[PaperNotes]

Ah so interesting, ShortcutToMoncton. A relative of yours takes issue!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3765

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-BePJOLbw

[PaperNotes]

This one is from Lord Monckton again:

The newspapers reported that the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began: but the records, taken by satellites, had only begun 29 years previously. The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship.

From Amundsen's Wikipedia page:

Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen (IPA: [ˈɾuːɑl ˈɑmʉnsən]), (July 16, 1872 – c. June 18, 1928) was a Norwegian explorer of polar regions. He led the first Antarctic expedition to reach the South Pole between 1910 and 1912. He was also the first person to reach both the North and South Poles. He is known as the first to traverse the Northwest Passage.

Yet that Northwest Passage is closed up today! But what happened to industrialisation and carbon forcing being responsible for global warming and melting all the Arctic Ice????

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Ah so interesting, ShortcutToMoncton. A relative of yours takes issue!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3765

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-BePJOLbw

Silly PaperNotes; only those of the Preferred Ideology™ can discuss Global Warming. Just because scientists debate methodology doesn't mean the methodology is debatable.

They're all in the Big Oil tank.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I've pulled up FAR more scientific articles and points than either of you too [sic]. My latest was a lead NASA scientist and you couldn't handle it.

Your latest was a blog! And not even the scientist's blog, it was a skeptic claiming to interview the scientist! If you think that skeptic blogs constitute "scientific articles," then it's no wonder you hold fringe scientific views.

To your first point, they do overlap, but temperature first followed by carbon every time.

No, not every time. If you would finally show which graph you're working from I'll prove it. I'm not going to prepare an image for you only to have to trot out a different equivalent graph and make me go through it all again. If you make this claim one more time without substantiation with a graph, I'm going to have to call you a liar, because it's simply not true.

Originally Posted by you

Originally Posted by me

Third, if I push a ball down a hill, is it the push that "causes" the ball to roll down or is it the hill that "causes" it, or is it gravity? It's all three. Just because the ball was already rolling when it hit the hill doesn't mean the hill wasn't playing a causal role. If you take a system in equilibrium (a ball at rest), you can apply any number of pressures to make it move in a certain direction. You can push it, you can change its level perch to a hill, or you can change the direction of gravity (or many other things). If you have reason to believe that A causes B, and you observe B before A, that does not disprove your hypothesis. What would disprove it, is if you consistently see A correspond with the opposite of B, or vice versa (if the ball rolled up the hill instead of down). We don't see that in the ice core record.

Cough. We do as mentioned above.

Really, you see the ball roll up-hill? Does 2 plus 2 equal 5 too?

Watch another solid scientific documentary full of ACTUAL verifiable science.

If it really is verifiable, then prove it by verifying it. The science is what you should be working with from the start, not youtube, for your own sake as much as ours (if you even care about objective truth that is, and aren't just a troll). Youtube is not an authoritative source. You guys burned that bridge with the Great Global Warming Swindle™ which was proven to be fraudulent. In this video, the only data presented is about the medieval warm period, which was confined to Europe and thus NOT GLOBAL. Present your verifiable data, if it really is such. While you're at it, verify the identity of even one single name on the list of 31,000 you listed before. I tried to do so, but they were all fakes.

Don't even try to refute the quality of the scientists used in that documentary or in the Global Warming Swindle or I'll do you a favour and bring them over to this forum.

Ha! I'm calling your bluff on this one. Bring them. Start with the one that sued the producers of that mockumentary for misrepresenting themselves to him and then hacking up his interview footage to present a false representation of his views.

I was also ridiculed and called "partisan" (trying to pidgeonhole me as some sort of backwater American conservative who can't read science, but that label failed to stick to me when it was discovered I'm a thoroughly modern British atheist)

You clearly are partisan (or does "partisan" mean "American partisan" in Britain?).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Haha, you're using Monckton now? The Viscount? You know he's not even a scientist, right? He's just some random dude who writes a lot of stuff on global warming, and then NASA scientists refute everything he says?

Really, you should look it up.

I was also ridiculed and called "partisan" (trying to pidgeonhole me as some sort of backwater American conservative who can't read science, but that label failed to stick to me when it was discovered I'm a thoroughly modern British atheist) for suggesting that temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warming Period and other eras such as the Iron and Bronze Ages. This is undisputed by well studied climate scientists, the ice-core temperature record and other historical records!

You're wrong. I've already posted a very recent, published, peer-reviewed scientific paper which shows how the Medieval Warming Period was cooler than today. That information is available on NASA's web site, or on literally dozens of published scientific papers throughout the last 6 or 7 years.

I mean, it doesn't matter – there's some evidence that the MWP was a bit of a localized event as I understand it – but you keep saying this same talking point even though I have conclusively shown, throughout this thread, that it's false. You're spreading lies.

Let's take one very recent finding as an example. Just last week British archaeologists discovered the exact beach where the Romans landed on when they arrived in Britain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...nt-949717.html

These days the landing site is two and a half miles inland! Sea levels since then have dropped dramatically! That implies temperatures are cooler today, that there is more ice around today (that's how we get thicker ice to draw ice-core samples from, and nobody sensible disputes that Antarctica always grows thicker) and that much of the water that was around in Roman times now exists in another form - in the bodies of living organisms such as plants and animals.

Did you even read the article? Oh it hurts me, the amount of extrapolation you've taken out of this article – sea levels dropping! Temperatures cooler! More ice now! – except that, you know, a contrary explanation which doesn't directly involve climate science is already given in the article itself:

Now the discovery and excavation of the beach itself has pinpointed its geographical relationship to the earthworks, proving that the earthworks were a beachhead defence, protecting around 700 metres of coast. The site is now two and half miles inland because the bay that the Roman fleet sailed into has long been silted up.

