gw is a LIE!

[westwall]

The Great Global Warming Deception By Bob Ellis on May 28th, 2009

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a video/slideshow presentation which shows once again that worshippers of the religion of global warming are full of hot air.

Al Gore and fellow socialists at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–a political organization, not a scientific one–and elsewhere desperately want people to believe the earth is going through unprecedented warming…and that it’s all the fault of those evil coal-burning, SUV-driving capitalists.

Unfortunately for them, this crazy idea not only doesn’t meet the test of science, it doesn’t even pass the smell-test. As a commenter at Free Republic said, ordinary folk can recognize bull feces by the smell and don’t need the recipe. But thanks to information such as this report from Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, those who need the recipe to see the light have it.

One of the things they point out is that temperatures were far higher in the past (see graph to the left), long before SUVs or power plants were ever built. The Vikings colonized Greenland (now covered in ice) and the land was even warm enough to plant vineyards.

Their data also shows a correlation between temperature changes and solar activity. Imagine that: the big star in the middle of our solar system burning at 11,000 degrees F can actually change the temperature here on earth! That might also explain the warming occurring on Mars and Jupiter and other planets in the solar system; somehow the apostles of global warming just can’t bring themselves to accept that the sun can affect temperatures on earth, though.

You can watch a video presentation of the slides here, or read the entire report–including charts–here.

No, there is no need whatsoever for our government to treat the American people worse than belligerent foreign dictators, to destroy thousands of jobs, to subject the American people to 40% higher electric bills–all to possibly lower the temperature by 9/100ths of a degree over 40 years…all for an empty deception.

The American people need to send a loud and clear message to the socialists in Washington: we won’t stand for your phony global warming tax!

The Great Global Warming Deception









And lets not forget, of course,.....the "consensus" is arrived at by about 2 dozen scientists worldwide!!!

Actually the "consensus" is 74 out of 79 climatologists. That is a fact. The rest of olfrauds "scientific societies" BS is the leadership of the organizations and not the body of the membership.

 

[warriorautotech]

Uh, tote, it ain't being debated by real scientists in the context whether it is occuring or not. The overwhelming consensus is that it is occurring and a clear and present danger. The debates at present are on the speed of the changes, and the significance of various feedbacks.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

uh, d Roc, I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Fifty years from now they are going to be asking what dumb asses like you were ever thinking.

Climate Science has never been wrong. There are NO rational reasons to be skeptical of it:

Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading Climate Scientists don't make wild claims:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

All skeptics are just anti-science.

Midnight FTW.................


Look.........most of the public are too disinterested to take a look at what is a highly coordinated political movement which started back in the 1970s'. It never had anything to do with science. Science has always been the vehicle used to fabricate the hoax..........and a brilliant strategy it has been............make no mistake. It has always been about anti-capitalism and world governemnt. Wealth distribution in a nutshell...........and as the years have gone by, lots and lots of corporate entities have climed aboard to get their slice of the pie ( General Electric, first and foremots). Like anything else of this magnitude..........always comes down to following the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I don't guess you.... Bothered checking my links?

 

[Trakar]

...uh, d Roc, I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

 

[Trakar]

...Actually the "consensus" is 74 out of 79 climatologists. That is a fact. The rest of olfrauds "scientific societies" BS is the leadership of the organizations and not the body of the membership.

Doran et al 2009 seems to contradict your obviously filtered opinion.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

[warriorautotech]

...uh, d Roc, I think you only see and hear what the liberal media wants you to. The only thing overwhelming about it is the incredible greed and corruption going on in and around everything related to gw.

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.After much study on this issue on both sides of it, it is clear that their is obviously some very real problems with the evidence that the climatologists are using to support gw. It is also becoming clear that their are more scientists that disagree with the theory of gw than ones that agree with it. How then do you suggest that I propose a solution when I dont believe there is a problem?
If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.
I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

 

[mudwhistle]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?

Liar.

They claimed that 2000 scientists agreed.

I doubt that's all of the scientists in the world.

 

[Trakar]

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.

After much study on this issue on both sides of it,

Which "sides" do you speak of?

it is clear that their is obviously some very real problems with the evidence that the climatologists are using to support gw.

What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?

It is also becoming clear that their are more scientists that disagree with the theory of gw than ones that agree with it.

again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?

