don't believe everything you read

['putertutor]

Unfortunately, the issue of Climate Change/Global Warming, has become far too political in the last decade or so. It boggles my mind that anyone would listen to a government paper pusher who has little to no scientific training or acumen, over a scientist who spends their entire career studying one thing (climate on this case). The reason we have experts is to listen to them.

For me, the answer is clear, the data is in. According to better than 99% of those who truly know their climate stuff, climate change/global warming is real, it is man made, and it is having a real effect on out environment and economy. There will always be the few who disagree, especially within scientific communities, that is normal and desirable. But in this subject, even those who disagree have mostly been shown to be incorrect either because they are using bad data, or because they are flat out fabricating it without any research. In the history of the scientific method, this may be the most agreed upon topic within scientific communities. EVER! My favorite analogy is that if you go see 100 doctors and 99 tell you that you have a completely operable tumor and removing it will save your life but not removing it will hasten your death, why would you follow the advice of one doctor who disagreed with them and tells you to do nothing?? Makes no sense.

And on the global warming vs climate change terms... those of you saying that the change was just for political correctness, you are not exactly right. The scientific community saw that there was confusion about the issue based in part on the term they used to describe it. Climate change started getting used to mitigate that confusion, but the science and conclusions behind it are exactly the same. The *average* global temperatures are rising. The studies have always indicated that temperatures will fluctuate within regions, with some getting cooler. The overall effect though is that the world is warming and you anecdotal (means unscientific) reports of cold weather are meaningless on this topic.

TechLady is also 100% correct. Even if this is a conspiracy of unbelievable proportions, why don't we make changes simply because it is good economics. It would create new jobs in the thousands to take some of the actions recommended. It could only help our economy and our environment to do so. How in the world is anyone against that?

Sorry for the rant, but why in the hell do we have scientists and experts if we aren't going to listen to them when they speak?

 

[TechLady]

Indeed. And why do we keep bringing up inflammatory topics where we all know nobody's minds are going to get changed? So we can all lose respect for each other?

If you really believe Fox News and that the earth is only several thousand years-old, then honestly I'd rather not know about it.

 

[phaZed]

Year 1 - Avg Temp = -.1
Year 1900 - Avg Temp = -.5 - this is a 500% drop in temperature over 1900 years (global cooling?)
Year 2000 - Avg Temp = .3 - this is an 800% jump in 100 years (or a 400% jump over 2000 years)

Take another look at the graph or follow the articles I linked in for the actual info.

Year 1 = -.1
Year 1900 = -.5
Year 2000 = .9

Then, that graph doesn't even take in account the last 14 years which has seen further dramatic increases in temperature.

So, if a 500% drop form -.1 to -.5 isn't alarming, then we should not be concerned with a 400% jump from -.1 to .3 as it would imply that the warmer temperature is closer to the original -.1 than the coldest temperature...just saying.

It's also about "time", is it not? It's not alarming that a -.1 to -.5 change took 1900 years to achieve because of the amount of time it took to swing that difference as well as the change following climate models and predictions. What is alarming is this:

Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

Is that not alarming? More change happened, reversing a cooling cycle, in 50 years than in 1900 years? Also, the trend is accelerating.. not stopping or reversing.

If you believe in a 100 billion year old planet, 2000 years, not even 1,000,000 years, is a significant number to work with to measure what the planet temperature should be. If you believe in a 6000 year old planet, the numbers line up quite nicely to the planet adjusting to a Biblical flood.

Nobody believes in a 100 billion year old earth, it's believed to be 4.54 Billion years old according to science. Humans have not been on the earth that long either, so trying to find a "normal" temperature of the earth is not the goal. The goal is to see that since the beginning of humans the temperature has been contained in a fairly narrow range that supports us. Currently, average global temperatures are higher than anytime since the Pleistocene age, or the last ~120,000 years. I gather that simply by looking at the chart that coffee posted. So, no, it's hotter than in biblical times.

 

[gunslinger]

Indeed. And why do we keep bringing up inflammatory topics where we all know nobody's minds are going to get changed? So we can all lose respect for each other?

