[Uncle Skeleton]

*whoosh*

Whatever, I'm just glad the last page of this thread no longer includes the 100 MB browser-paralyzing image Chongo was rude enough to inline

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

uhh...pretty sure 1938 was in the 20th century anyways...what do i know though...i don't have a climatology degree.

…well English would be a good start.

And I'm glad that image pissed someone else off too. That page was ridiculously slow to load. I can't believe I've been downing a 100 megs every time I opened that page. Stupid stupid.

greg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

*whoosh*

Whatever, I'm just glad the last page of this thread no longer includes the 100 MB browser-paralyzing image Chongo was rude enough to inline

I could post it on this page if you'd like, and it was 794.3KB only

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I have to get one of these

dumb

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

1998

Nope, 1938 was the hottest followed by 1998. From 1998 to 2001 there was no perceivable rise and from 2001 we have had seven years of decreasing temperatures despite ever increasing emissions in China, India, Russia and South America, yet politically motivated journalists and scientists continue to tell us the world is warming.

But it was good to see none of you could refute the point I raised in Durkin's defence. He goes into it further to show the scale of the misinformation and poisonous abuse and lies he took over his documentary:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...er-889524.html

And another well known figure drops the Green party and rebukes Greenpeace:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4836556.ece

[PaperNotes]

I'll add two details just to refine the points.

1998 was hotter on average, but 1938 had a few days that were hotter than than any year in the 20th century. The chart above only shows yearly averages. Furthermore, the chart does show what AGW critics such as Durkin point out. The post-war economic and industrial boom from the 40s to the early 80s show global cooling. Yet again, global warming alarmists have no answer to that. They cannot answer that or how the ice core record shows global temperature drives carbon release not the other way around! Carbon has never driven temperature for the simple reason that anytime there is an excess of it, plant life adapts to absorb it. The result has always been larger plants, foliage and vegetation.

[Warren Pease]

So what you really meant to say when you wrote...

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

4. 1938 was the hottest year of the 21st century [sic]

was (and when trying to determine hottest year, it's a good idea to include all the days of that year, hence the yearly average)

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

1938 had a few days that were hotter than than any year in the 20th century

There's a difference. And from what i've seen, that is even a lie. The highest recorded temperatures were not in 1938, rather 1922, 1913, and 1942. 1938 isn't even in the top 10. 1937 is, but that's not 1938.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

If the statistic you were reaching for was that 1938 was, on average, the warmest temperature in the 20th century in the US only, you would be correct. If you want the warmest year, (on average again,) in the US only, it's 2006.

So what could cause global temperatures to fall during one of the greatest economic times of this past century? With all that CO2 being pumped in the air? It doesn't make sense. Could it be that there were things in the air back then, other things than CO2, that had the opposite effect? Why aren't they in the air anymore? Does the fact that this change occurred in, or within a few years of the 70's have anything to do with anything?

Lastly, the temperature, right here, right now, is 65. Explain.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So what you really meant to say when you wrote...

was (and when trying to determine hottest year, it's a good idea to include all the days of that year, hence the yearly average)

There's a difference. And from what i've seen, that is even a lie. The highest recorded temperatures were not in 1938, rather 1922, 1913, and 1942. 1938 isn't even in the top 10. 1937 is, but that's not 1938.

Why isn't that on the graph used by global warming alarmists?

So what could cause global temperatures to fall during one of the greatest economic times of this past century?

Solar activity just like Durkin and many others are saying but won't be given the airtime.

It works really simple. A child can work it out. Cosmic rays help in cloud formation, which help cool the world (right now we have cooling because of a lack of solar activity coupled with El Nina). But when solar activity is high the solar winds blow cosmic rays away from the earth and we get warming because of less cloud formation.

The Global Warming Swindle outlined this all with extremely accurate solar cycle data and ice core data. The Carbon Cult/Global Warming Alarmists simply haven't been able to refute it and when they do try they resort to personal attacks or conspiracy theories or even worse comparing brave scientists to holocaust deniers. Quite disgusting.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Why isn't that on the graph used by global warming alarmists?

Because a single temperature data point for a single geographical point on the earth for any single given day (and really a single time during that day) means absolutely nothing on it's own. It's trivia, but little else. I'm interested to know why you think it does, or should carry a great significance.

The temperature has risen to 70 degrees here. What does this tell you?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The Global Warming Swindle outlined this all with extremely accurate solar cycle data and ice core data. The Carbon Cult/Global Warming Alarmists simply haven't been able to refute it and when they do try they resort to personal attacks or conspiracy theories or even worse comparing brave scientists to holocaust deniers. Quite disgusting.

But...the Global Warming Swindle shows misleading solar cycle graphs. Are you aware of this?

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But...the Global Warming Swindle shows misleading solar cycle graphs. Are you aware of this?

greg

This has already been addressed and let's be fair, when Durkin was put on the spot by an Australian TV presenter on a debate programme he was bullied and not allowed to give an answer.

The chart shown by Durkin had a tiny bit of missing data in one area of the graph and at the end. Tiny!! A graphics artist filled the missing data with an irrelevant line because he thought it was his job to do so before the graphics were to be sent out and meet a deadline. The rest of the chart shows quite clearly that the solar activity record matches up with global temperature records. Anyone with a brain and eyes can see this. (Mann's hockey stick graph, loved by Al Gore and his sheep and which removed the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age from history btw has now been dropped by the IPCC.)

But Durkin and other brave AGW critics have also said that the sun isn't the only other factor. The earth's climate system is not understood completely by any scientists as it is very chaotic and has innumerable factors that come into play. The most important point is that the ice core record and temperatures of the last century prove that carbon and human activity is too small, pathetic and irrelevant to influence global temperatures. We're pathetic compared to the size of our planet, folks. Even volcanic eruptions, which release more carbon than all the cars in the world, have no effect on global temperature (except the areas where sunlight is blocked by ash).

