During the course of my lifetime, I have been lied to repeatedly by scientific alarmists;

1) When I was 11, I was told by my teachers that the Earth’s overpopulation was going to force us to eat each other like rats in cages

2) When I was 12, I was told by my teachers that we were headed into an Ice Age which would bring about worldwide famine

3) When I was 17, I was told by politicians and teachers that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war and the scientists told me that a nuclear winter was inevitable

4) When I was 18, my Biology professor told me that we would surely run out of oil by 1989

5) Other science professors (and non-science professors) convinced me we were clogging the Earth with plastics, we were losing forestation around the world, and we were surely going to destroy the Earth

6) For the last 10 years or so, I’ve been listening to the AGW crap.

After having been lied to so many times, I now recognize the lie when it comes at me. I have no doubt AGW is a lie. Any time a politician, backed up by a scientist, tells me there is a problem we have to fix RIGHT NOW, or else the Earth will be devastated, I check my wallet to see if it is still in my back pocket. In fact, I usually move it to my front pocket, when they are not looking.

All of these alarmists scams have been attempted shakedowns by the scientific community, and gradually Leftists have adopted the Green agenda as they’ve learned there is money and power in it.

Green is the new Red.

Bill Manuel @19 – Spot on. Belief in anthropogenic global warming is a religion; that’s why we’re now called, “global warming deniers,” instead of skeptics.

Eowyn @24 – You’re absolutely right. Some scientists now express deep skepticism about the Darwinian model, both in terms of origin of life problems and macro-evolution problems; accidents simply take too long and
(apparent) irreducible complexity makes it impossible for things to happen naturally. Anti-Darwinists instead of being termed scientific skeptics are termed religious fanatics. The is the usual leftist approach. When you can’t refute the evidence use ad hominem attacks on those refuting you.

which ones correctly predicted

Short-term fluctuations are a stochastic process; they are unpredictable.

If you want to understand what climate models were built for, and what they predict;

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

that warming would cease in 1998

Warming has not ceased. The recent eleven years are consistent with a long-term warming trend.

Suggested reading;

http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Analysis-Interdisciplinary-Introduction-Multivariate/dp/0942154991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255520670&sr=8-1

and more advanced;

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Analysis-Its-Applications-Statistics/dp/0387293175/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255520758&sr=1-2

To be trusted, computer models must be verified by testing or by actual observations.

Has been done, for donkeys years, and is still ongoing. Read the aip link.

why is 30 years of moderate warming statistically significant?

Depends on the system. For climate it’s the minimum length of time needed to detect a climate response to typical changes in forcing. For a shorter period noise (internal unforced variability) swamps the signal. That’s what statistical tests show.

The Little Ice Age lasted far longer than that. It was a temporary natural fluctuation in climate.

It was a response to known changes in volcanic and solar forcing. It was not an expression of unforced internal variability.

Many climate alarmists

A few silly journalists.

computer models that “proved” that the cooling trend would continue unabated

No they didn’t

Yeah, 11 years might be a statistical squiggle but why is 30 years of moderate warming statistically significant? The Little Ice Age lasted far longer than that. It was a temporary natural fluctuation in climate. Many climate alarmists went just as crazy during a global cooling squiggle during the 1970s. And yes, they also trotted out computer models that “proved” that the cooling trend would continue unabated.

I know, I know – climate has nothing to do with weather (or so I’ve been told ad nauseum).

Then why do you and the Instaclutz repeatedly make a comparison which you know is both irrelevant and misleading?

what does it have to do with?

We are incredibly lucky to live in a time when the citizen can access information that is several orders of magnitude larger than any library has ever held.

It is the responsibility of the citizen journalist to look this stuff up.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

According to the BBC

Why is fact-checking the dinosaur media all of a sudden so passe? Eleven-year squiggles are a) meaningless b) expected c) reproduced. Have you asked which dataset their anonymous source used (there are eight), why they selected a time interval that is a third of the length that is necessary for extracting a climatological signal, what significance criterion were used, what the results of significance testing were, and whether any testing was done on that short-term trend being significantly different from the long-term linear trend since circa 1972?

the world has been cooling since 1998

So the Chinese whispers go.
‘the BBC’ wrote;

we have not observed any increase

…

it should be a warning that when politicians talk about science, we should beware

What does ‘it’ refer to? And does “politicians” include James Inhofe, and the entire Republican leadership of both houses and the relevant committees?

There are many other objections based on science rather than common sense. There is also the fact that Al Gore has a financial interest in promoting man made global warming as does many on the radical left. Van Jones gave all of us an education on the benefits to the left of regulating carbon and how it benefits the radical left.

Jaques Chirac said of it that Kyoto is “the first component of an authentic global governance.” The goal is to garner strict control over corporate actions and individual behavior.

According to the other half of scientists global warming and or cooling is a cycle. Oh, and according to Al we will go into the next iceage through global warming. Go figure