How then do you suggest that I propose a solution when I dont believe there is a problem?

The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.

If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.

so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?

I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

 

[mudwhistle]

If GW is so obvious, why has the name changed from global warming to climate change?.......

Cuz they couldn't prove the Earth was warming anymore.

It's like their Universal Health Care became, affordable health care, then when they couldn't prove that ether it just became "Eat this bill and like it".

 

[westwall]

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.

If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.

so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?

I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube. For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.

Start there and you will also find the same thing going on with the Australian Temp record and of course just look at a few of the threads here and you will see how Hansen is falsifying the GISSTEMP record.

Also you might want to check the blog of Dr. Judith Curry, once a strong advocate of alarmism, but now that she has seen just how shoddy the work is that the leading climatologists is, she is changing her mind.

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

This is an article by one the IPCC scientists and he says that GW is no threat to humanity

`Global warming no threat to humanity'

And then of course you could check the Journal of Climate where the Steig et al paper that claied that Antarctica is rapidly warming is ripped to shreds and found to have been derived by bad use of statistical formulae and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which being that Steig himself was one of the peer reviewers of the rebuttal to his paper, which if you know ANYTHING about the peer review process is a HUGE no no.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Enjoy your research. There is quite literally tons of very good information that debunks the claims of AGW, if only you choose to look.

 

[Trakar]

I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube. For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.

"alarmist activist climatologists well documented on youtube"

doesn't sound unbiased, nor authoritatively referenced

If you have reference to any official scientific investigations of these issues I would be happy to look them over and account for them in my understandings of the issue.

Start there and you will also find the same thing going on with the Australian Temp record and of course just look at a few of the threads here and you will see how Hansen is falsifying the GISSTEMP record.

Again, any unbiased, official documentation or legitimately professional scientific publication source that confirms and supports these allegations would be required to credit this as anything but an unsubstantiated assertion.

Also you might want to check the blog of Dr. Judith Curry, once a strong advocate of alarmism, but now that she has seen just how shoddy the work is that the leading climatologists is, she is changing her mind.

Blogs are not legitimate science sources, occassionally science is transmitted through them, but they are unreliable and not held to any standards of accountability or professional legitimacy. If you have some professional science journal study/research by Dr. Curry which supports your assertions, I would be happy to review them.

This is an article by one the IPCC scientists and he says that GW is no threat to humanity

`Global warming no threat to humanity'

Third world newspaper op-eds are even less reliable than most blogs with regards to facts and reliability.

And then of course you could check the Journal of Climate where the Steig et al paper that claied that Antarctica is rapidly warming is ripped to shreds and found to have been derived by bad use of statistical formulae and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which being that Steig himself was one of the peer reviewers of the rebuttal to his paper, which if you know ANYTHING about the peer review process is a HUGE no no.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The link presented is broken, if you provide a functional link I will be happy to review and assess your assertions as to what was actually stated and what was determined.

Enjoy your research. There is quite literally tons of very good information that debunks the claims of AGW, if only you choose to look.

So, your focus is on debunking AGW, rather than discovering the truth?

If you are aware of anything that soundly discredits the basic premises of AGW, and provides an alternative explanation for the evidences that AGW presents I would be most interested in looking it over.

American Institute of Physics - The Discovery of Global Warming
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

National Academies Press - CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AN ANALYSIS OF SOME KEY QUESTIONS
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Scientific American - The Physical Science behind Climate Change
The Physical Science behind Climate Change: Scientific American
(admittedly a popsci magazine as opposed to a rigorous science journal - feel free to exclude it from your considerations if you wish to hold to high standards of science and reliability)

(AAAS) Science - BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

(AAAS) Science - Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) - Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions

More references available for those interested

 

[westwall]

I suggest you start with the NIWA debacle in New Zealand, it is well documented and the parliamentary hearings on the falsification of the Official New Zealand Temperature record by alarmist activist climatologists is well documented on youtube. For approximately 9 months New Zealand did not have an OTR due to the fraudulent "adjustments" that the climatologists in charge of the record were performing.

"alarmist activist climatologists well documented on youtube"

doesn't sound unbiased, nor authoritatively referenced

If you have reference to any official scientific investigations of these issues I would be happy to look them over and account for them in my understandings of the issue.