We could be gone from this planet and it wouldn't change a thing. The only greenhouse gas that is relevant enough to influence temperatures is water vapour, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. The sun and geo-thermal heat are the biggest influence on how much water vapour there is.

Durkin's programme has been further vindicated by NASA's announcement that at present the sun is showing very little black spot activity. We're quite possibly in for a period of serious cooling now.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The temperature has risen to 70 degrees here. What does this tell you?

Where are you? In Europe we've had a cold summer and are having a very chilly autumn. You having a warm time doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

India hasn't been suffering its usual heatwaves.
Bangladesh isn't suffering its usual floods. Remember when they used to happen every year?
China too hasn't been suffering its usual floods.
The Tibetan plateau is colder than usual.
Antarctica's ice sheet continues to keep getting thicker.

[PaperNotes]

If you want to take a look at the dangers of letting eco campaigners get their way take a gander at their own vision of life that thier quangos and thinktanks are forcing governments to allow:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...on_spotchecks/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...o_slum_pledge/

Almost every aspect of life in the eco towns is minutely regulated.

Residents will also be required to pay a fine, mooted at around £2 ($4), each time they leave the town.

A bit like that communist (anti-semite and Islamist sympathiser) Ken Livingstone charging people to enter London then. Also:

other eco-town restrictions include a 15mph speed limit for vehicles , and toilets that don't flush

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The chart shown by Durkin had a tiny bit of missing data in one area of the graph and at the end. Tiny!!
...
The most important point is that the ice core record and temperatures of the last century prove that carbon and human activity is too small, pathetic and irrelevant to influence global temperatures.

Significant human emissions has only begun occurring within the last century. Given feedback lag time on any planetary effects, any results should be expected to occur within the last 30-50 years at most.

That "missing data" was the last 25 years, or the most important 1/4 of this "last century" you're talking about.

In fact, solar activity and global temperatures do not correlate well at all after 1985… the period Durkin left out at the end of his graph.

Furthermore, no one questions that solar activity is a hugely important factor re the earth's global temperature. No one questions that if the Sun goes through extreme periods of solar activity (such as now!), earth temperatures will respond as a result.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Furthermore, your dogged support of Durkin is astonishing. The man has already produced movies which resulted in public apologies by the network airing them. Every major climate scientist in the world has rejected his views shown in the Global Warming Swindle – abut of course that doesn't include most of the shills in the movie who make their living from being contrarian deniers.

Please, this is getting very, very redundant. Go search for the thread on this very movie from when it was released. We have already discussed how out-of-date, incorrect, out-of-context, falsified, and logically simplistic this "expose" was.

greg

[PaperNotes]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Furthermore, your dogged support of Durkin is astonishing. The man has already produced movies which resulted in public apologies by the network airing them.

That's misinformation. I'm a Brit and watch TV and read my news so watch it. Channel 4 is obliged to run notices before a show if a complaint has been made no matter how irrelevant. The documentary received many call-ins from the public. Out of every 7 phone calls, 6 were in favour and 1 against.

Every major climate scientist in the world has rejected his views shown in the Global Warming Swindle

Incorrect and blatant misinformation. Watch the documentary. Climatologists included are from NASA, MIT, authors of IPCC reports who wanted their names removed from the UN backed documents and had to threaten to sue the IPCC to have it done so, and numerous top scientists that are simply more respected and esteemed than those used by Al Gore.

This whole debate is very simple to conclude just by showing how the historical temperature record for the last one thousand years shows that temperature goes up first and then minor greenhouse gases such as carbon (by up to 800 years later). This is undisputed by anyone or purposely dodged.

Until someone addresses that and shows evidence to the contrary, this is the biggest lie the public has ever been told. It's daylight robbery of taxpayer money on a massive scale with the willing connivance of big business, the media and politicians.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Significant human emissions has only begun occurring within the last century.

It has increased in the last century but if you really want to use the word significant, then the 19th century had a lot of carbon release because of universal wood and coal burning.

Regardless, as we have seen, temperatures fell from the 40s to the 70s when post-war industrialisation was booming. Temperatures have also been stable and decreasing in the last 9 years even with the runaway boom in China, India, Brazil and some African states.

Carbon can't drive global warming because it isn't.

That "missing data" was the last 25 years, or the most important 1/4 of this "last century" you're talking about.

Durkin stated that recent data is incomplete so it couldn't be added (however, the world is cooling right now and solar activity is quieter than at anytime since the mid 50s when there was also cooling). One small section of incomplete data was filled in by a graphics artist. BUT the data overall that goes back hundreds of years in the ice core record showed that solar activity was a major driver in climate change and that carbon has never played a part.

Carbon is simply being singled out because it is a major by-product of industrialisation and of particular interest because:

-Communists and Greens single out carbon and want its output reduced to cripple capitalism and turn back the clock.
-Democratic leaders want to regulate energy usage for greater taxation purposes, control public behavior and slow down demand. They're scared of an energy crunch and want to hold it off until they have some new technology that will save the world. I only agree with this line but lying to the public is still wrong.
-The stock market wants to trade carbon to line the pockets of greedy stock brokers.
-Leaders and scientists in developing countries want moneys from the developed world to be passed to them via carbon credit schemes.
-The media loves a good global warming/millennium bug/asteroid attack/bird flu/knifing epidemic because scare stories keep the public reading, watching, fearful, docile and stupid. BBC = Big Brother Corporation fellows!

[Uncle Skeleton]

PaperNotes: hilarious stuff, keep it coming. This is the best one so far, "Carbon can't drive global warming because it isn't." More like that please. Also this one is a close second, "One small section of incomplete data was filled in by a graphics artist. BUT..." Haha!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[QUOTE=PaperNotes;3735224]

Incorrect and blatant misinformation. Watch the documentary.

What, the documentary itself? As in, the Great Global Warming Swindle?

I've already told you two or three times that it's already been watched and discussed in this forum. Are you even reading what I'm telling you? Is it getting through?

If you want to read about what we already spent two pages going over, then go Search for it. I'm not here to babysit you.

