WebsterMark wrote on 12/01/15 at 05:37:15:

Is there some ambiguity here?...

Come on, Web... you're better than this...

no sane person can claim WE are not having an effect

we had "smog days" in L.A. in the 60s
stay indoors, no school, couldn't see the San Fernando foot hills
from 5 miles away

The denial is the politically driven part...
Why?.. Money...
Dirty energy is cheaper than clean.
Cleaning up the mess you make takes time and money...

No question we have an impact, for millennia temp's have gone up and down like clockwork.  For nearly 10k years Vostok temps haven't changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4c...

there are 40,000 delegates attending this party in Paris and I'm sure none of them are traveling on their own money.

the future careers and livelihood of all 40,000 are dependent upon the fact that mankind's contribution to climate change is the primary driver of increasing temperature. They will fight logic until the bitter end. The fact is; Big Climate is Big Business.

The data in the article  below is easily verifiable. Why are we even having this discussion?!  Of course we all know why, but shouldn't it be easy to change just one mind?

One of you guys who accept the mainstream climate change narrative, challenge the data below. Present your case why I should be worried about mankind's contribution to climate change?

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/11/30/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-...

I understand that part. In my job, one of the things we do is measure the air pressure differential between upstream and downstream points. RH and temperature must be taken into account if you want the most accurate readings. It's very easy for me to make that data point to almost any conclusion I want by taking readings at certain times of the day.

NASA makes adjustments based upon their own parameters. Peer review articles agree with them. However, remember that ALL the predictions within the early IPCC reports have been over estimated because they over calculated the effect of several variables.

Now, if you were predisposed to accept a correlation between CO2 and global temperature, how easy would it be to over estimate the effect of these variables. Note: I'm not saying this was done on purpose, (I'm not saying it wasn't either) but it's certainly easy to believe subconsciously, someone could have done this. You have to consider this a valid point because again, the early IPCC reports were so very wrong and all reports after that have lowered the temp predictions for the same future timeframe. How can 4 reports in a row over estimate temperature predictions? Too soon to tell if the 5th is also over estimated as it just came out. Isn't it a possibility that either on purpose or subconsciously, they select data to support their conclusion?

By the way, a retired German scientist recently took all the raw temp data and concluded that NASA's adjustments were just as likely to be over estimated as underestimated. I actually sent an email to NASA asking for a response to his report. No reply yet.

The problem is you can site your data and I can say the source of that data has ulterior motives for the data to point to one conclusion and you can do the same for mine.

So we're in a little bit of a stalemate. Neither of us experience the effect of climate change in our lives so we have no personal experience to point to.

personal experience... Let's talk CA drought.
CA never gets a lot of water (except after major burns)
but 2011 to 2014 is the driest on record since 1895.
2015 is another year w/out much.
The advert said it's due to a pressure trough keeping the jet stream from going down CA.  And it's more or less stationary where it used to cycle.
This is why whenever they talk el nino rains they say it won't end the drought.  I got a feeling they ain't coming at all.  If so, we're down to our last year of water.