was a known effect unknown to Al Gore.

Yep, we have had similar weather in Oregon. Don't talk to the folks in the northeast.......

According to my gas co . Feb was 12 degrees colder the last year. March 5 degrees colder and April was 15 degrees colder.
Going back to August 2017 our avg temp is normally 83 and we only hit 80 once. Certainly not data that indicates runaway warming.

No, Andy, just the opposite. Al used skewed data to predict nothing but warming..warming and mre warming. Yet the Grand Solar Minimum has a known effect of a mini Ice age. The skewed data indicate warming, when in reality, it has been pretty much stable, with hot spots moving around, just as there are cold spots. This year Nor Cal, MN and the East got the bonus. Notice you don't hear Big Al anymore, unless it is a money making scheme? Someone slipped him some "facts" and he is fading away before getting dragged out in the square...

Are you saying Al Gore predicted this? That's hard to believe. I never heard anything about an ice age. It's all warming.

The data was skewed showing no cold spells, I think was what he was saying, according to the Grand Minimum people, we will have a little Ice age fpr the next 10-15 years...which seems to be what is happening based on current events, Southern Spain and Morocco had snow for the first time in years just a few days ago...

Didn't he say no cold spells after the year 2000? We still get them all the time.

This is certainly the coldest April I've ever experienced in NorCal. I keep asking, "Anybody know where Al Gore is?"

Sure...

Uh, ok.....

The causality flows only one way. A fact can cause something bad to happen, but the bad consequence has no influence on the fact.

"so they cannot use it as the justification to tax us more"
If I knew people would use global warming to increase taxes and I saw argument from final consequences as a valid argument, we wouldn't even need to do any research on this. We don't like the consequences of giving someone an argument to raise taxes, so the science must be wrong somehow.

The are interconnected, one being used to justify the other.

CG, the point is stop wasting time and trying to milk people of their money for something that has enough data to prove it is not as they say it is, so they cannot use it as the justification to tax us more. It is a boondoogle, a ripoff, and a cottage industry, look at Gore, who is about as carbon generating a creature as there is and has made millions on it.

Thanks for posting Dr. Hunt's essay. I'll break down his points in the way I understand them.

Popular words for global warming change over time - This is in consequential.

Scientific bias - This is true in many fields. Science is supposed to welcome new ideas, but its pracitioners often dismiss ideas that don't support the current paradigm.

Self-reinforcing bias - He's saying starting from the youngest age and all the way through becoming an expert, we discourage finding new things and reward people for confirming existing understanding. I disagree completely with this.

Patronage - Funding has always been an issue for science. If there is a funding bias, though, I would expect it to be in favor of understating global warming since so much economic activity contributes to it.

Bias against publishing null results - I have heard about this issue in many contexts. I'm not ready to throw out science because human bias finds its way in. Would he say studies that don't show no health benefit from statins wouldn't get funded, so we have no way to know if statins are helpful? It seems like he's ready to throw out all science.

Self-selection - "Agnostics rarely go to seminary" - This is based on the false premise that the only reason people study the climate is to find anthropogenic climate change. But we know people go into similar fields studying archane processes that have no prospect of a politically-charged result.

"how could I possibly know?" - Indeed. Isn't this the crux of it? If humans are flawed and biased, how can we know anything? The post-modernist argument as I understand it goes: "Whenever we study the world, we're studying models to represent reality. Since those models change over time, we know the models are not the same as reality. There is no way to remove human bias from science. So science naturally afirms the power structure in which its practioners operate. We need to start with the politics and how to create just/fair power structures. Science is just a window into those power structures. We don't actually know anything from science."

I categorically disagree with post-modernism. We need to do our best to understand the world despite human foibles, despite if the answer is exploited by manipulative people. Science isn't about believing things in our hearts. It's a process of experimentation and building models to understand the world.

" shut up and concentrate on combating the effects of climate change"
It's better to avoid people than to try to make them shut up.

I am not knowledgeable about what we should do about global warming. It seems like the only tool we have is reducing greenhouse emissions. But that tool isn't very good. It seems hard to have billions of people enjoying an affluent life and going back to 1990s emissions. That only slows the problem. And if we magically stopped all emissions, the earth would still be changing, possibly in ways costly to humans. So it seems like we need some other approach. Geoengineering sounds nice, but it doesn't exist year. I think it's possible that we taxed carbon emissions in place of taxing work/investment, maybe someone would think of a very low emission way of storing, transporting, and releasing energy.

As you say, in the minds of talking heads and politicians, there's plenty to do. They never let a crisis go to waste. But what's the scientific action to take? My understanding is scientists know it's happening but do not know a practical way to stop it. This environment leads people to just deny the reality of it.

We're talking about two issues. I was talking about global warming. You're talking about the political response to it.

No, liberals screaming "give me your money to figh man made climate change" does NOT constitute "scientific thinking". It is cult like group think...

CG, data, and false premises and false narratives, they do not work well together, that is the "man made Climate change" myth. If they just would shut up and concentrate on combating the effects of climate change (as measured) rather than trying to stop it (which is impossible), they would be a lot further ahead.

Next time you see them, have them lay down in a quiet room and take some deep breath’s.
Then you and a friend need to chant,
“The power of reason compels you”
“The power of reason compels you”
“The power of reason compels you”

Warning this can be very dangerous!
/s

Thanks for the post.
I find that when I try to dispel the Global Climate Change warning to my left-leaning friends -- in particular, to assure them that polar bears are not in danger -- these friends become upset. One would expect a rational person to be happy to learn that those nice bears are not facing extinction and that their fears are unfounded. But no, they hold fast to their Climate Change orthodoxy as though it were an accepted religion that is not to be questioned.

Even better with hope.

So it comes back to questioning whether the current scientific understanding right. New evidence certainly will be found, and our understanding certainly will change. But you don't need to pay attention to any of that because you already know the answer.

So we get back to the current scientific thinking being wrong. New evidence will certainly be found, and the understand certainly will change. But you're saying that doesn't matter to you. You already know the answer.

And I am saying that the change in climate is NOT man made, or provable as man made, but is a natural occurrence that has gone on for thousands of years. There is NO evidence to support the "man does it". There is lots of evidence that this has happened over and over, because of other factors (solar changes, Earth changes, axial tilt, magnetic filters).