*snickers wildly*

Soooooooooooooooooooooo…wow, that's awkward. All that typing on your part, and so little reading comprehension to account for it.

(Since I'm still not sure if you'll get it, let me explain it: sea levels didn't drop, but the earth just mysteriously rose up. It's crazy, I know, but it happens. Feel free to argue with the article on the impossibility of a bay silting up, though; I'd just love to have to use my own valuable time to find you online articles showing how this happens.)

Don't even try to refute the quality of the scientists used in that documentary or in the Global Warming Swindle or I'll do you a favour and bring them over to this forum.

Once again, I'll repeat – the "greatest scientist in the world" might have an opinion that the anthropogenic climate change is a crock. That doesn't matter. Hell, Newton wrote more on the ridiculous topic of alchemy than he did anything else! There are always people who think the opposite, or believe in kookiness, no matter in what field you look at. What matters is the scientific work being produced.

I'm giving you published studies, by renowned climate scientists. You're giving me Youtube documentaries by some British Viscount who randomly writes anti-global-warming, error-ridden, non-peer reviewed, heavily-ridiculed-by-climate-scientists articles.

But hey…I guess yours are more fun to watch, right?

greg

[PaperNotes]

Boohoo. Cry me a river. You two keep up the disinformation about Durkin's documentary even though YOU CAN'T DISPROVE ANYTHING FROM IT!

Yet you support the views of Al Gore's documentary which have no less than 35 errors and when it has been shown that Gore had set up a carbon trading company to PROFIT from the fears he helped create. He's a criminal politician yet you are willing to give him dogged support because he and others connected to him and the environmentalist movement are all part of the plot, that you support, to destabilise and bankrupt the capitalist free market system, the same system that gives you the freedoms you will lose if falls apart.

You are also STILL denying that the Medieval Warm Period, the Iron Age and the Bronze Age were hotter than today. REMARKABLE!

You are STILL trying to dodge the very simple and easy to see fact that there was less Arctic Ice from 1870-1910 than there is today. The Arctic navigators of the time, with the little technology they had, were able to travel across and in the region of the Northwest Passage far easier than anyone can today.

You are STILL trying to deny the influence of solar activity upon the Earth's climate system! hahahaha

And I see you STILL haven't been able to challenge the ice-core record that shows temperatures have never been driven by carbon, but have been driven by solar activity. I have been requesting that you challenge this, using real evidence and no lies or personal attacks, and you have skirted around it for days.

I await your response to that and let's see you disprove ANY of the points raised by Lord Monckton and Patrick Moore.

More from Lord Monckton:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQX3ndQQg4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R01fQD5syyo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfCL-JPYw4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dYMP10gQqIE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-BePJOLbw

More from Patrick Moore and others, this time via Durkin and the great Penn and Teller calling bullshit on the Green movement:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8k17a9eWk8k
( http://uk.youtube.com/results?search...ick+moore&aq=f )
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YG3Bc34hg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J29CP736yEg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5weG9IllCpo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ictpPrle3EQ
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMPfa9DZfU
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YO5goAzLEVo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ygY57FdRcr0

[PaperNotes]

http://www.economist.co.uk/science/d...ry_id=12376658

A new study suggests that the headline-grabbing articles that tend to be published by the most prestigious scientific journals are for that very reason often wrong

[PaperNotes]

More from Patrick Moore about the Green agenda (which is identical to the Islamic agenda, just replace Allah with Trees).

http://greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34&page=3

It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a "cancer" on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be "good" if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

· It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and "unnatural'. The Sierra Club's recent book, "Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry", is an excellent example of this perspective. "Western industrial society" is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word "Nature" is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to "find our place" in the world through "shamanic journeying" and "swaying with the trees". Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

· It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no "allegiance" to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

· It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to "free trade" but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each "bioregion" should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it's too cold to grow bananas - - too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

· It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike "competition" and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

· It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too "human-centered". In the name of "speaking for the trees and other species" we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The "planetary police" would "answer to no one but Mother Earth herself".

· It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

[PaperNotes]

More eco-lies and fear mongering:

http://greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34&page=6

In 1985 Greenpeace took up the campaign to eliminate chlorine from all industrial processes, to essentially remove it from human use despite its enormous benefits to society.
The basis of the campaign was the discovery that the use of chlorine as a bleaching agent in the pulp and paper industry resulted in the production of minute quantities of dioxin, some of which ended up in waste water. The industry responded quickly and within five years of the discovery had virtually eliminated dioxins by switching to a different form of chlorine or eliminating chlorine altogether. The addition of secondary treatment resulted in further improvements. Independent scientists demonstrated that after these measures were taken, pulp mills using chlorine had no more environmental impact than those that used no chlorine. Did Greenpeace accept the science? No, they tried to discredit the scientists and to this day continue a campaign that is based more on fear than fact.

[PaperNotes]

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archiv...i-warming.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...in_schmidt.pdf

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...00409593211234

http://www.newsweek.com/id/97871/output/print

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Boohoo. Cry me a river. You two keep up the disinformation about Durkin's documentary even though YOU CAN'T DISPROVE ANYTHING FROM IT!

Once again, this was already covered in another thread. But since you're so insistent, sure, I can disprove something in it right now for you, even though I know you'll probably just do what you've done every other time I've shown where you're wrong, and ignore my answer and keep on saying the same thing.

(On that note: I notice no response to the "English bay silting up" issue, huh? What, don't want to admit that you didn't even read the article you posted? NO apology for drawing completely incorrect facts from the article? No? Colour me surprised.)

The documentary says that volcanoes produce less CO2 than humans, but this is patently false, because they produce only a small fraction of human CO2 emissions.

As "proof" of this, just look at any CO2 graph for the past 50 years. CO2 goes up every year; this is of course something that humans are responsible for. But this steady increase doesn't change at all in response to volcanic output.