Start there and you will also find the same thing going on with the Australian Temp record and of course just look at a few of the threads here and you will see how Hansen is falsifying the GISSTEMP record.

Again, any unbiased, official documentation or legitimately professional scientific publication source that confirms and supports these allegations would be required to credit this as anything but an unsubstantiated assertion.



Blogs are not legitimate science sources, occassionally science is transmitted through them, but they are unreliable and not held to any standards of accountability or professional legitimacy. If you have some professional science journal study/research by Dr. Curry which supports your assertions, I would be happy to review them.



Third world newspaper op-eds are even less reliable than most blogs with regards to facts and reliability.

And then of course you could check the Journal of Climate where the Steig et al paper that claied that Antarctica is rapidly warming is ripped to shreds and found to have been derived by bad use of statistical formulae and a whole host of other problems, not the least of which being that Steig himself was one of the peer reviewers of the rebuttal to his paper, which if you know ANYTHING about the peer review process is a HUGE no no.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The link presented is broken, if you provide a functional link I will be happy to review and assess your assertions as to what was actually stated and what was determined.

Enjoy your research. There is quite literally tons of very good information that debunks the claims of AGW, if only you choose to look.

So, your focus is on debunking AGW, rather than discovering the truth?

If you are aware of anything that soundly discredits the basic premises of AGW, and provides an alternative explanation for the evidences that AGW presents I would be most interested in looking it over.

American Institute of Physics - The Discovery of Global Warming
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

National Academies Press - CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AN ANALYSIS OF SOME KEY QUESTIONS
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Scientific American - The Physical Science behind Climate Change
The Physical Science behind Climate Change: Scientific American
(admittedly a popsci magazine as opposed to a rigorous science journal - feel free to exclude it from your considerations if you wish to hold to high standards of science and reliability)

(AAAS) Science - BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

(AAAS) Science - Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) - Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions

More references available for those interested

That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we. As far as debunking AGW the climatologists have done that themselves. I am a geologist and at one time was a firm advocate of AGW, however when I actually started looking into the science behind it i discovered many problems with the basic underlying theory. Put another way the basic underlying principle of geology and most hard sciences is uniformitarianism. Thus, if things happened in the past, they will certainly happen again. Therefore before you can ascribe anthropogenic causes to a particular observed phenomena, you must first eliminate all possible natural causes. AGW proponents have failed to do this.

 

[Trakar]

That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we.

Yes, I am biased towards facts, evidences and mainstream scientific methods and understandings. If you embrace these components and feel you can support your assertions with legitimate and compelling references of equal standing to the sampling I've provided, please do so, I am interested in learning that which I do not know. The only thing I tend to reject with very little consideration is closed minded arrogant ignorance.

 

[jeffrockit]

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.

If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.

so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?

I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.
Friends of Science |

From a Univ of Rochester study:
The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

Not to mention the falsified documents that were uncovered last year. The problem is there is so much wealth to be made and so much to be redistributed if these claims are proved, I am hesitant to believe the hysteria. Just as the news of an ice age in the 70's proved to be a myth, based on evidence uncovered, this is proving to be much of the same.

 

[IanC]

trakar- I think you may be living in an echo chamber. the pieces of evidence you think go together one way can be put together to form other conclusions. Trenberth is wrong in thinking that AGW should be the null hypothesis.

on a different thread I asked what the proxies said about ice and temp levels for 1922. if the proxies dont show a dramatic heat increase and ice decrease then we can safely say that proxy records cant be directly compared to measured temps and ice levels of the present. not unlike the unscientific comparison of proxy temps to modern measurements in the Hockey Stick Graph. especially when they threw away the confounding post 1960 data.

often it is not the evidence that AGW alarmists collect, it is the unsubstantiated conclusions they draw from them. not to mention the large uncertainties that they chose to ignore, especially when talking to the public.

 

[Trakar]

trakar- I think you may be living in an echo chamber.

I've noticed that people often perceive their own flaws in other's character. Rather than engaging in an unproductive analysis of each other's motivations and influences, I think we might actually make better headway in actually examining evidences and assessing the science.