If you really believe Fox News and that the earth is only several thousand years-old, then honestly I'd rather not know about it.

And if you are an atheist, liberal I don't wanna hear about it either. I don't share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently. I share my thoughts to show people who think like me they're not alone.

 

[TechLady]

Yes I think everybody knows which sides we're on by now. We get it. Do you feel less lonely now? Good.

And I'm Buddhist, not atheist, thanks.

 

[phaZed]

How facts backfire Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains - Boston Globe

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

 

[gunslinger]

Yes I think everybody knows which sides we're on by now. We get it. Do you feel less lonely now? Good.

And I'm Buddhist, not atheist, thanks.

Of course you are

 

[Galdorf]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter-weather-2014-UK-forecast-cold-snow-November
Didn't happen but other places in world such as Canada,Russia,and USA will have record snow and cold this winter so about that global WARMING? it's already proven earth goes through cycles of climate change even before the industrial age.
What could cause such weather and dramatic weather change it's has to do with ocean currents, ocean currents stall in cycles that have been happening for millions of years that keep UK warm during winter is gone has nothing to do with CO2 levels therefore not global warming.
The whole thing has been seen using satellites and documented worlds weather is governed by ocean currents they provide stabilization for weather around the world break those current loops and your looking a massive global weather changes.

 

[wavey]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/520672/Winter-weather-2014-UK-forecast-cold-snow-November

Sames goes for Canada,Russia,and USA so about that global WARMING? it's already proven earth goes through cycles of climate change even before the industrial age.
What could cause such weather in England it's has to do with ocean currents, ocean currents stall in cycles that have been happening for millions of years that keep UK warm during winter is gone has nothing to do with CO2 levels therefore not global warming.
The whole thing has been seen using satellites and documented worlds weather is governed by ocean currents they provide stabilization for weather around the world break those current loops and your looking a massive global weather changes.

LOL You've just quoted The Daily Express

That piece was written in October, it said bad weather in November. Well November was great, no snow, no frost, just really mild weather for the time of year.

Looking forward to Armageddon in December

 

[phaZed]

LOL You've just quoted The Daily Express :eek

Just to hit that point home for the people not familiar.. The Daily Express = Conservative Supermarket Tabloid akin to the National Inquirer or Weekly Mail News with "Batboy" on the front cover.

You have to appreciate the irony of the OP's post "don't believe everything you read" only to be referenced to a fictional tabloid by said OP as definitive evidence for the contrarian view.

Sames goes for Canada,Russia,and USA so about that global WARMING?

Ya, so how about it?!

The Guardian: UK will see wetter, milder winters and hotter, drier summers due to global warming, scientists predict

 

[Galdorf]

Just to hit that point home for the people not familiar.. The Daily Express = Conservative Supermarket Tabloid akin to the National Inquirer or Weekly Mail News with "Batboy" on the front cover.

You have to appreciate the irony of the OP's post "don't believe everything you read" only to be referenced to a fictional tabloid by said OP as definitive evidence for the contrarian view.


Ya, so how about it?!

The Guardian: UK will see wetter, milder winters and hotter, drier summers due to global warming, scientists predict

That came out wrong what i was trying to say is there is no global warming and climate change is due to ocean currents,space weather ie solar storms are all cyclic and don't believe everything you read.
That's what happens when you wake up in middle of night and post half asleep.

 

[SilverLeaf]

That came out wrong what i was trying to say is there is no global warming and climate change is due to ocean currents,space weather ie solar storms are all cyclic and don't believe everything you read.
That's what happens when you wake up in middle of night and post half asleep.

Yes, ocean and air currents have a major impact on weather. But, global warming impacts these same currents. When you start changing the composition of the oceans (both temperature and salinity) from melting polar ice, ocean currents will be affected. The same is true for air currents like the jet streams and how they react to changing temperature. It's all interconnected, and as global temps continue to rise, we will likely see substantial weather deviations because of this.