There you go, something disproved. Bam. And I took that information straight out of an old post on that very topic, which you were just too lazy to look up.

Yet you support the views of Al Gore's documentary which have no less than 35 errors and when it has been shown that Gore had set up a carbon trading company to PROFIT from the fears he helped create. He's a criminal politician yet you are willing to give him dogged support because he and others connected to him and the environmentalist movement are all part of the plot, that you support, to destabilise and bankrupt the capitalist free market system, the same system that gives you the freedoms you will lose if falls apart.

I haven't given Gore dogged support. I've pointed out many times, in this very thread which you continue to refuse to read, that Gore isn't a scientist, and that anything he's said should be taken as a layman's opinion and probably with varying degrees of salt.

You are also STILL denying that the Medieval Warm Period, the Iron Age and the Bronze Age were hotter than today. REMARKABLE!

Indeed. What's remarkable about it is that I'm not denying anything. I'm pointing to published, peer-reviewed, scientific studies (such as this one) which tell me that the MWP was cooler than today.

I haven't yet seen you respond with any reason or proof why you, again and again, continue to make this claim. Please provide a valid link, or reliable source, to your claims.

(No, that does not include Youtube videos. Sorry.)

You are STILL trying to dodge the very simple and easy to see fact that there was less Arctic Ice from 1870-1910 than there is today. The Arctic navigators of the time, with the little technology they had, were able to travel across and in the region of the Northwest Passage far easier than anyone can today.

Since we don't have ice monitoring from that time, I fail to see that it's an "easy to see fact." Whether it was "far easier than anyone can today" seems to be debatable as well; we have no knowledge of how localized ice conditions were. We do have some temperature measurements from that time however, and they are lower than today. Furthermore, ice levels in the Arctic are significantly impacted by wind patterns, not just temperature.

In other words, what I'm saying is that you can't really conclude much from the fact that the Northwest Passage may have varying degrees of ice from year to year.

You are STILL trying to deny the influence of solar activity upon the Earth's climate system! hahahaha

Once again, you fail to read. I've said about 3 times in the past page of this thread, in response to your own comments, that solar energy seems to have traditionally been a significant, if not primary, driver of global temperature changes.

But this no longer seems to be the case, at least from the 1970s.

I've posted scientific articles for you before, with no effect (you obviously refuse to take anything seriously that isn't on Youtube or a blog), but I'll do so again:

Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature.

And now a graph, just in case you missed it. Please note the difference between solar forcings measurements, and global temperature.


Here's another one that I posted earlier in this very thread:

And I see you STILL haven't been able to challenge the ice-core record that shows temperatures have never been driven by carbon, but have been driven by solar activity. I have been requesting that you challenge this, using real evidence and no lies or personal attacks, and you have skirted around it for days.

See above. No matter how much solar activity has driven temperatures, it simply is no longer such a primary driver as far as scientists can currently tell.

I await your response to that and let's see you disprove ANY of the points raised by Lord Monckton and Patrick Moore.

Done and done, I guess?

(Once again I'll point out that Monckton is not a scientist, and does no research or work in the field, and has taken a huge amount of flak from those who are climate scientists.)

Oh, and I'm not watching those youtube videos. And the plethora of links containing, you know, editorial opinions and such, often from the 90s? Yeah, not doing those either.

greg

[PaperNotes]

see below

[PaperNotes]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

(On that note: I notice no response to the "English bay silting up" issue, huh?

LOL, I didn't bother because it isn't the only reason. Sea levels were higher back then. This is also attested to in Mexico, the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.

The documentary says that volcanoes produce less CO2 than humans, but this is patently false, because they produce only a small fraction of human CO2 emissions.

LOL. You're mental. Global Warming Swindle and Monckton, and many others I have cited, put human carbon emissions far lower than volcanic output. They put organic decay the highest.

As "proof" of this, just look at any CO2 graph for the past 50 years. CO2 goes up every year; this is of course something that humans are responsible for.

But you would have to exceed current carbon concentration levels by very far to warm the planet. Today's anthropogenic carbon output is higher than ever but we still can't match the global temperatures reached during the Medieval Climate Optimum (notice, scientists call it optimum because biological life flourished more than it currently does. In other words, we need it to be hotter!) or the Bronze and Iron Age.

I haven't given Gore dogged support.

If you support anthropogenic global warming theories, and the industry busting costs that Gore and his ilk support, then you are giving him support whether you like it or now.

(No, that does not include Youtube videos. Sorry.)

YouTube videos count, even if it is a video of Joe Public losing his temper over this global fraud. Like this great one

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkMtXKR230

ice levels in the Arctic are significantly impacted by wind patterns, not just temperature.

Clever lad! Now tell that to the Gore/AGW fans who have said we are responsible for the melting of the Antarctic Peninsula. This is a lie. Volcanic activity and coastal erosion was responsible for it, back then anyway. Nowadays it has refrozen up

In other words, what I'm saying is that you can't really conclude much from the fact that the Northwest Passage may have varying degrees of ice from year to year.

I merely pointed out that media organisations such as the BBC, who support AGW/Gore/Greenazi views without question, use fearmongering tactics in headlines such as "Northwest Passage to open up for the first time ever! Sea levels rising! Give all your money and rights away now to Agenda 21!".

It's bullshit. The Northwest Passage is completely closed now. It was open a century ago. Ice cover is up 10% over last year. We aren't experiencing global warming at the moment even with higher emissions, and the lack of solar activity means we're in for a good few years of cooling now. The BBC won't talk about that. Black is white and white is black in their politically motivated world. Which is a shame because the BBC is funded by the public (who are forced to pay for it some would say) and should be completely impartial.

I've posted scientific articles for you before, with no effect (you obviously refuse to take anything seriously that isn't on Youtube or a blog), but I'll do so again:

So will I. And I'll continue to post evidence that goes against anything you can pull up.