That's enough for me. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you strongly feel Martin Durkin – with his years of schooling and research in this field – knows more about climate change than NASA scientists. That's just silly.

greg

[Buckaroo]

[PaperNotes]

Nice retort guys! Not one bit of information or solid evidence to counter anything. This is exactly how the AGW folk have responded so far, either dodge the facts completely or or act bitchy.

We could keep going further. We could talk about what global sea levels were like when Greenland was mostly free of ice and the Vikings were farming on it.

We could talk about when the Arctic Circle was circumnavigated in the 19th century (during the end of the mini-Ice Age no less!), yet the media keeps telling us that the ice is at its thinnest now and some Northwest Passage has opened up for the first time.

We could talk about how Bangladesh's land mass has increased and how sea levels have dropped in the region (despite this, one Bangladeshi scientist says the West should give his country $50 billion to combat climate change. It's not surprising to see he works for and is funded by the IPCC.)

We could talk about the positive effects of the medieval warming period when it was hotter than today and Europe had a renaissance in the fields of science, politics and the arts because the population of Europe felt better living with a milder climate.

There's so many things I could add. Hard facts, boys and girls! But which one of you taking the opposing position is going to offer up anything?

[PaperNotes]

The Czech president talks about communism and climate change. No mention of it in the mainstream media:

http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clane...d=OfTuMDaIhOG8

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....a-1d53dff2a6bc

To be correctly understood, I am not against my country’s EU membership (by the way, it was me who handed in the formal application to enter the EU in 1996 when I was prime minister of the Czech Republic), because regretfully there is no other way to go in Europe these days. The recent developments in the EU are, however, very problematic: we see and feel less freedom, less democracy, less sovereignty, more of regulation, and more of extensive government intervention than we had expected when communism collapsed.

After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.

It is important to demonstrate that the global warming story is not an issue belonging to the field of natural sciences only or mostly, even though Al Gore and his fellow-travelers pretend it is the case. It is again, as always in the past, the old, for many of us well-known debate: freedom and free markets vs. dirigism, political control and expansive and unstoppable government regulation of human behavior. In the past, the market was undermined mostly by means of socialist arguments with slogans like: “stop the immiseration of the masses”. Now, the attack is led under the slogan: stop the immiseration (or perhaps destruction) of the Planet.

This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.

The global warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These rent-seekers profit

- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;

- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;

- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);

- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.

[Chongo]

Many pundits have said that the environmental movement is where the collectivist are now most active, and MMCC is their latest tool.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Many pundits have said that the environmental movement is where the collectivist are now most active, and MMCC is their latest tool.

Patrick Moore witnessed that himself when he co-founded and was part of Greenpeace for years. It's a racist (hates African development for example), communist and totalitarian inspired movement. Friends of the Earth is no different. Many Africans have been upset at how development is prevented by FoE's interference.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Nice retort guys! Not one bit of information or solid evidence to counter anything.

Heh, pretty weak showing, but I still chuckled.

Listen, all this stuff was already debunked in this thread. When you ignore previous arguments while accusing people of doing the same to you, that's downright funny. You're funny, troll.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

We could keep going further. We could talk about what global sea levels were like when Greenland was mostly free of ice and the Vikings were farming on it.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Greenland was mostly free of ice?!

AhhahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA AA…

Where are you getting your talking points from anyway?

We could talk about when the Arctic Circle was circumnavigated in the 19th century (during the end of the mini-Ice Age no less!), yet the media keeps telling us that the ice is at its thinnest now and some Northwest Passage has opened up for the first time.

Provide a link for this circumnavigation of the Arctic Circle please! (This will be interesting.)

(And who is saying the NWP has opened up "for the first time?" No one! No one! No one!)

We could talk about the positive effects of the medieval warming period when it was hotter than today and Europe had a renaissance in the fields of science, politics and the arts because the population of Europe felt better living with a milder climate.

Brilliant! With one long sentence you not only debunk current global warming fears, but you also give an explanation for Europe's world domination over the past 500 years. Who knew temperature was so important?

...but it's too bad you're wrong. It was not hotter than today in the MWP. That idea has already been addressed and dismissed in this thread and others, it's been debunked time and time again by real scientists publishing real studies.

There's so many things I could add. Hard facts, boys and girls! But which one of you taking the opposing position is going to offer up anything?

"Hard facts?" Where are your hard facts? Interviews with Durkin?? A speech by a politician?? You're just saying stuff – saying lies – which we've already talked about around here, and that we've already exhaustively shown are completely incorrect. What do you want people to do, keep having to do the research to point out, over and over, that the exact same point is wrong??

Your methods are intellectually lazy, troll.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Nice retort guys! Not one bit of information or solid evidence to counter anything.

Your opinion is duly noted.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...re-scientists/

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your opinion is duly noted.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...re-scientists/

Yawn. Please keep your clichés and fellow brainwashees to yourself.

Here is a list of prominent names in the media and politics who have been brainwashing the world with this global warming scare and their qualifications:

Celebrities

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Politicians:

John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Scientists:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

Social Scientists:

Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)

And here is over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying the global warming scare and and the theory of anthropogenic global warming is plain bullshit.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The list keeps growing. The petition also includes a vast scientific paper, that is properly peer reviewed and accredited unlike the work of the IPCC.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.



The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Now readers, when a members of forums like ShortcutToMoncton (who doesn't know that Greenland was once settled and named such because it was green) tell a bald faced lie such as "every major climate scientist in the world has rejected his views shown in the Global Warming Swindle", then you can be sure it's not an independent opinion but a deliberately skewed one.

There are no major climate scientists in Gore's documentary without an agenda (even his tutor that he kept mentioning disagrees with his views now). There are major climate scientists in Durkin's documentary who have no agenda. In Durkin's documentary, Greenpeace's co-founder gives an insider's insight into this global warming agenda too.

But in summary, the ice core record that Gore uses himself but doesn't go into detail with, shows that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere have never caused global warming throughout history. Neither has industrialisation been shown to cause any global warming.