 

[phaZed]

That came out wrong what i was trying to say is there is no global warming and climate change is due to ocean currents,space weather ie solar storms are all cyclic and don't believe everything you read.
That's what happens when you wake up in middle of night and post half asleep.

Lol, ya, we have all done that

Look, I think everyone, even (especially) the scientific community, is willing to accept that Global climate change could be false. All anyone needs to do is provide some compelling scientific evidence as such. Thus far, that has not happened. In fact, the data seems to suggest the opposite. What's the hold up?

I can appreciate your theory of ocean currents, space weather, solar storms, etc - however, that theory seems to fall flat on it's face when you look at the data and find it simply hasn't happened. I'm ready to listen to peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary, post up!

Case in point:
The Register - Journal Nature Published Study

According to the study, the currents are hot-spots in the climate-change picture, warming considerably faster than the average warming of the ocean. Over all the data sets, which comprise the Gulf Stream, Kuroshio Current, East Australian Current, Brazil Current, and Aguhlas Current, the average warming over a century has been around 1.2°C, while the global mean rise in temperatures is 0.62°C for the same period.

One of the paper’s authors, CSIRO’s Dr. Wenju Cai, told the ABC’s The World Today that the change is significant because it’s an observation on a global scale. He told the program that while warming of the East Australian Current had already been documented, this study demonstrates that it’s not just happening “in an isolated part of the Tasman Sea.”

Because the change is global, and because the various currents have warmed pretty much in step, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Michael McPhaden said the synchronized change in ocean circulation is “most likely [caused by] anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing."

So, we see that the Ocean currents appear to have a REACTION to climate change and are not the CAUSE.

Skeptical Science

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

Also, if all of this is cyclical, then why is climate change occurring outside of the cycles? The Solar cycle, Ocean Conveyor Belt cycles do not coincide with the current changes. It's not as if we don't know about the cycles and about when they would/should occur and we would be able to easily provide solid evidence that the cycle has in fact changed or happened already, if it had. But it has not. On it's face, it just doesn't hold true.

 

[Galdorf]

Lol, ya, we have all done that

Look, I think everyone, even (especially) the scientific community, is willing to accept that Global climate change could be false. All anyone needs to do is provide some compelling scientific evidence as such. Thus far, that has not happened. In fact, the data seems to suggest the opposite. What's the hold up?

I can appreciate your theory of ocean currents, space weather, solar storms, etc - however, that theory seems to fall flat on it's face when you look at the data and find it simply hasn't happened. I'm ready to listen to peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary, post up!

Case in point:
The Register - Journal Nature Published Study

So, we see that the Ocean currents appear to have a REACTION to climate change and are not the CAUSE.

Skeptical Science

Also, if all of this is cyclical, then why is climate change occurring outside of the cycles? The Solar cycle, Ocean Conveyor Belt cycles do not coincide with the current changes. It's not as if we don't know about the cycles and about when they would/should occur and we would be able to easily provide solid evidence that the cycle has in fact changed or happened already, if it had. But it has not. On it's face, it just doesn't hold true.

actually it's not my theories it is 2 well known scientists

John L Casey : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miIEAOAOgyI

and Piers Corbyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

 

[red12049]

actually it's not my theories it is 2 well known scientists

John L Casey : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miIEAOAOgyI

and Piers Corbyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

Well, they are well known. Google them. Hint: They're not well known for their scientific prowess.

Rick

 

[Galdorf]

Well, they are well known. Google them. Hint: They're not well known for their scientific prowess.

Rick

Piers Corbyn: First-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London.
studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College, London.

John L Casey: He holds a B.S.in Physics and Mathematics (JSU-1971) and an M.A. in Management (Webster Univ. 1981).
Army computer and missile systems officer.
former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.
President of a climate research company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), in Orlando, Florida. and has a team of top scientists working for him.

So do you have any of those qualifications?
Don't forget people thought the world was flat and sun revolved around the earth.

 

[SilverLeaf]

Piers Corbyn: First-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London.
studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College, London.

