[307startup]

You're thinking of yourself and the rest of the deniers. The science is clearly on the side of AGW. All you have are talking points, spawned by the fossil fuel industry, which have been disproved time and again.

Can you be more ridiculous or hypocritical? You believe science when it comes to religion, but not when it comes to AGW. WTF? You guys absolutely baffle me.

Matt...

AGW/Climate Change with anthropomorphic causes is NOT a science. Science is a repeatable result by other scientists, using unbiased data and a clearly defined protocol.

Being a doubting Thomas about known skewing of data is rational & logical. Supporting it as science is not.

Calling me ridiculous or hypocritical is not scientific or even adult. It's just plain insulting and I, nor anyone else will be cowed into agreement on that basis.

Since when does consensus make science? If that were the case, all of the OTHER religions would be fact.

Your last sentence does not make any sense. Are you emotional tonight? Have you gone off your meds?

To quote a venal character from a banal pop-culture movie: "Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but you don't get anywhere." -Van Wilder.

It can't be said any plainer...feeling guilty for being alive is the tenet of most popular religions...just like your beloved AGW/Climate Change. You are more than welcome to feel guilty for being alive, but I won't pay penance for your perceived sins. Attempt to burden me with them and I'll place my bootheel on your throat.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

Come on now, "spawned by the fossil fuel industry"? Cannot you entertain the possibility there are people here who have a technical background and are fit to assess global warming studies directly because they can read and understand the material who then conclude it doesn't pass the smell test?

I wondered about your educational background to you. That wondering is rapidly receding given what can be concluded from the unoriginal tenor of your posts. You seem to be uncomfortable discussing science using your own voice. I suspect it may be because it's a foreign language to you and you don't wish to embarrass yourself by using an unfamiliar vocabulary.

This isn't meant to belittle you in any way. I'm sure I'd be as incompetent were I to be in your field of expertise. This subject does put you at a disadvantage because you are unable to independently judge its veracity and must rely on others to translate for you. The pitfall is having to trust the translator to give you an unadulterated translation. Human nature insures much mischief can happen during the providing of this service.

Mariss

[RomanLini]

More of the same huh? It's like the fervour of a religious zealot quoting all the appropriate passages in the Bible to PROVE that his is the one true God.

307startup-

... You can be one of the angry villagers bearing pitchforks and torches, ...

That rings true, rather sadly. At a Christmas party I had the misfortune to bump horns with an AGW Zealot and after a minute of ranting he was practically slavering at the mouth with bulging eyes and veins popping out... He was actually starting to lose coherence.

Fortunately I managed to return him back to something *apporaching* sanity by steering the conversation around to "nuclear power could be a good thing".

Some people who I assume are normally intelligent and rational get really disfunctional when their almost religious clutch on AGW gets threatened.

[Mariss Freimanis]

A new study shows there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Read all about it here:
New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″ | Watts Up With That?

[Mariss Freimanis]

James Hanson says reducing CO2 levels will cause Ice Age:

"Therefore, it is foolish to demand that policy makers reduce CO2 to 280 ppm. Indeed, if, with a magic wand, we reduced CO2 from today’s 389 ppm to 280 ppm that change would increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by almost 2 watts (per square meter). The planet would rapidly move toward a colder climate, probably colder than the Little Ice Age."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...McKibbenQA.pdf

[Mariss Freimanis]

The "97% of scientists agree..." number is revealed to be a fraud. Only 77 "special" scientists were polled.

"They looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy."

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming | Full Comment | National Post

[Mariss Freimanis]

100% of scientists agree global cooling in imminent!

31 scientists are warning about global cooling. If all 31 were polled, 100% would agree global cooling is imminent. This beats the global warming "97% scientist" number.:-)

Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

[Mariss Freimanis]

James Hanson caught red-handed!
It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature - Telegraph

[TomB]

Reference Matt Clara’s many posts.

Matt it seems to me that you are being hoodwinked by personalities and alarmists. I followed out many if not all of your posts and they contain arguments that are just not true. Comedians and advocates describing how they ‘sold’ the story is not the same as scientists arguing the theory. Public arguments are not organized and frequently use established but irrelevant facts to justify follow on positions. These three levels of argument are unrelated and the validity or consequences of one cannot logically be used to justify the others.