So far we're talking about a 1 degree rise in the last 130 years (which has stopped rising in the last decade and has dropped drastically a couple times in the last century, enough for scientists and politicians to issue a global cooling scare in the 70s). The temperature fluctuations are normal and well within nature's range.

Don't believe it when people tell you different. They want your freedom taken away because they are society's dregs, the losers who want everything brought down to their level, or the rich trying to keep everyone else down, and they are the sympathisers of totalitarianism.

Take a look around you. The cameras are watching. Your IP address is noted. Patriot act, GPS tracking, congestion charges, carbon credits, credit crunches, the Wall Street bail out. All your freedoms and hard earned money being stolen and taxed right from under your feet by the rich and by religious and political hardliners, but you're too ****ing scared or occupied with your 3G phones about stories of terrorists and climate disasters to do a thing about it.

It's 1984 + 24 years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sigh. Ahhhh yes, those who believe in climate change are responsible for the Patriot act and GPS tracking. How very droll.

1. You clearly lack the capacity to read the words that people are putting on the screen in front of you. Some of those were, "we've already covered this before." That would also apply to your "petition list." It's mostly fake. We've already covered it, many times, including in this thread at least once. OOOOOooooo, more lies being spread by you, that doesn't help your case at all..

2. You didn't answer a single one of my questions. I asked them in the posts above yours. You claim to be posting hard facts; well then get your lazy ass to delivering the links supporting those facts. But wait: that would actually require you to do real research right? Ohhhh, not good not good! You never know what one might find in those dangerous areas of knowledge expansion – true communism looking over your shoulder!

Unfortunately, it would really help your argument if you weren't going around making dumb statements like this:

Now readers, when a members of forums like ShortcutToMoncton (who doesn't know that Greenland was once settled and named such because it was green)

See, that's wrong. You can't really get anything right, can you?

Greenland was once settled with about two Norse communities, and probably named "Greenland" because the founder(s) thought it would be easier to get people to leave Scandinavia/Iceland for a place called "Greenland." It wasn't because the place had no ice; it just had a slightly milder climate along those areas of the coast. How can you possibly think Greenland was almost ice-free?!?! Oh my god, the magnitude of ignorance encompassed in that statement makes me weak in the knees.

(And I imagine, out of the two of us, I'm the only one who's written a 3700-word historical essay examining the possible reasons why this attempted settlement failed, right? And here you thought I "didn't know" about all this; oh my that's embarrassing. )

Don't believe it when people tell you different. They want your freedom taken away because they are society's dregs, the losers who want everything brought down to their level, or the rich trying to keep everyone else down, and they are the sympathisers of totalitarianism.

Translation: "I feel it in my gut."

Ahhhhh, so predictable, and so ignorant on the issues at hand.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh. Ahhhh yes, those who believe in climate change are responsible for the Patriot act and GPS tracking. How very droll.

I didn't say anything like that. I was talking about people exploiting science and technology, and now banking, to chip away at liberties.

1. You clearly lack the capacity to read the words that people are putting on the screen in front of you. Some of those were, "we've already covered this before." That would also apply to your "petition list." It's mostly fake.

Fake like Michael Mann's graph and much of Al Gore's documentary? Fake like the IPCC's list of scientists they say supports their views? If so you will have to show evidence. Hard evidence.

Greenland was once settled with about two Norse communities, and probably named "Greenland" because the founder(s) thought it would be easier to get people to leave Scandinavia/Iceland for a place called "Greenland."

You're use of the word "probably" shows you are making **** up. Erik the Red named it Greenland because it was green around the coasts and he felt it would be an appropriate and attractive name for those who were unsure whether to settle there.

How can you possibly think Greenland was almost ice-free?!?!

I didn't say ALMOST ice-free. The exact wording I used was "mostly free of ice". Mostly free and almost free are two very different things. Mostly can be 51% free of ice. Almost means in excess of 90% free of ice.

It is a FACT that there were farming communities on Greenland and it was a much more lush landscape than what it became during the Little Ice Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rse_settlement

At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.

he oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, we know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.[11] Excavations of midden or garbage heaps from the Viking farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the shift from the bones of cows and pigs to those of sheep and goats. As the winters lengthened, and the springs and summers shortened, there must have been less and less time for Greenlanders to grow hay. By the mid-fourteenth century deposits from a chieftain’s farm showed a large number of cattle and caribou remains, whereas, a poorer farm only several kilometers away had no trace of domestic animal remains, only seal. Bone samples from Greenland Norse cemeteries confirm that the typical Greenlander diet had increased by this time from 20% sea animals to 80%.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...uring_mwp.html

Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds.

But we're going off topic now.

The ice core record shows that carbon concentrations went up after temperatures went up. Carbon never drove temperature. You will continue to try to dodge this and leave it out of your petty challenges against me. I will continue to repeat it without fail and without tiring. Challenge that FACT if you can.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhh, so the fact that Greenland's temperatures were slightly warmer means that it was mostly free of ice? Do you even know how much ice Greenland has? That's a preposterous statement.

You're use of the word "probably" shows you are making **** up. Erik the Red named it Greenland because it was green around the coasts and he felt it would be an appropriate and attractive name for those who were unsure whether to settle there.

LOL...that's what I just said. Look, do you even know anything about Greenland? Of course it's mostly green around many areas of the coasts! It's got grass; still does today in fact. He named it Greenland to lure people from Iceland, not because it was "lush." Your use of "lush" and "Greenland" in the same sentence is just hilarious.

There were two poor, small, little "farming communities" that could only support a few thousand people.

The ice core record shows that carbon concentrations went up after temperatures went up. Carbon never drove temperature. You will continue to try to dodge this and leave it out of your petty challenges against me. I will continue to repeat it without fail and without tiring. Challenge that FACT if you can.

ONCE AGAIN...it's already been challenged, thoroughly, in this thread. It's a central tenet of climate science. CO2 is supposed to follow temperatures, creating a "feedback effect" which increases those temperatures.