No matter how much solar activity has driven temperatures, it simply is no longer such a primary driver as far as scientists can currently tell.

The sun is the primary driver along with cosmic rays and cloud cover. They are all hand in hand. Second driver is the earth's internal temperature and the temperature of the seas. Greenhouse gases come dead last, of which humans contribute very little to.

Once again I'll point out that [b]Monckton is not a scientist, and does no research or work in the field, and has taken a huge amount of flak from those who are climate scientists.)

Monckton provides scientific evidence from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHOM HE NAMES. Evidence that Gore tried to skew, slant or hide. If you want to attack the man, fine but you don't see him running around with a carbon trading company and making millions out of skewing science. If you want to attack the science he presents, do that. You can't. If it was possible then I would have done it before you.

Oh, and I'm not watching those youtube videos.

Your problem. I'll post another one:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y2hSj5p9Gg

Hmm, where does Gore get all the money from????? Interesting point raised by the VERY connected Lord Monckton. So Gore's campaigns could be part funded by China who were also the biggest foreign investor in Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and stand to get so much money out of the collapse of the US economy. If they could use the banking system to cause economic meltdown then it is entirely possible that they could use politicians such as Gore to raise business costs for Western companies via cap and trade/carbon trading schemes. Coincidentally Obama wants to scrap the United States' Star Wars defense programmes, which has also been a thorn in the side of the Chinese.

HMMMMMMMM!!!


One thing that has me curious is your silence on the political side of this debate. I've mentioned the communist, eco-socialist and other totalitarian groups who are benefiting from this scare. But you have remained completely silent on that part of the debate.

In the next few days I'll be posting a new thread where I'm going to reveal something that will shake up this whole forum, and its not just about this global warming scam. I'm going to name names. Who they are, what they are doing, what their agenda is, everything.

[Chongo]

Boise gets earliest snow on record

Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work. The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages. This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969, when a little more than an inch fell. And if the snow wasn't enough, meteorologists say winds across southwestern Idaho will average 25 to 40 mph through Saturday afternoon, with gusts up to 55 mph. Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph are expected, which can make driving difficult.

[Uncle Skeleton]

PaperNotes: did you ever find any names on that petition that were names of actual scientists? Did you admit you were bamboozled, or are you still licking your wounds on that one? Remember, the list of 31,000 names you thought was real, remember that? And it turned out to be fake? Did you know that that's why no one takes you seriously, with your blogs and youtube "evidence," because it's all made-up?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

LOL, I didn't bother because it isn't the only reason. Sea levels were higher back then. This is also attested to in Mexico, the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.

Ahhhh yes, you make an important claim about our subject matter, giving an article as an example, and I point out that the article has nothing to do with your claim. And then you laugh and say "oh well, don't worry it's true anyway!"

If it's been "attested to" in so many places, you should be able to give me some proof. You shouldn't need to rely on an article which specifically says that the issue was a bay silting up.

Go find me some proof, then.

LOL. You're mental. Global Warming Swindle and Monckton, and many others I have cited, put human carbon emissions far lower than volcanic output. They put organic decay the highest.

And this is what I'm saying: you're relying on a TV documentary and some self-proclaimed British royalty "climate expert" who climate scientists make fun of. I'm relying on NASA-backed information based on scientific study:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

Furthermore, as evidenced in that quote, you know that volcanoes actually lower global temperatures, right? Any CO2 they may produced is negated by the enormous SO2 output which act as solar aerosols (you know, those things you didn't know about earlier in the thread) which lower global temperatures.

Volcanoes lower global temperatures.

The sun is the primary driver along with cosmic rays and cloud cover. They are all hand in hand. Second driver is the earth's internal temperature and the temperature of the seas. Greenhouse gases come dead last, of which humans contribute very little to.

Oh? You're saying this, but I just posted published scientific information which showed that the sun is not the primary driver. Where is your proof to the contrary?

Monckton provides scientific evidence from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHOM HE NAMES. Evidence that Gore tried to skew, slant or hide. If you want to attack the man, fine but you don't see him running around with a carbon trading company and making millions out of skewing science. If you want to attack the science he presents, do that. You can't. If it was possible then I would have done it before you.

I did do that. I attacked his evidence, as I said directly above. I posted published scientific papers which said that the sun is no longer a primary driver of global temperatures. Are you blind? Can you read? Oh my God, your refusal to respond to any scientific proof I provide is simply INSANE.

One thing that has me curious is your silence on the political side of this debate. I've mentioned the communist, eco-socialist and other totalitarian groups who are benefiting from this scare. But you have remained completely silent on that part of the debate.

I've remained completely silent because I vote Conservative, believe in a fiscally responsible government which is socially libertarian (the classic American definition of "conservative" as I believe was recently mentioned in another thread). I'm not a communist. I'm not a totalitarian. I'm not an eco-socialist. And yet, as the science currently stands I don't see any problem in believing in global warming. I generally feel it comes from taking a rational view of the scientific evidence at hand.

In fact, many of the people who I talk to who don't believe in that science, I consider to be right-wing partisan, paranoid, conservative types who think left-wing types are all involved in some secret global plot to "get them."

You seem to fit that bill pretty well.

In the next few days I'll be posting a new thread where I'm going to reveal something that will shake up this whole forum, and its not just about this global warming scam. I'm going to name names. Who they are, what they are doing, what their agenda is, everything.

I can't wait. More Youtube videos, maybe another list maybe? Woo.

greg

[Warren Pease]

2008, indeed, had more areal extent than 2007, but is still way below the trend (which is declining anyway). Looks like there have been several spikes historically (instances of "recovery" I presume), but all seem to end up following the trend. Down.