If you are going to reject mainstream science as an echo-chamber then you are implying a conspiracy of literally global proportions. I, personally, tend to reject such black helicopter lines of thought, but if you have compelling and empiric evidences of such, I am open to examining and considering them. If however, you are going to offer political blogsites and assorted crank and crackpot pseudoscience nonsense as counterpoint to mainstream scientific journals, organizations, and respected authorities in the field with regards to the proper understandings of the evidence, then we probably aren't going to progress very far.

the pieces of evidence you think go together one way can be put together to form other conclusions. Trenberth is wrong in thinking that AGW should be the null hypothesis.

Demonstrate and support, from legitimate sources, this assertion.

on a different thread I asked what the proxies said about ice and temp levels for 1922. if the proxies dont show a dramatic heat increase and ice decrease then we can safely say that proxy records cant be directly compared to measured temps and ice levels of the present.

There might be a case to be made in this respect, provided we keep the comparison rigorously apples to apples.
Do you have such evidence, or can you cite published science analyses and comparisons that make this case?

not unlike the unscientific comparison of proxy temps to modern measurements in the Hockey Stick Graph. especially when they threw away the confounding post 1960 data.

please provide cite and reference for these assertions

often it is not the evidence that AGW alarmists collect, it is the unsubstantiated conclusions they draw from them. not to mention the large uncertainties that they chose to ignore, especially when talking to the public.

again, assertions apparently flow easily, but I have yet to see any legitimately sourced support for these beliefs and statements.

 

[westwall]

That's OK, you're clearly biased as well so I guess we're even aren't we.

Yes, I am biased towards facts, evidences and mainstream scientific methods and understandings. If you embrace these components and feel you can support your assertions with legitimate and compelling references of equal standing to the sampling I've provided, please do so, I am interested in learning that which I do not know. The only thing I tend to reject with very little consideration is closed minded arrogant ignorance.

If you consider computer models science then you need to take some geology classes to learn about the limitations of computer models. I can present historical data that shows everything that is claimed to be evidence of GW, has happened in the past long before man was able to produce large quantities of CO2.

How do you reconcile those well known historical facts with your theory?

 

[westwall]

trakar- I think you may be living in an echo chamber.

I've noticed that people often perceive their own flaws in other's character. Rather than engaging in an unproductive analysis of each other's motivations and influences, I think we might actually make better headway in actually examining evidences and assessing the science.

If you are going to reject mainstream science as an echo-chamber then you are implying a conspiracy of literally global proportions. I, personally, tend to reject such black helicopter lines of thought, but if you have compelling and empiric evidences of such, I am open to examining and considering them. If however, you are going to offer political blogsites and assorted crank and crackpot pseudoscience nonsense as counterpoint to mainstream scientific journals, organizations, and respected authorities in the field with regards to the proper understandings of the evidence, then we probably aren't going to progress very far.

the pieces of evidence you think go together one way can be put together to form other conclusions. Trenberth is wrong in thinking that AGW should be the null hypothesis.

Demonstrate and support, from legitimate sources, this assertion.



There might be a case to be made in this respect, provided we keep the comparison rigorously apples to apples.
Do you have such evidence, or can you cite published science analyses and comparisons that make this case?

not unlike the unscientific comparison of proxy temps to modern measurements in the Hockey Stick Graph. especially when they threw away the confounding post 1960 data.

please provide cite and reference for these assertions

often it is not the evidence that AGW alarmists collect, it is the unsubstantiated conclusions they draw from them. not to mention the large uncertainties that they chose to ignore, especially when talking to the public.

again, assertions apparently flow easily, but I have yet to see any legitimately sourced support for these beliefs and statements.

I suggest you post any particular thing you feel is empirical evidence that proves AGW and we will take it from there. Please post all relevant links for your proof and we will very happily review what you post and answer with our evidence.

Hows that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Traker posted very revelant links from real scientists, not Youtube amatuers and pretenders such as yourself, Walleyes.

You claim to be a scientist, a member of the AGU and the Royal Society, then use newspaper editorials and Youtube nonsense to back your positions. Not very scientific at all.

 

[westwall]

Traker posted very revelant links from real scientists, not Youtube amatuers and pretenders such as yourself, Walleyes.

You claim to be a scientist, a member of the AGU and the Royal Society, then use newspaper editorials and Youtube nonsense to back your positions. Not very scientific at all.

He uses almost the exact same biased nonsense as you, mayhap he's a child of yours?