IT IS 3 (now 2) MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

[Nubo]

We've added millions of years worth of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere over the span of one human lifetime. Who honestly thinks this doesn't have negative consequences for the world? C'mon, man.

[WetEV]

So how is the ice doing on Greenland?

From the GRACE gravity based mass measurement:

[lorenfb]

Correlation /= Causation

Yes!

And for those who actually are "into" evaluating terms of CC models in various programming languages, "not equal" is:

C / C++ / Python - ! =
Pascal - < >
SQL - Not Equal

For those still using a Fortran complier - .NEQV

But then again, that very basic logical expression even for many, e.g. the naive NY/LA Times reader, CNN viewer, doesn't exist.

[GetOffYourGas]

Correlation /= Causation

Yes!

And for those who actually are "into" evaluating terms of CC models in various programming languages, "not equal" is:

C / C++ / Python - ! =
Pascal - < >
SQL - Not Equal

For those still using a Fortran complier - .NEQV

But then again, that very basic logical expression even for many, e.g. the naive NY/LA Times reader, CNN viewer, doesn't exist.

Yes, I probably should have used the more recognizable C format. I write VHDL for a living, and /= is VHDL syntax. I also write a lot of MatLab code, which is ~=. Gotta love programming languages - they all must be just a little different. Reminds me of this:

[WetEV]

I write VHDL for a living, and /= is VHDL syntax.

And I thought you were a Verilog kind of guy. Sorry. The important question is emacs or vi?

[GetOffYourGas]

I write VHDL for a living, and /= is VHDL syntax.

And I thought you were a Verilog kind of guy. Sorry. The important question is emacs or vi?

Verilog is so west-coast. And everyone knows that vi is the editor to know, since it is always available. Yes, I use vi even if I'm on Windows.

[lorenfb]

As usual, all the anecdotal info, graphical data, tabular reports, & etc will not result in any type
of convergence of views on the CC issue other than reinforcing the widely held divergent views
expressed throughout this thread. So without a valid and robust scientific methodology, 
i.e. an extensive longitudinal time series CC model and an analysis over many many decades,
conclusions will continue to be meaningless and conjecture will continue for the most part.
To date, CC models have proven to be problematic and deficient as discussed up-thread.
Only with an irrefutable mathematical equation or model will the CC issue converge on
meaningful/useful data. So presently, threads such as this one will continue to "Go nowhere fast".

At least the last few posts were not kinda "blood boiling". We all do have a little commonality
and some agreement - most own a Leaf.

[LeftieBiker]

Only with an irrefutable mathematical equation or model will the CC issue converge on meaningful/useful data.

That really isn't how the primate brain operates. Convergence will only occur when there is continuous (not continual, continuous) severe damage from extreme weather over most of the globe. At that point most human brains will re-categorize climate change from "hypothetical future threat" to "immediate threat." The response, though, will more likely be global war than a unified positive effort to stop what, at that point, will be unstoppable. We are doomed, because it just rains water (or doesn't) instead of lions. Lions we'd recognize as a threat...

[ENIAC]

Correlation /= Causation

"Correlation /= Causation" is generally be considered short hand for "Correlation = Correlation/Causation".

[GetOffYourGas]

Correlation /= Causation

"Correlation /= Causation" is generally be considered short hand for "Correlation = Correlation/Causation".

Yes, that is also true