2008 also has the greatest amount of new ice, which is less than one year old. 2007 had about 10% new ice; the rest being thicker more robust multi-year ice. In 2008, that new ice constitutes a new record, at nearly 50%. So slightly wider area, but drastically reduced thickness over-all. Which is why they say there may be less ice (total volume) now than anytime before. Some 'recovery.'

Is this the new 1998? or 2005? or 2007?

[PaperNotes]

LOL your maps and graphs are crap.

Cry cry babies.

Let me ask a very simple question. If you think we have dangerous global warming today, because of one ****ing degree Celsius (and this is if you include the Urban Heat Island effect. Temperatures in the troposphere have not increased!) over the LITTLE ICE AGE then it would seem you want us to go back to the Little Ice Age.

Scientists would never agree that the Little Ice Age is the optimum temperature for ANY life to endure. It kills wildlife, slows plant growth, brings long harsh winters, and is a lot more costly from an energy efficiency point of view!

That's why scientists call the Medieval Warming Period as the "optimum"!

[PaperNotes]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/...n/ednestle.php

[PaperNotes]

Founder of The Weather Channel, meteorologist John Coleman, has taken a look at the evidence and has long said it is a scam. He has verified the list of 31000 scientists, which include 9000 PHds, as real. He has also challenged Gore to a public debate on anthropogenic global warming but so far Gore (and his crony scientists) have remained tight-lipped, which is forcing Coleman to try to sue Gore on the basis that Gore knows that it is a scam and is profiting massively from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Co...(meteorologist)

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

Lord Monckton has also challenged Gore to a public debate. Coleman and Monckton both raise an interesting point, which is an obvious one too : the mainstream media won't cover any opposing views and continue to put out lies about global warming. The media has been bought out. Only brave channels like Channel 4 allow alternative viewpoints these days.

Isn't it time we stopped funding the BBC with the television tax they have imposed on the British public by force when they are no longer impartial or dependable?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2240427.ece

Gooner of Belfast wrote:

Full disclosure: I work for the BBC, but strongly believe that the currently fashionable theory of anthropogenic global warming is going to come under greater scrutiny in the coming year, and will be totally discredited within the next five years. This implosion will take with it a lot of reputations - the BBC and the horrendous Independent among them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BBC-News.html

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/...n/ednestle.php

I make sure to take my advice on scientific questions from the OPINION pieces of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe too, after all is the "chairman and former chief executive of Nestlé."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ha ha! That's actually the best response ever:
"Your scientific publications are crap - here look at my Youtube video, it says everything you'll need to know."

PaperNotes is clearly a ****ing idiot who is quite willing to lie through his teeth to meet his paranoid agenda. He's got no interest at all in discussing valid scientific evidence or theories on the subject. These kind of people just find their home on the internet.

Sad.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Founder of The Weather Channel, meteorologist John Coleman, has taken a look at the evidence and has long said it is a scam. He has verified the list of 31000 scientists, which include 9000 PHds, as real.

So instead of taking the list itself at face value, now we can take some skeptic's word that it's real at face value? Have you ever tried to verify any names on that list? I have. They're FAKE. If someone tells you they "verified" something that's fake, you can tell they're lying. And oh yes, he did just say that 2/3 of the supposed "scientists" don't have PhDs. Stay classy, clown.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

PaperNotes is clearly a ****ing idiot who is quite willing to lie through his teeth to meet his paranoid agenda.

greg

That applies more to you, our dear Greg. Much more.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So instead of taking the list itself at face value, now we can take some skeptic's word that it's real at face value? Have you ever tried to verify any names on that list? I have. They're FAKE.

Uncle, please tell us how you went about verifying every name on that list was fake and why aren't you famous because of it? How come you don't apply the same detective skills to verify the list of scientists the IPCC claims to support its positions?

What is the opinion of Uncle Skeleton and ShortcutToMoncton on the IPCC changing the words of scientists to read something quite different in their reports?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

That applies more to you, our dear Greg. Much more.

...and yet, you have nothing to say in this thread, right? Nothing to contribute? Not even a Youtube video or seven? You just feel that the person(s) posting all the scientific evidence must be wrong, and the person posting Youtube videos and editorial opinion pieces from people who haven't studied climate science must be right?

And you don't feel that you have a hilariously obvious bias I suppose?

But hey, I'd love for you to contribute to the thread; make some salient points, that sort of thing. I've had some great discussions in this thread (mostly with ebuddy and others I'll admit, not PaperNotes' incoherent, paranoid and painfully ignorant ramblings), which have caused me to research areas of climate science which I knew less about. I found it a fairly rewarding process, if time-consuming.

Somehow, given your post-and-run, Kevin-like "nuh-uh your wrong" post-and-run methods so far in the last couple pages, I'm doubting that you'll add anything useful to this thread. But I'd love it if you did. Please give it a try.

Otherwise, continue on with your add-nothing, useless, niggling comments.

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Otherwise, continue on with your add-nothing, useless, niggling comments.

greg

You're talking to yourself.

It's a fact that the IPCC has changed the words of scientists, deleted whole paragraphs where scientists have said there was no evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, then substituted those paragraphs with their own non-scientific conclusions. It's also a fact that a lot of that scientific data that didn't support AGW was found in a folder marked 'Censored Data'. It's also a fact that quite a few scientists have charged the IPCC with using their names without permission. It's also a fact that the IPCC and Al Gore won't accept any open public debate after they have received several challenges.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Uncle, please tell us how you went about verifying every name on that list was fake and why aren't you famous because of it? How come you don't apply the same detective skills to verify the list of scientists the IPCC claims to support its positions?

He can answer this quite well on his own, but my opinion is:
1. A list of IPCC scientists is available on the web site. At least some of these lists have been posted on this forum before, although I don't know if it was this thread.