John L Casey: He holds a B.S.in Physics and Mathematics (JSU-1971) and an M.A. in Management (Webster Univ. 1981).
Army computer and missile systems officer.
former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.
President of a climate research company, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), in Orlando, Florida. and has a team of top scientists working for him.

So do you have any of those qualifications?
Don't forget people thought the world was flat and sun revolved around the earth.

So, how do these credentials establish their credibility in the area of meteorology and climatology? I have a management degree, but that doesn't mean that I'm a good chef.

 

[Galdorf]

So, how do these credentials establish their credibility in the area of meteorology and climatology? I have a management degree, but that doesn't mean that I'm a good chef.

They have other people working for them in that field it's not their own research but a team effort if you do some research.
some of the scientist working with John L Casey:

Dr. Ole Humlum
Dr. Humlum is Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard. His areas of research include glacial and periglacial geomorphology, with emphasis on the climatic control in cold-climate high relief areas, past as well as present. His research has also included climate variability, ice sheet and glacial environments and mapping of Arctic and Antarctic temperature changes.



Dr. Boris P. Komitov
Dr. Komitov at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is one of Europe’s foremost authorities on solar cycle study and its effects on the climate of the Earth. He holds a M.S. in Physics from the Sofia University and PhD in Physics from the Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He is now a professor of Astronomy. Since 1996 he has concentrated in solar activity analysis focusing on large time scale variations using sunspots and other proxies of solar activity. He has published important and fundamental research papers dealing with the determination of climate change as a function of the Sun’s behavior. He has concluded that the Earth has entered a new climate period that will be between the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum in terms of depth and extent of cold.



Dr. Darko Butina

Dr. Butina is in the UK. He holds a PhD in Synthetic Organic Chemistry. He has had an extensive, successful career with Glaxo Research where he was part of the team that developed a drug treatment for migraines for which the team was given "The Queens Award." He is an expert in numerical analysis of instrumental/experimental data and modelling of physico-chemical properties of molecules. Accordingly, he has presented numerous research papers and chaired sessions at international conferences. In the last three years he has devoted his expertise to analysis of daily thermometer-based data.

there are also more working for him as well in other fields..


Case in point Nikola Tesla had same things said about him "he was crazy" his piers said his research and inventions would amount to nothing.

 

[phaZed]

John L Casey:

Casey’s work has never been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, only self-published on the internet even though he claims his Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity is peer reviewed. What's funny is that not only does he not mention any details of the peer review, there doesn't seem to be anyone else that has information on the peer review as well. On top of all that he plainly admits he lied about the peer review status. Casey told New Times that's because "the importance of the findings and conclusions mandated the widest public dissemination possible, which the web supplies." Link
Again, confirming the lie of being published/peer reviewed:

Climate scientists at Yale University were also very dismissive, saying,”Unfortunately no one has the time for those clowns. There’s too many of them.” In response, Casey said he has avoided publishing in scientific journals since there’s a “history of bias by some journals to publish anything that does not support manmade global warming.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1617460/gl...te-change-scientist-scam/#TiyzmhqbXugEY5Ut.99

Read This for the full smack-down: Tea Party Welcomes Global Cooling Theorist/Earthquake Predictor John L. Casey

When New Times pressed Casey about his avoiding scientific journals, he cited their "limited space," "lack of expertise," and the "history of bias by some journals to publish anything that does not support manmade global warming."​

University of Miami climate scientist Dr. Benjamin Kirtman told New Times this about Casey's work:

It looks to me that Casey is confused about global dimming, which actually seems to be in a reversal... As for the "global cooling" Casey is arguing for, all evidence is to the contrary. Indeed, ocean heat uptake has continued to steadily rise since the 1950s, and there is no plausible physical process (including changes in solar output) that would end this trend in the near-term (10-30 years). Casey's "Summary Climate Assessment" has some unsupportable statements. For example, Casey's assessment states that "Integrated Global Atmospheric Temperatures continue to show a long term COOLING trend that began in 2007. (100 year trend)." This is untrue (by far, 2001-10 is the warmest decade since the 1850s) and it is not mathematically possible detect a 100-year trend with seven years of data. The assessment goes on to state, "The rate of oceanic temperature decline has been slightly reduced over the past year but is expected to continue its long-term decline." This is also untrue -- July 2014 ocean temperatures are the warmest on record.