The entire point of climate-change science is that humans are significantly increasing CO2 through artificial means. You're arguing the exact same point as climate scientists are saying!

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The ice core record shows that carbon concentrations went up after temperatures went up.

That is not true. What is true is that (some of) the changes in the downward temperature trend changed to upward before their corresponding trends in CO2 changed to upward. Then for some hundreds of thousands of years both trends were upward. If what you said were true, then the CO2 upward trends would not have started until the temperature upward trends had finished, and that has never happened (per the data we have).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

(Greenland excuses blah blah but somehow it is ok to believe in AGW will flood and kill the world yawn)

ONCE AGAIN...it's already been challenged, thoroughly, in this thread.

greg

I'm asking you to challenge it RIGHT NOW.

And again, the ice core record shows that carbon concentrations went up after temperatures went up. Carbon never drove temperature. You will continue to try to dodge this and leave it out of your petty challenges against me. I will continue to repeat it without fail and without tiring. Challenge that FACT if you can.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That is not true.

It is precisely true and if you want to contest it you must show evidence otherwise we are just being semantic.

The ice core record in Antarctica and Greenland show that throughout history when temperatures went up due to solar activity, oceans warmed and then released CO2. Never the other way around. CO2 never drove temperatures as Al Gore falsely claimed.

And if we talk about man-made warming because of carbon emissions, again wrong.

The start of the Industrial Revolution saw the start of long term global cooling called the Little Ice Age. At that time we were spewing so much carbon from wood and coal burning that people would return home with blackened faces all the time, gloves and hats were in common use to protect nails and hair from soot, cancer and lung disease were very common, fog and smog was so dense it was impossible to see the end of most streets.

Yes the world didn't warm, it cooled.

The end of WWII saw massive industrialisation and carbon output on a globally co-operative level that history never saw before. Temperatures cooled for 30 years instead of going up.

That cooling ended in the 70s. The end of it coincided with a global recession! Industrialisation went down but temperatures went up from that point on until 1998.

Temperatures from 1998 to 2001 levelled off. There has been no global temperature increase since, instead temperatures have dropped slightly, even though Chinese and Indian industrialisation has increased dramatically (their populations have also added more than 100 million people since then), and S. America, Africa and Eastern Europe has also seen a rise in commerce and production.

Challenge all of that with facts.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I'm asking you to challenge it RIGHT NOW.

I'm sorry, but I'm seriously questioning your intelligence at this point.

You seem to not understand that you're providing no facts of your own. You're just saying ridiculous things, and then claiming that they're true unless other people go out and find facts to prove them wrong.

Here's an example, since you seem too thick to understand:
You: "You can breathe in space."
Me: "That's ridiculous."
You: "PROVE IT OR IT'S TRUE!"

You see how that works?

And again, the ice core record shows that carbon concentrations went up after temperatures went up. Carbon never drove temperature. .

I already addressed this. Unsurprisingly, you are not understanding. This is exactly what climate science says: carbon dioxide was never the primary driver of temperature. But it still made a difference on temperature, because climate chemistry says so. So the entire point is that while it doesn't traditionally drive temperature, it does affect temperature.

So, question: what has happened in the past few thousand years, but especially the last couple hundred, that might abnormally affect CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

The start of the Industrial Revolution saw the start of long term global cooling called the Little Ice Age. At that time we were spewing so much carbon from wood and coal burning that people would return home with blackened faces all the time, gloves and hats were in common use to protect nails and hair from soot, cancer and lung disease were very common, fog and smog was so dense it was impossible to see the end of most streets.

Yes the world didn't warm, it cooled.

Black faces? Hahaha, you're confusing "carbon" with "atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."

In fact, what you are describing are called "aerosols." They are solid particles in the air or atmosphere, say, that come from burning straight carbon, or that come from volcanic explosions.

Aerosols do not increase temperatures. Aerosols lower temperatures.

The end of WWII saw massive industrialisation and carbon output on a globally co-operative level that history never saw before. Temperatures cooled for 30 years instead of going up.

That cooling ended in the 70s. The end of it coincided with a global recession! Industrialisation went down but temperatures went up from that point on until 1998.

1. Once again, you need to research "solar aerosols."
2. So? You're just pointing out that CO2 emissions did rise throughout this time, and started to make a difference by the 1980s – the precise time when solar output actually lowered. You're just proving climate science's point, that CO2 concentrations are now affecting temperatures.

Temperatures from 1998 to 2001 levelled off. There has been no global temperature increase since, instead temperatures have dropped slightly, even though Chinese and Indian industrialisation has increased dramatically (their populations have also added more than 100 million people since then), and S. America, Africa and Eastern Europe has also seen a rise in commerce and production.

Challenge all of that with facts.

Sure: you're wrong. Hottest global temperatures were in 2005. You're confusing "global temperatures" with "continental US temperatures." Now I'll proceed to produce "facts" which will completely rebut your statement, something you haven't produced at all this entire time:

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It is precisely true and if you want to contest it you must show evidence otherwise we are just being semantic.

The ice core record in Antarctica and Greenland show that throughout history when temperatures went up due to solar activity, oceans warmed and then released CO2. Never the other way around. CO2 never drove temperatures as Al Gore falsely claimed.

And if we talk about man-made warming because of carbon emissions, again wrong.

The start of the Industrial Revolution saw the start of long term global cooling called the Little Ice Age. At that time we were spewing so much carbon from wood and coal burning that people would return home with blackened faces all the time, gloves and hats were in common use to protect nails and hair from soot, cancer and lung disease were very common, fog and smog was so dense it was impossible to see the end of most streets.

Yes the world didn't warm, it cooled.

The end of WWII saw massive industrialisation and carbon output on a globally co-operative level that history never saw before. Temperatures cooled for 30 years instead of going up.

That cooling ended in the 70s. The end of it coincided with a global recession! Industrialisation went down but temperatures went up from that point on until 1998.