2. Why should he verify the IPCC scientists? You're the one questioning their scientific conclusions, not him. If you want to question them, you go do the work. He's already done the work on the list that he's questioned.

3. He doesn't need to verify every name on the list. He's not questioning whether any climate scientist doubts global warming; there's no question that at least "some" do. He's throwing doubt on the legitimacy of the list, and he can do that by showing that randomly picked names from that list are invalid.

You can't say "31000 scientists don't support climate scientists" if randomly picked names from the list aren't real. Your list is bogus. It's up to you to then cut down the list so that it only includes "real names," because you are the one using it as "proof" for your argument.

What is the opinion of Uncle Skeleton and ShortcutToMoncton on the IPCC changing the words of scientists to read something quite different in their reports?

I don't condone it, and it shouldn't be done.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Uncle, please tell us how you went about verifying every name on that list was fake

Your reading comprehension is outstanding. It's no wonder your views on scientific issues is a fringe one.

"Have you ever tried to verify any names on that list? I have. They're FAKE."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You're talking to yourself.

Clearly, because you're not posting any links.

It's a fact that the IPCC has changed the words of scientists, deleted whole paragraphs where scientists have said there was no evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, then substituted those paragraphs with their own non-scientific conclusions. It's also a fact that a lot of that scientific data that didn't support AGW was found in a folder marked 'Censored Data'. It's also a fact that quite a few scientists have charged the IPCC with using their names without permission. It's also a fact that the IPCC and Al Gore won't accept any open public debate after they have received several challenges.

1. Links for your 3 or 4 specific claims please.

2. I'll point out that "open public debate" is a ridiculous term, when we're talking about scientific publications. This isn't politics where you put a Believer and a Skeptic on two stands and get a neutral moderator and get the public to ask questions and put it on TV. This is science. You can go conduct a study, and get some results, and then get other scientists to critique your conclusions. That's how "public debate" works in the scientific world.

greg

[Super Mario]

Why should he verify the IPCC scientists? You're the one questioning their scientific conclusions, not him.

The IPCC's summaries don't represent the conclusions of scientists. We know this because we have versions of the reports before and after paragraphs were changed or deleted by non-scientists for political purposes.

You can't say "31000 scientists don't support climate scientists" if randomly picked names from the list aren't real. Your list is bogus.

The list is verified by scientists who are in regular contact with each other's institutions. If it was full of bogus names it wouldn't exist online any longer and every media outlet would have made fun of it.

I don't condone it, and it shouldn't be done.

Then why aren't you condemning IPCC summaries for changing whole paragraphs by scientists who said that no conclusions could be drawn on AGW and that climate change is only to be expected from nature?

What is your opinion on what Papernotes asked you about what scientists call the Medieval Climate Optimum? Would you support a world with such an optimum, a world where vineyards grew in Scotland and there was farming on Iceland, or do you support a colder world such as in the Little Ice Age in which spending on heating, food, transport and clothing are all much higher and bio-diversity is far lower due to the growth of cold regions?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Have you ever tried to verify any names on that list? I have. They're FAKE."

Prove it right now. Make me a believer.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The list is verified by scientists who are in regular contact with each other's institutions.

Name one. Because I tried 10 times but all 10 were bogus. If that skeptic website is willing to post a list of thousands of fake names, surely even you can recognize that a few more fake names of imaginary scientists "verifying" the fake list won't make them lose any sleep. So please, just name one of the scientists already. I've already asked many times, and your side's answer grows ever more conspicuously silent.

If it was full of bogus names it wouldn't exist online any longer and every media outlet would have made fun of it.

... as if anyone would care about debunking the credibility of one shamelessly partisan climate change skeptic website among hundreds. I assure you, John and Jane Q Public are not going to care about the story "Unknown Climate Skeptic Organization Proven Liars." The Oregon Institute has no credibility to tarnish.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Prove it right now. Make me a believer.

Alright, fair enough. Here's what I did. I went to that site, went to my state (WA), and took the first 10 names that looked unique enough that I should be able to find the right person in the first 2 google pages:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 <-- this one is funny because the first hit is a google bomb
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...rn&btnG=Search <-- this one appears to be a real person, but he's a medical pathologist, not a scientist.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ge&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 <--- Ah, we finally have a scientist. Too bad he studies veterinary medicine instead of climate.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Edwar...rls=en-us&sa=2 <-- here's another real live person, but he's an anesthesiologist, not a scientist
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

As you can see, most of those people can't even be found, let alone finding something about their supposed science. Real scientists have web pages about their work and credentials, usually hosted at the institution they work at. Real scientists should certainly be expected to have google rank their work higher than their listing on petitionproject.org

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Name one. Because I tried 10 times but all 10 were bogus.

You're a non-scientist, you are not in communication with any of the scientists on the list who are in communication with each other, you used Google 10 times to look up 10 names out of 31,000 names, and that is how you came to the conclusion that a very public list is bogus?

That's not very scientific.

I shall ask again three very important questions that need pressing. Why aren't you condemning IPCC summaries for changing whole paragraphs by scientists who said that no conclusions could be drawn on AGW and that climate change is only to be expected from nature?

Why won't the IPCC and Gore allow a public debate with them?

What is your opinion on what Papernotes asked you about what scientists call the Medieval Climate Optimum? Would you support a world with such an optimum, a world where vineyards grew in Scotland and there was farming on Iceland, or do you support a colder world such as in the Little Ice Age in which spending on heating, food, transport and clothing are all much higher and bio-diversity is far lower due to the growth of cold regions?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The IPCC's summaries don't represent the conclusions of scientists. We know this because we have versions of the reports before and after paragraphs were changed or deleted by non-scientists for political purposes.

See right up there, just a post above, where I asked for "proof" of these claims? Yeah. Go for it.

No, I'm not going to take your word for this stuff.