Mediamatters:

I have to stress how incredibly easy it was to determine that the Space and Science Research Center shouldn't be taken seriously. Basically, all I had to do was Google the group's name. Apparently, that was too much for poor Jim Hoft.

The first result that pops up in a Google search of the group is its own website. According to its "About Us" page, the SSRC "is the leading science and engineering research company internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for climate changes," and Casey "was the first US solar activity researcher who accurately predicted and publicly announced to the US government and the main stream media ... important climate change events" such as "the end of global warming."

The website further states that SSRC "maintains active communication channels with some of the world's best experts in the field of solar physics and climate research pertaining to the matter of the next climate change" but that "All full time members of the SSRC staff were released on December 15, 2008 and placed in an on-call status."

None of those "experts" or "members of the SSRC staff" are named anywhere on the website; Casey is the only one affiliated with the group specifically mentioned. Why aren't the other "experts" and "staff" named? Either Casey is worried about dazzling us with the big names he has behind him, or they are too modest to want to be linked to such an impressive organization as the SSRC. Or, you know, they don't exist.

What are all these theoretical "staff" working on? Apparently, the SSRC "provides services" in a number of -- let's say, extremely diverse -- areas, including "Strategic business planning and preparation for the transition to the next global climate change era," "Development and transfer of space technology to the private sector," and "Science forum and conference hosting."...

...Ok, so he has an undergraduate degree in physics and math, a master's in management, and appears to lack any sort of formal background or experience with climate science. That's... not too good.

climate skeptic Tom Nelson suggests that Casey is a "hoaxer, fraud, or scam artist." He also links to skeptic site JunkScience.com's take on Casey:

We think he's a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn't see how he expected to do so -- now he's told us. He's looking for 'meaningful funding' and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash.

We'd like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another 'angle'. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that JunkScience.com is always chronically short of funds.

In a separate post on Casey ("Looks like a hoax to me"), Nelson notes climate skeptic Leif Svalgaard's comments on Casey:

The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.

Piers Corbyn:
RationalWiki

Piers Corbyn is the owner/operator of WeatherAction, a website that claims to accurately predict the weather in Britain & Ireland for much longer than the standard accuracy time frame of 5 days that most meteorologists agree on. Currently he makes predictions 30, 45, and 60 days in advance. In the past Corbyn claimed to be able to make predictions between 9 months and a year ahead. Corbyn has an honours degree in physics at Imperial College London, and studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College (no degree recorded).
He also frequently bets on the accuracy of the results, and founded a company to profit off his predictions in 1997. It was later taken private in 1999 due to staggering losses of £70,000 in the first year, and £480,000 in the second.[1] Corbyn claimed that the failure was because of his company's small size compared to high overhead, which is bizarre after public statements that the business was doing great, "turning over" £250,000 compared to overhead costs of ~£70,000.
Most scientists on the other hand completely ignored him, as his estimates are so vague the weather needs to be well off to be wrong. Taking into account how vague he can be, like giving high winds and heavy rain as a prediction, he is still largely wrong when compared to actual.[2] In 2007 some people who had tired of his whining took a look at his forecast for killer storms to lash Britain on the 17th of October, and the last week of November[3]... which never happened. Undeterred by his abject failure he predicted January 2008 to be a period of intense cold (-17C)[4] - it turned out to be one of the warmest Januarys on record. Corbyn has made it a bit difficult after those highly-mocked failures to criticize his inaccuracies due to him banning the use of extracts of his works, and suing most anyone who tries.
Corbyn claims an 85% accuracy rate[5] due to predicting landfall of a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal between May 24th/26th 2009 (a pretty common event that time of year), and a peer reviewed paper in the "Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,"[6] a journal known to publish pretty much anything without much fact checking.[7] It also has a history of publishing a number of badly written global warming denialism papers from seemingly anyone who can fit a piece of paper in the mail slot with proper postage that is not covered in feces. This includes Peter Laut's paper "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations"[8] and Henrik Svensmark's theories on cosmic rays destroying clouds.[9] Corbyn is also a very big proponent of Global Cooling,[10] and states quite firmly that CO2 doesn't cause warming while being interviewed by tin foil hatter Alex Jones.[11]
Corbyn also has a history of being an activist in the "International Marxist Group" for squatter's rights[12] in the North Paddington area of Westminster throughout the 1970's.

