"Dan" wrote:


It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend.
Weather
is fast; climate is slow.

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?


There's a strawman lurking in that sentence. Scientists are *not* claiming
that there is a consistent increase in Global temperatures; far from it. A
graph of the instrumental record shows consideral annual, let alone monthly,
variability.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...ure_Record.png

But what's the overall trend since 1900?


A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
"crisis":

-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see referenced
report)


I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

-- UN involvement (if you think it's pure, enjoy your life of bliss)

-- Many of the same leftist players who previously worked other
"crises" until they got tired (see wikipedia entries for LiveAid,
BandAid, and FarmAid)

-- Protocols burden US more than other countries (China, India,
somehow exempt)

-- Call for new taxes

-- Appeal for new bureaucracies

-- It's a Hollywood "Cause" (see wikipedia entry for "If they're for
it, it must be wrong")

-- Inconsistency between Crisis Leaders claims and lifestyles (see
wikipedia entry for "Al Gore, Big house, and Private Jet")

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.


-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)


Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.
The IPCC said as much in its first report in 1990:

"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by
0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is
broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the
same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase
could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this
variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger
human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced
greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.


-- Labeling all those that disagree as "deniers" (A favorite Marxist
tactic -- see wikipedia entry for "bourgeoisie")


-- Declining faith ins pronouncements of "Experts" (see wikipedia
entry for "Robert Jarvik")


-- "Crisis" embraced by mass media empty-headed blowhards (see
wikipedia entries for "ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN")


You can't leave Fox News out of the mass media empty-headed blowhards
lineup. Besides, pop media is not the place to judge scientific questions.
Their business is selling ads, not giving useful information.


These are just a few thoughts that came to mind. Of course, there is a
counter to every one, but don't be surprised that I don't heartily
embrace the latest "crisis."

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.