(1) Has there been global warming in the past 150 years? Even if there is a good argument that ground based thermometers are not valid, it still obviously true that warming has happened.
(2) Has CO2 levels increased in the past 150 years? Yes, but as shown by historical data CO2 levels are proportional to global temperature and they form a trailing indicator of temperature change.
(3) Is the global warming anthropogenic? There is no evidence for that but some pretty strong, albeit coincidental arguments, against the thesis.

In post 6840 I pointed to a chart on global temperature and a reasonable public discussion level paper on the topic. Nobody, and especially Matt Clara who want us to read all his posts, commented. That chart which I recopied here seems to put the ‘A’ in AGW into a coffin. Look at it and you see a 5000 year history of temperature change. It includes 4 very similar ‘warm’ periods 3 of which ended. It shows there has been recent warning. In the background data it shows that all of these warming lead CO2 increases. This is very strong coincidental evidence against AGW which ‘alarmists’ chose to ignore. I looked at Matt’s posts for equivalent strong evidence. In one case he has a post that says scientists have discovered that the makeup of atmospheric CO2 pointed to it resulting from combustion. I can see where it might be possible to measure that, but in Matt’s reference the discussion started with the sentence “Plants prefer C12…” Boys may prefer girls with nice bodies and girls may prefer boys with money, but plants don’t prefer anything. All carbon isotopes are interchangeable in chemical reactions so making any kind of an argument based on the ‘preference’ of plants is silly. Matt’s most recent post again demonstrates why is he is being hoodwinked. (1) Chomsky makes argument for AGW by calling his opponents Limbaugh-ers then McKibben paints a dire picture based on GW. There was no justification for the A in AGW. That mixing of argument is typical.

We should all know this but I’ll repeat it. We don’t have direct measurements of earth’s temperature over the past 4 billion years. To estimate it scientists find some process that is proportional to temperature whose results can be measured today. Such a process is called a ‘proxy’. The East Anglia AGW advocates tend to use tree ring width as a proxy; they measure the distance between annual rings in old tree stumps and derive historic annual temperature from the numbers. Ice core proxies measure the relative percentage of O16 and O18 isotopes in each ice layer. There are other proxies used in relationship to sea floor sediment. As non-scientist it is fair that we should expect all proxies to agree unless we are provided a strong reason why not. From history we know of events that indicate earth temperature, for example where wine making was possible, where snowfall required moving sheep off mountains, etc., and again as non-scientists we should expect any proxy to correlate almost exactly to these events. Ice core data passes these tests.

There are some valid reasons to curtail CO2 emissions, but they have nothing to do with global warming. The current flow of cash to the unstable Middle East is a threat to the world. Conversely, the only really good measure of recent earth temperature is satellite data since 1979 and if El Nino and volcano effects are eliminated it shows no significant temperature variations. Just why do the AGW debates continue when we have so many other significant problems?

[kanton]

Since CH4 has 8-100 times the global warming effect of CO2 just light your farts an all will be well!

[Mariss Freimanis]

Tom,

Well reasoned post. The current warm period can also be seen as a temperature rebound from the Little Ice Age.

Of note is the graph shows sharp peaks of warming; it warms rapidly and then cools just as rapidly. Secondly, each succeeding peak has a lesser maximum than the previous peak. Since warming is natural, one can assume we may be in for rapid cooling if our current era warming peak follows a similarl shape. This may have already started given the severity of winters in both hemispheres the last few years.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Tom,

I'd also like to refer you to a graph I posted earlier, the "Greenland GISP2 Ice Core Temperatures Last 10,000 Years" which more clearly illustrates the descending peak temperatures in each warming period beginning with the Minoan Warm Period.

Interglacial durations last 10,000 to 15,000 years on average and ours began about 15,000 years ago. It is reasonable to expect we are near the end of our current interglacial interval.

Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010 - By Brian Bolduc - Planet Gore - National Review Online

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

How could our earth have such a precariously balanced system where "the small amount that man is adding throws that balance out of whack."? It seem then a series of volcanic eruptions anytime in the past would have "unbalanced" the system and doomed the earth forevermore. The earth manifestly still here; more likely there is something wrong with your claim.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses before thinking zebras.

Mariss

[Ron Dunn]

Matt, did you know that it is possible for a post to contain more than one sentence and more than one link?

An added benefit is that taking the time to edit a post might also improve the quality of your thinking.

Of course, if this is all just a bit of fun to boost your post count and your ego, then keep it up

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt, you seem to be an expert on science. What is your science education?

[TomB]

And responding directly to your graph:
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

And responding to your claim that temp records are unreliable.
Are surface temperature records reliable?

I read all the material at the links, this entry and the others, including the comments. First it seemed that some of the commenters knew more about the topic than the authors and overall nothing showed a consistent picture. Take this one response and look at it a bit critically. The page referenced starts out by saying that the Medieval warm period was localized, only N. America, the Atlantic and Europe was warmer and we, the authors know that other parts of the earth were much cooler so that that the average was really lower than today. Just given the basis they present for all that added knowledge I guess I’m to assume that god came down from the heavers and stood in a burning bush while he provided them the detailed worldwide temperature data. I didn’t believe the original story and I even more skeptical of this version. When making what is a very controversial point it is important to provide justification.

However as I read further in the reference they have more ‘justification’. The sun was active and volcanoes were inactive. In the prior paragraph they argued the warming was localized, so guess I am supposed to believe that the sun was only active when it was over the Europe to N. America sector and that while volcano ash was low in that sector it was perhaps high elsewhere. Even if your source was right about the localized sun heating what about the other 3 warm periods. In the absence of other explanations I guess I’m to believe that this miracle of selective heating could also explain the Roman and Minoan warm periods. But if that grand extrapolation is the case why isn’t it true of the current warm period also?

Matt, don’t try to feed us BS. Find good solid peer reviewed material to support your position and please verify that the peers picked to review material are not bosom buddies of the authors. When I see someone on the forum being really unreasonable I sometimes think through the arguments carefully and present what I hope might be enlightening viewpoints. After doing so I do not continue the debate and I really don’t care if my explanation helps the poor soul, so expect no more responses from me on your chatter.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt, since you are "spoon feeding" us, don't we have the right to know the nutritional information of your porridge? What is your science background?

[johyn]

Hey Matt, the good thing about women talking in videos is that you can hit the pause button... :cheers:
And for the rest of you thinking that there is some kind of science involved in the GW subject, then your right. The science of reliving fools of their money... :bs:
Wake up! it's fricken cold outside! (chair)

[TomB]

Where are your peer reviewed sources, TomB? You don't have any, you have your poorly formulated opinion, and ask that I take that over the scientists, who have been saying the same thing for over 30 years--if we don't change we're in trouble. And yet "people" like you persist.

Now, who's the progenitor of bullsh!t here? Hint: it's you.

I started this sequence (post #6840 on page 570) by providing you a link to peer reviewed material. Often the real scientific material depends upon a significant background in math and chemistry so I selected a paper that was written for public consumption by a real climate scientist. But unlike much of the web pages this article has 3 1/2 columns of references to the background science. At perhaps 20 references per column that is about 70 references that really do provide the justification for the points in the public article.

In reviewing your linked material I actually looked up some of the Skeptical Science 'Further Reading' material. It was not supporting material. Mostly it was public accessible level summaries of public accessible level material. Referencing IPCC reports is not referencing science papers. At the executive level they are political papers and in the background chapters they are scientists advocating public position. (The scandal related to AGW is not about ‘insider collaboration’ it is about sharing the data related to the advocating scientist’s original papers. Therefore you will find it difficult to get solid supporting papers.) Many of the readers of this newsgroup actually can deal with differential equations; can understand chemical or nuclear equations; and many can even spell entropy and enthalpy. Write to their level of expertise.

Just so you do not need to look up my prior post here is the referenced repeated.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2...0corrected.pdf

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt post #6737: Quote "the earth is warming and the cause is anthropomorphic."

Look up the meaning of 'anthropomorphic' before you correct other people.