The list is verified by scientists who are in regular contact with each other's institutions. If it was full of bogus names it wouldn't exist online any longer and every media outlet would have made fun of it.

Media outlets have already made fun of it. As I already said, this "list" has already been covered, and shown to be bogus, in this very thread.

Then why aren't you condemning IPCC summaries for changing whole paragraphs by scientists who said that no conclusions could be drawn on AGW and that climate change is only to be expected from nature?

Once again: links please.

What is your opinion on what Papernotes asked you about what scientists call the Medieval Climate Optimum? Would you support a world with such an optimum, a world where vineyards grew in Scotland and there was farming on Iceland, or do you support a colder world such as in the Little Ice Age in which spending on heating, food, transport and clothing are all much higher and bio-diversity is far lower due to the growth of cold regions?

Once again, you're exhibiting a clear failure to "read."

His claims that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today has already been thoroughly rebutted, in that last 2 pages, by recent scientific publication(s).

I'll repeat, in big bold font since both you and PaperNotes can't seem to understand: the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today. That is the scientific consensus, and that is what the recent scientific publications I've linked to have concluded. There has not been a single scientific publication (let alone recent) claiming to the contrary posted in this thread. Any claim to the contrary, such as what PaperNotes is doing, is just made up out of thin air.

Do you wonder why I have such a hard time taking your ideas seriously when you consistently demonstrate such egregious failures to even read the thread in which you're posting?

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

See right up there, just a post above, where I asked for "proof" of these claims? Yeah. Go for it.

You want proof that the IPCC has changed or deleted many paragraphs scientists wrote? OK.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

I have now learned that convening lead author Ben Santer was instructed (prevailed upon?) by IPCC WG-I co-chairman John Houghton to make changes to Chapter 8 following the Madrid meeting. Santer should therefore not be accused of having committed these actions independently, even though he himself has always claimed personal responsibility for the alterations.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/...t/ipccflap.htm
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...er#Controversy

His claims that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today has already been thoroughly rebutted, in that last 2 pages, by recent scientific publication(s).

I'll repeat, in big bold font since both you and PaperNotes can't seem to understand: [SIZE="4"]the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today.

This lie of yours is easily exposed by mathematics that a child can do.

The Medieval Warm Period was 3 degrees higher than the Little Ice Age. Vineyards grew in Scotland, trees thickened throughout Europe and the tropics, settlements were founded on Greenland, cathedrals grew massively in size to keep worshippers cool.

The Little Ice Age was, on a global level, 1 degree colder than the peak of modern global warming we saw in 1998. In areas where it was cooler than the global average, it was far colder. The glaciers grew in Antarctica which forced the Viking settlements off the island, the Arctic ice cap thickened, rivers froze over every winter and hosted ice fairs and markets on the ice, and vineyards in most of northern Europe disappeared.

This leaves us with 2 degrees C less today than the Medieval Climate Optimum.

If you're suggesting that it is hotter today than the MCO, then you'll have to explain why environmental conditions are nowhere near the same as they were. We should have more plant growth, more plant and insect diversity and more tropical birds migrating into northern territories, vineyards, humidity, precipitation, rainfall, and of course Arctic and Greenland ice would be far reduced than it is.

If you're suggesting we're witnessing the same temperatures as the MCO, then you'll have to explain why temperatures back then were able to climb to such heights without massive global industrialisation and carbon forcing.

Any excuse you make to go around that will fail simply because the MCO was hotter than the LIA. If we're equal to the MCO you lose the AGW argument. If we're hotter than the MCO you'll have to explain why conditions during the MCO were demonstrably affected by warmer weather than we have today.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You want proof that the IPCC has changed or deleted many paragraphs scientists wrote? OK.

I'll look into it.

This lie of yours is easily exposed by mathematics that a child can do.

The Medieval Warm Period was 3 degrees higher than the Little Ice Age. Vineyards grew in Scotland, trees thickened throughout Europe and the tropics, settlements were founded on Greenland, cathedrals grew massively in size to keep worshippers cool.

The Little Ice Age was, on a global level, 1 degree colder....

This leaves us with 2 degrees C less today than the Medieval Climate Optimum.

Nope, I'm sorry, this is wrong.

I see you're doing the same thing as PaperNotes. Here's the formula you follow:

1. You say "The MWP was warmer than today."
1. I post scientific publications by climate scientists which shows the MWP is cooler than today.
2. You say "The MWP was warmer than today."
3. I say "Please provide some proof, because I've already linked to recent scientific papers saying the opposite."
4. You say "The MWP was warmer than today."

Sad sad sad, but at this point it's pretty predictable I guess.

greg

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

The Little Ice Age was, on a global level, 1 degree colder than the peak of modern global warming we saw in 1998.

Have you died recently? Because if you have, you can be excused for not having kept up with the 21st century data.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Haha, totally missed that too. Wow, we're back to "1998 was the warmest" now? I thought that was thoroughly debunked on the last page?

Oh but wait, I forgot, all those graphs are crap, after all......

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You're a non-scientist, you are not in communication with any of the scientists on the list who are in communication with each other, you used Google 10 times to look up 10 names out of 31,000 names, and that is how you came to the conclusion that a very public list is bogus?

That's not very scientific.

Isn't the information age great? Even an non-scientist, such as yourself, acting non-scientifically, can find out if someone claiming to be a scientist actually is one. For example, take a few scientists from the IPCC report:

http://www.google.com/search?q=R.+Timothy+Patterson home page: R. Timothy Patterson (second google hit)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=L+Graham+Smith home page: L Graham Smith (second google hit)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chris+de+Freitas home page: Chris de Freitas (4th google hit)

It only takes a few minutes to find the credentials of actual scientists (not made-up ones), even just using their name and google. You don't have to be "in communication with each other" to find their credentials (if they're real). Now I never claimed that I was a scientist. As it turns out, I am, but climate is outside my expertise, so in this issue all I can use is my common sense (something that you ought to be using too). And that's all you can say about anyone on that disingenuous petition, too, since none of them seem to have any expertise on climate. To rephrase what I just said, that petition holds no more weight than a list of 31000 MacNN readers or 31000 people you might run into on the subway.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'll look into it.