And then 2005. And then 2007. We can be a little more diligent by using current data - data from the past decade. Eight of the warmest years on record occurred in the past ten years. You mention (the not so significant year,) 1998 later in your post, but consider it addressed here.

(I really like the idea that the world is always cooling after the hottest year. That is until there is a new hottest year. But after that... always cooling. it makes me giggle a little.)

Anyway, I was alluding to this earlier, but you didn't pick up on it. One of the factors that contributes to climate change, that we know about, and have studied, but gets little press is SO2. The gas which is produced by industry has the effect of cooling the atmosphere. It produces smog. It also has really nasty effects on peoples health and was found to contribute to the effect called acid rain.

The end of WW2 saw massive industrialisation and carbon and sulphate output on a globally co-operative level that history never saw before. Temperatures cooled for 30 years.

That cooling ended in the 70s when the output of SO2 was capped by the clean air act. The cooling effect of that gas no longer counter-balanced the effect of CO2 (which has not been regulated).

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Temperatures from 1998 to 2001 levelled off. There has been no global temperature increase since, instead temperatures have dropped slightly, even though Chinese and Indian industrialisation has increased dramatically (their populations have also added more than 100 million people since then), and S. America, Africa and Eastern Europe has also seen a rise in commerce and production.

Challenge all of that with facts.

What has been in my mind for the past couple of days is - what is the state of China's and India's (and any other emerging country) industries. They (thinking of China here with the Olympics) clearly have a smog problem. Do they have the same restrictions on SO2 output as we do? If not, could their industries be pulling us into a cooling phase further down the road?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And then 2005. And then 2007. We can be a little more diligent by using current data - data from the past decade. Eight of the warmest years on record occurred in the past ten years. You mention (the not so significant year,) 1998 later in your post, but consider it addressed here.

This is more falsification of evidence by politically motivated parties, just like the IPCC and just like Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that removed the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age from history, just like Al Gore's documentary which failed to note that carbon concentrations historically rose after global temperature rises. And now I'm supposed to believe in this too when the majority of scientists say 1998-2001 saw the peak?

Of course, a couple of you will say there are no climate scientists that oppose the global warming paranoia/communist propaganda. I'll pull out a list of thousands who do, including high ranking Green group insiders who have jumped ship and also political figures who have heard the backroom discussions and are exposing the lies-for-money-and-power.

The end of WW2 saw massive industrialisation and carbon and sulphate output on a globally co-operative level that history never saw before. Temperatures cooled for 30 years.

That cooling ended in the 70s when the output of SO2 was capped by the clean air act. The cooling effect of that gas no longer counter-balanced the effect of CO2 (which has not been regulated).

The reason this gets no attention is because it is wrong. The IPCC and Lord Protector of the Planet Earth (Al Gore and his high school drop out celebrities) ignore any discussion about the period. The cooling effect coincided with a lack of solar activity. In almost all of the cases warming and cooling trends have been influenced by solar activity. Carbon emissions have never played a part.

Let's hit on another point. I'm sure you'll try to worm your way out of it in your politically motived and self-absorbed support for anthropogenic global warming hysteria.

Here's the point. All scientists, on both sides, have said temperatures are currently about 1 degree up globally on average (ignoring recent cooling trends which will continue). What is this 1 degree increase over exactly?

It is a 1 degree rise over the Little Ice Age. In other words, an increase over a period of cooling that was far below the average temperatures that preceded it. The world saw higher temperatures 800-1000 years ago than we do today The Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians and the Egyptians lived with similar or higher temperatures that we do today. FACT. No SUVs around at the time to take the blame either.

Now if you dodge that point, it wouldn't surprise anyone. After all, you're lending your support to groups who are politically motivated, have held back development in Africa by buying local officials, who have admitted they want to roll back the industrial revolution, who are anti-capitalists, whose own manifestos for secluded eco-towns would please the most totalitarian and frightening figures from history, who lie frequently, who bribe frequently, and who use direct action and violence against several industries. They want to bring about a world that they believe will be a Green utopia, where everyone will be dressed in Green, where rivers will flow with fresh milk and juice, where all unbelievers will be punished and abandoned by those who will be rewarded.

I'm talking about Green groups of course but could have beeen talking about Islamists in the same breath right there, in every detail.

[PaperNotes]

In a Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presents data showing that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over and we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. He also suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happen is their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GSA.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, mainly carbon dioxide. This conclusion is based on output from global climate computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCM). David Douglass and John Christy, in a paper recently accepted for publication and already available on the internet, have come to a different conclusion.

A new analysis of global temperature data suggests that carbon dioxide doesn't play a large role, and that there are no significant positive feedback effects.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

[PaperNotes]

De-industrialisation, no more energy independence for some states, and full power to Russia at a time when several nations are scared enough being dependent on Russian export. Combined forces are positioning themselves to bankrupt the West completely.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...tuesday_votes/

Dirty games, folks. Dirty games. People in positions of power have been bought off again. Time to stand up people. Time to do what the Greens and the Islamists have done to get so much political correctness and leeway. Time to use your votes wisely, use your consumer power wisely, and if all else fails, fight in any way possible to defend your economies and freedoms from this creeping fascism.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhhhhhahahahahahaha!

So wait, he's back to saying that the MWP was warmer than it is today? And that 1998 was still the warmest year?

This guy's a troll. He asks for proof, and then when I give him NASA temperature profiles, he completely ignores them.

Troll.

greg

[Warren Pease]

Meh. Don't let facts stand in the way of a good, hackneyed, partisan rant.

[PaperNotes]

haha calling me partisan because you have no response. I'm a British Atheist Libertarian. You can't play the conservative Republican bumper sticker versus liberal democratic progressive treehugger black-and-white me-versus-them card with me.


MORE:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...0/post_55.html

[Uncle Skeleton]

An appeal to authority wasn't doing it for PaperNotes anymore, he had to make an appeal to A BLOG. He's just a parody, he just wants attention.