Shall I go on? Why don't you pick a theory of either of these two guys that swayed your opinion on Climate Change. Then, we can look at each theory of your choosing and do some research to see if it holds true to the facts as well as see who else besides themselves corroborates their story.

 

[phaZed]

They have other people working for them in that field it's not their own research but a team effort if you do some research.
some of the scientist working with John L Casey:

Yes, let's do some research.

Dr. Ole Humlum
Humlum is at it again

We have been very critical of the correspondence of BHS. Some might even say harsh. But we must acknowledge that their contributions are very interesting. In fact, their letters provide with a perfect example of the strategies deployed by climate "skeptics" to twist the debate and sow doubt in the minds of the public. BHS articulate their argumentation around the defense of an ideal of scientific method they believe in while clearly violating the rules they pretend to respect. Citing irrelevant quotes or taken out of their context, misunderstanding fundamental concepts, concentrating on precise points without looking at the broad picture, cherry-picking or even inventing scientific facts and data in order to provide with justifications to their hypotheses, etc.

So we would like to thank them from the heart, because they have chosen to be good examples of how science should not be done, how climate science can be at worst when left to the sole hands of so-called climate "skeptics".

Here's Humlums graph based on his data (Here's the Link):

OOPS! Seems Humlum forgot to use the real available data, says he would correct (and admits the data was incorrect), but never did. So, the correction was done for him making it look like this [the Greenland temperature is 2c greater]:

...and with a correction to the CO2 levels looking like this

OOPS! Oh well, NEXT!

Dr. Boris P. Komitov
I dare you to find anything substantial about this fellow. He was very active in the 70's and 80's in his Solar works but has not published or argued for or against Climate Change as far as I can tell.
Here's his "super pro website", LOL. http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/
Here's his Papers and publications, your welcome to browse through those and point me to where he states anything about Anthropomorphic Climate Change, or for that matter, anything that would support your argument.
NEXT!

Dr. Darko Butina
See, this guy is the epitome of why you should research who you are choosing who to believe.
Link

This is not just a silly comment from one of the WUWT rabble. It's from an article in WUWT - at the express invitation of Anthony Watts.

In the article the author, Darko Butina, claims that the global warming isn't real, based on his analysis of the temperature record at a single location, the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. The dataset used goes from 1844 to 2004.
Let's leave aside the fact that Darko Butina bases his dismissal of global warming on a single location in Northern Ireland. We'll look at how he determines the temperature trend despite having more than 150 years of detailed temperature observations at his disposal:

Can we detect unambiguous warming trend over 161 years at Armagh (UK) in thermometer data? All we need to do is to take difference between the youngest (2004) and the oldest (1844) annual fingerprints and display it as a histogram:​

No, that is not "all we need to do". Taking the difference between same day readings (ie 1st January compared with 1st January through to 31 December compared with 31 December) over two different years will not yield nearly as much information as would a series. In fact, it probably wouldn't tell you anything at all.
By contrast, here is the chart of the mean annual temperature at the Armagh Observatory, plotted with a ten year moving average (red line). The chart is based on these data:

The data for the above chart were compiled by the same people who compiled the daily set used by the author of the WUWT article.

OOPS OOPS OOOOOOPS!

Also, I find it very interesting that these "scientists" do not seem to identify with The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey, ANYWHERE. Rather it would seem that The 'Space and Science Research Center' has simply listed them on their website which seems to be the only "link".

Anything a bit more credible? 'Cause when I Google search these I get nothing but red flags. I'm happy to review the research you have performed so that I may be corrected.