Why haven't you looked into Chapter 8's infamous editing if you're so deep into this subject?

Nope, I'm sorry, this is wrong.

You're not supplying any data that we're hotter today than the Medieval Warming Period.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isn't the information age great? Even an non-scientist, such as yourself, acting non-scientifically, can find out if someone claiming to be a scientist actually is one.

Talking about yourself there.

You're now dodging the three things that I have demanded.

Demonstrate all 31,000 names of which 9000 are Phds is a bogus list. This hasn't been done (to the contrary, many of those scientists are in communication with each other) by anyone yet you are making lofty claims of having done so because you Googled a handful of people.

Tell us why you think the censorship and editing practiced by the IPCC on the conclusions scientists made in Chapter 8 was reasonable. I can provide you with before and after readings if you're lacking in them.

Show evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was colder than today. Consider this, today we're only a degree higher than the Little Ice Age (which was an anomaly, not the norm) which is a reading that includes the Urban Heat Island Effect. If you think the MWP was colder than today then you're basically saying that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age had more or less equal average temperatures. Quite incredible.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Why haven't you looked into Chapter 8's infamous editing if you're so deep into this subject?

"Climate science" is a big subject. No one knows everything about everything, me least of all.

You're not supplying any data that we're hotter today than the Medieval Warming Period.

I already did, just like I said I did. Multiple times in this thread, including within the last page or two.

I'm not going to hold your hand and supply the link to every article I post three or four times. I assume you have the capability to search.

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm not going to hold your hand and supply the link to every article I post three or four times. I assume you have the capability to search.

greg

Of course I do. Therefore I'll answer it for you.

Every encyclopedia, every ice-core sample and every climate scientists worth his weight in gold will tell you that the Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today, which completely contradicts your claim to the extreme contrary. There are however politically motivated liars and aggressive types, not too different from yourself, who will from time to time draw a fake graph, such as the the now discredited one by Michael Mann, or say that is untrue.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../274/5292/1503

Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was 1°C cooler than today 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).

I've also noticed you disagreed with the suggestion that there were other warm periods hotter than today. You're clearly out of your league. The Holocene Climatic Optimum from 9000 to 5000 years ago is another period that was hotter than it is today, and the ancient world only got to see temperatures roughly equal to now around 2000 years ago. During the peak of the HCO it was on average 4 degrees C at the North Pole, clearly too warm for any major ice flows to have existed in the Northern Hemisphere.

That means for much of Earth's history since the last major Ice Age temperatures have been higher than today. Yet again we see periods of Earth's history when temperatures were high and it wasn't due to human industry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Talking about yourself there.

You're now dodging the three things that I have demanded.

And why shouldn't I? Every time I prove you wrong, you ignore it and make some other unrelated "demand." Why should I listen to your "demands" if you refuse to acknowledge when you're proven wrong?

Demonstrate all 31,000 names of which 9000 are Phds is a bogus list. This hasn't been done (to the contrary, many of those scientists are in communication with each other) by anyone yet you are making lofty claims of having done so because you Googled a handful of people.

Yeah right, I'm going to track down 31000 bogus names and then what? You drag up 62000 new fake names and "demand" that I go and find out they're all fake too? Nobody is going to fall for that, champ. Get a new routine. But first, man up and admit you were fooled on this petition.

Look, I don't care if someone told you that "they're in communication with each other," all I'm asking you to do is find out for your own sake if they actually exist, are scientists, and have any expertise on climate. I'm sure I could find a long list of proctologists and dermatologists that support Al Gore, but just be honest, would you find that list at all convincing? You shouldn't.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And why shouldn't I? Every time I prove you wrong, you ignore it and make some other unrelated "demand." Why should I listen to your "demands" if you refuse to acknowledge when you're proven wrong?

You've never proved me wrong at all. You're also very silent whenever the political side of this debate rears its head as if you are hiding what direction you are seeing this subject from. If we include the Holocene Climatic Optimum in this debate you would be killed off completely. I'll leave that for others to do as I actually have a job and don't go around on forums trying to destroy capitalism every day.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I actually have a job and don't go around on forums trying to destroy capitalism every day.

yeah right, your job is to troll forums trying to destroy the environment, eh?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isn't the information age great? Even an non-scientist, such as yourself, acting non-scientifically, can find out if someone claiming to be a scientist actually is one. For example, take a few scientists from the IPCC report:

Your first scientist from the IPCC report;

http://www.google.com/search?q=R.+Timothy+Patterson home page: R. Timothy Patterson http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=L+Graham+Smith home pagesecond google hit)

“I teach a general climate change course. To get the significance of this correlation over to the students I use the following analogy. I tell the students that based on these records if you believe that climate is being driven by CO2 then they probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. If you can believe that this historical temporal incongruity could be feasible then you can have no problem believing that CO2 is what's driving Earth's climate system.”

R. Timothy Patterson

Your second one;

L Graham Smith (second google hit)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chris+de+Freitas home page:

"The problem is simply that there is no opposition allowed into this process, either to question the science, or the way the science informs the policy decision, nor to ask whether emissions reductions is the best solution in terms of the interests of the UK population, or throughout the world."

L. Graham Smith

Chris de Freitas (4th google hit)

"It is universally agreed that Kyoto will have an imperceptible effect on predicted global warming."

Chris de Freitas

These guys were IPCC scientists? What did I miss?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These guys were IPCC scientists? What did I miss?

Yeah, the Interdimensional Panel on Climate Change, duh.