I'll give another demonstration:

Originally Posted by troll

Originally Posted by greg

ONCE AGAIN...it's already been challenged, thoroughly, in this thread.

greg

I'm asking you to challenge it RIGHT NOW.

Could he be any more the petulant child? Here's what it comes down to: if he cared at all about information or knowledge, he would be happy to learn that the answers to his questions were already in front of him, all he had to do was look at them. At most 35 clicks and 35 keystrokes, and he would have them. If he found them unsatisfactory, he would be addressing those posts. But he's not the slightest bit interested in information or knowledge, all he wants is attention. "Pay attention to me RIGTH NOW." It's the very definition of a troll. Everyone just please do yourselves a favor and stop feeding him.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Could he be any more the petulant child? Here's what it comes down to: if he cared at all about information or knowledge, he would be happy to learn that the answers to his questions were already in front of him, all he had to do was look at them. At most 35 clicks and 35 keystrokes, and he would have them. If he found them unsatisfactory, he would be addressing those posts. But he's not the slightest bit interested in information or knowledge, all he wants is attention. "Pay attention to me RIGTH NOW." It's the very definition of a troll. Everyone just please do yourselves a favor and stop feeding him.

If you 3 or 4 guys can't beat him now with your "facts" and have to attack the man instead of the message then why should he go pages n pages back to when you did no better against others (or lied to others not as well studied as papernotes, as he clearly is able to pull out sources every time which you guys can't)????

PN gave you a list of 32000 scientists. Proved you wrong many times. You come back with gutter attacks and bad science. His most recent source is a NASA scientist.

Roy Spencer
U.S. AMSR-E Science Team Leader
[email protected]
(256) 961-7960

Dr. Spencer received his B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1980 and 1982. He then continued at the University of Wisconsin through 1984 in the Space Science and Engineering Center as a research scientist. He joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in 1984, where he later became Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. He resigned from NASA in 2001 and joined the Univeristy of Alabama in Huntsville as a Principal Research Scientist. Dr. Spencer has served as Pricipal Investigator on the Global Precipitation Studies with Nimbus-7 and DMSP SSM/I, and the Advanced Microwave Precipitation Radiometer High Altitude Studies of Precipitation Systems. He has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council study panels.

Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader.

He received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in 1991, the MSFC Center Director’s Commendation in 1989, and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award in 1996.

Let's see you do better without the personal attacks.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

why should he go pages n pages back?

No. Why should anyone bother to indulge either of you jokers, if you're just going to ignore the answers given and ask the same thing again a few days later? If you want any credibility, you'll have to address the answers already given that address your questions.

...to when you did no better against others (or lied...

If you're going to call someone a liar, you had better have some evidence. Which posts were lies? How can you prove it? If you're just going to sling baseless accusations, then why should anyone even bother to respond to you? Any valid evidence they bring you can just call it a lie, if you're going to be that lazy about it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

If you 3 or 4 guys can't beat him now with your "facts" and have to attack the man instead of the message then why should he go pages n pages back to when you did no better against others (or lied to others not as well studied as papernotes, as he clearly is able to pull out sources every time which you guys can't)????

Are you blind? Did you even read this page of the thread? He didn't pull out "sources," he pulled out articles and blogs and "conference talks." No one cares if some scientist thinks global warming is a crock; lots of people think it's a crock, just as lots of people think it's the Gospel Truth. We demand scientific, or at least legitimate, study to support your reasons.

I responded with a peer-reviewed paper and temperature graphs straight from NASA's web site, both of which rebutted specific claims PaperNotes had made. He ignored both, and continued to spew disinformation.

You're wrong.

PN gave you a list of 32000 scientists. Proved you wrong many times.

1. He gave us a list which has already proven to be a bogus list, in this very thread. Once again, you're exhibiting the same inability to read as PaperNotes.

2. Please give me an example where he "proved me wrong." You can't.

You come back with gutter attacks and bad science. His most recent source is a NASA scientist.

IMO "gutter attacks" are warranted when someone acts like a troll. Even though many of PaperNotes' claims have been proven wrong on this very page, he hasn't responded to a single rebuttal and just keeps steadfastly saying incorrect things. In other words, he's just lying.

Bad science? Please give me an example of where "bad science" was posted. (You can't, and I know it, but I'll ask anyway.)

Roy Spencer has an opinion. Everyone's cool with that. Once again, we're debating science, not opinions.

[gutter attack]
...but of course since you can't seem to muster up the energy required to read a single page of this thread, I'm not surprised you wouldn't know that. Troll.
[/gutter attack]

greg

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Are you blind? Did you even read this page of the thread? He didn't pull out "sources,"

I see plenty of sources and links from him and nothing reasonable from you.

I responded with a peer-reviewed paper and temperature graphs straight from NASA's web site, both of which rebutted specific claims PaperNotes had made. He ignored both, and continued to spew disinformation.

The only error I've seen him make is about the circumnavigation of the North Pole in the 19th century which might be a misreading of Franklin's expedition on the HMS Erebus. It got lost half way up the Northwest Passage and trapped in ice. The passage wasn't free of ice, however for Franklin to have gotten that far, the passage would have had to have less ice than today because our ships today can't get as far as the HMS Erebus did (only massive Ice-Breakers can).

1. He gave us a list which has already proven to be a bogus list, in this very thread.

The list of 31000+ scientists is used by many scientists in the field and also by independent media. If you're going to say it is bogus, you have to provide 31000+ forms of evidence to strike off each name from the list.

The list is usually double checked and if a scientist finds his name on there without consent they can do something about it.

2. Please give me an example where he "proved me wrong." You can't.

Neither you or your tiny minority of consorts have been able to show any evidence to support the idea that carbon in the atmosphere raises global temperatures even when Papernotes and others have shown that the ice-core records tell a different story. Temperature has gone up and then carbon (and other greenhouse gases) have gone up afterwards in response. This has been a consistent pattern throughout history.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I see plenty of sources and links from him and nothing reasonable from you.

Laughable. Greg produces facts, figures, and peer-reviewed scientific literature. PaperNotes produces links to The Register, Wikipedia, and blogs. I guess in your fringe view, data and evidence are "unreasonable," because they don't give you any "reason" to believe you were right all along. I think that's about as much as anyone needs to know about your viewpoint...

The list of 31000+ scientists is used by many scientists in the field and also by independent media. If you're going to say it is bogus, you have to provide 31000+ forms of evidence to strike off each name from the list.

The list is usually double checked and if a scientist finds his name on there without consent they can do something about it.

That list was debunked 6 months ago in this thread already. Furthermore, just now I picked 10 unusual-sounding names from the list at random and googled them. Guess how many were published climate scientists: zero! Guess how many even had any hits at all: two! And they were completely unrelated to science! Now before you embarrass yourself further on this petition, why don't you go through the list and fact check it until you find even one single name on it (just one!) whom you can verify is even a scientist, let alone whether or not they have ever heard of the petition or signed it knowingly.

Neither you or your tiny minority of consorts have been able to show any evidence to support the idea that carbon in the atmosphere raises global temperatures even when Papernotes and others have shown that the ice-core records tell a different story. Temperature has gone up and then carbon (and other greenhouse gases) have gone up afterwards in response. This has been a consistent pattern throughout history.

First of all, you're referring to the change in trends, not the trends themselves. The trends themselves overlap for 95% of the time.

Second, not all temperature trend changes precede CO2 trend changes, only some of them do. Please show the graph you are referencing, and I'll show you.

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.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I see plenty of sources and links from him and nothing reasonable from you.

Ahh, I see. You're blind, then.

The only error I've seen him make

...that the MWP was hotter than it is today? That it's been cooling since 1998? That 1938 was the hottest year in the 20th century? That Greenland was mostly free of ice, and that the Vikings named it "Greenland" because it was so "lush?" Never mind his obvious lack of knowledge about climate science in general, such as mistaking "carbon" for "carbon dioxide?"

is about the circumnavigation of the North Pole in the 19th century which might be a misreading of Franklin's expedition on the HMS Erebus. It got lost half way up the Northwest Passage and trapped in ice. The passage wasn't free of ice, however for Franklin to have gotten that far, the passage would have had to have less ice than today because our ships today can't get as far as the HMS Erebus did (only massive Ice-Breakers can).

Nonsense, we can get just as far and farther than Franklin did.

The list of 31000+ scientists is used by many scientists in the field and also by independent media. If you're going to say it is bogus, you have to provide 31000+ forms of evidence to strike off each name from the list.

*snort*

I see the pattern; you make up stuff, and it counts as "true" unless someone can debunk it right? Sorry, that's not how it works. If you give 31000 names, and it turns out several thousand of them are false, then you get no credibility.

Neither you or your tiny minority of consorts have been able to show any evidence to support the idea that carbon in the atmosphere raises global temperatures even when Papernotes and others have shown that the ice-core records tell a different story. Temperature has gone up and then carbon (and other greenhouse gases) have gone up afterwards in response. This has been a consistent pattern throughout history.

Heh heh.

You still can't read. I already said that this is what climate scientists are saying. The entire point of the worry is that, this time, "carbon" has gone up first/

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Laughable. Greg produces facts, figures, and peer-reviewed scientific literature. PaperNotes produces links to The Register, Wikipedia, and blogs.

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

First of all, you're referring to the change in trends, not the trends themselves. The trends themselves overlap for 95% of the time.

Second, not all temperature trend changes precede CO2 trend changes, only some of them do. Please show the graph you are referencing, and I'll show you.

To your first point, they do overlap, but temperature first followed by carbon every time. To your second point, Al Gore used an historical ice-core record graph which he said his "friend" Lonnie Thompson supplied him that fitted together like the South American and African continents and proved that carbon, throughout history, drove temperature changes. He purposely didn't zoom in on any of the peaks on the graph or superimposed them because each time temperature went up, carbon followed by up to 800 years later. Carbon never drove temperature.

We don't see that in the ice core record.

Cough. We do as mentioned above.

Watch another solid scientific documentary full of ACTUAL verifiable science. A lead scientist who studies ice-core samples in Greenland and Antarctica states exactly what the ice-core record shows and they superimpose the graphs, which Gore failed to do.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

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.

As for other silly remarks against me, Moncton states Greenland only had smallscale farming along the coasts and implies that it was just as much a frozen tundra as it is today. The kind of plants and flowers that grew on Greenland do not grow in the shadows of massive glaciers, and the animals that once lived there too would have died out if unable to graze. But they did graze for a few hundred years, and they would have grazed for a lot longer if the Vikings had settled much earlier.

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!

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.

Thanks Super Mario for correcting me on the Rebus. As we can see, when the Rebus set sail there was less ice than there is today in the Northwest Passage, that coincidentally Franklin discovered. I let it slide earlier because I couldn't remember the specific details and my knowledge of that merged with something else. That something else was an event when US and Russian submarines surfaced side by side to greet each other in 1981. Get this: the event took place at the North Pole. The ice cap was so thin that the two submarines were able to break through it easily.

Since then the polar caps have shrank and grown in accordance with solar activity, not carbon emissions. At the end of summer this year, the Arctic saw a 10% increase in ice-mass over the year earlier even though greenhouse emissions are up overall across the world. Coincidentally solar activity is at a minimum.

Everything points to the simple fact that anthropogenic global arming is bogus and that carbon plays no part in the warming of the world. The sun, that huge ball of fire that the IPCC and Michael Mann treat as non-existent, is the major driver of climate change. Instead of wasting trillions of hard earned dollars on nonsense programs, carbon credit scams, de-industrialisation, and filling the pockets of a nouveau rich class of environmentalist totalitarians, we could spend much less simply adapting to whatever nature throws at us.

You can say what you want. I'm going to keep posting science that disputes anthropogenic global warming.