'Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans'

[TakeAStepBack]

You're such a sweet talker. Yet you lack any insight on this topic. Here, I'll make you feeel better.

"I believe you, man. No, really. i do."

 

[RollingThunder]

You're such a sweet talker. Yet you lack any insight on this topic. Here, I'll make you feeel better.

"I believe you, man. No, really. i do."

You are obviously a really dumbshyt lacking any knowledge of this topic and simply spewing the propaganda and lies that your rightwing puppet-masters stuff into your feeble excuse for a brain. Just like most of the denier cult retards who display their ignorance and stupidity on this forum.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh OK, Corky.

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh OK, Corky.

So you agree with Dr. Muller now.....

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
The New York Times
Published: July 28, 2012
(excerpts)

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase. The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, Corky. i do not agree with Muller. he's a hack and lacks objectivity.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, Corky. i do not agree with Muller. he's a hack and lacks objectivity.

And there's that ol' denier cult conspiracy theory again - 'all of the scientists who confirm AGW are (fill in blank) and can't be trusted'. LOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are soooo pathetic.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You have no scientific evidence outside of computer modeling to back up your claims. You go ahead and believe whatever you want, corky. I'll stick to true science and skip the belief part.

 

[RollingThunder]

You have no scientific evidence outside of computer modeling to back up your claims. You go ahead and believe whatever you want, corky. I'll stick to true science and skip the belief part.

That's one of the myths of your cult but it is completely wrong and just reflects your complete ignorance of this subject. You are quite obviously a brainwashed dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign.

 

[polarbear]

Oh OK, Corky.

I`m wondering why this idiot rolling what`s his name isn`t at Chick-Fil-A doing a love in with his friend "Oldrocks", harassing a waitress for a free lunch.
No he can`t "Take a step back" like most normal people can.
Isn`t it funny though how the center piece of their religion these computer "climate models" have to make one correction after another one?
And right from the start the "NASA Top scientist" showed a trend with satellite data, but it never occurred to him that orbits decay.
But when a Geologist like Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who never claimed to be a "Top NASA scientist" makes a much lesser satellite data calibration error it`s quite another thing, even though the evidence on the ground shows that the Indian Ocean is not rising and the opposite is true.
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
He was crucified with personal attacks and had his carrier trashed by the Al Gore mob who claimed that Bangladesh + all the islands in that region will be flooded,...and soon after New York as well.

Now it`s the amount of CO2 the oceans absorb. I remember a high school experiment that demonstrated how hygroscopic CO2 is. A corked bottle full of CO2, with a straw through the cork sucks up water like a reverse thrust rocket engine.
No way will "Top NASA scientists" like Hansen ever consider the gigantic energy events occurring on the sun in their computer "climate models".
Well here is a computer model that predicts that the sun can do a tad more than what CO2 could do,...like making gravel and iron pellets "rain"..:
Simulation zum Ende des Planeten: Wenn die Erde verdampft - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Am Computer drehten die Wissenschaftler die Temperatur beider Modellplaneten langsam höher, auf 270 bis 1700 Grad Celsius.

....if You crank up the computer model temperatur to above 270 C and keep going to 1700 C

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh OK, Corky.

I`m wondering why this idiot rolling what`s his name isn`t at Chick-Fil-A doing a love in with his friend "Oldrocks", harassing a waitress for a free lunch.
No he can`t "Take a step back" like most normal people can.
Isn`t it funny though how the center piece of their religion these computer "climate models" have to make one correction after another one?
And right from the start the "NASA Top scientist" showed a trend with satellite data, but it never occurred to him that orbits decay.
But when a Geologist like Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who never claimed to be a "Top NASA scientist" makes a much lesser satellite data calibration error it`s quite another thing, even though the evidence on the ground shows that the Indian Ocean is not rising and the opposite is true.
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
He was crucified with personal attacks and had his carrier trashed by the Al Gore mob who claimed that Bangladesh + all the islands in that region will be flooded,...and soon after New York as well.

Now it`s the amount of CO2 the oceans absorb. I remember a high school experiment that demonstrated how hygroscopic CO2 is. A corked bottle full of CO2, with a straw through the cork sucks up water like a reverse thrust rocket engine.
No way will "Top NASA scientists" like Hansen ever consider the gigantic energy events occurring on the sun in their computer "climate models".
Well here is a computer model that predicts that the sun can do a tad more than what CO2 could do,...like making gravel and iron pellets "rain"..:
Simulation zum Ende des Planeten: Wenn die Erde verdampft - SPIEGEL ONLINE

http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-384911-panoV9free-nqis.jpg
Am Computer drehten die Wissenschaftler die Temperatur beider Modellplaneten langsam höher, auf 270 bis 1700 Grad Celsius.

....if You crank up the computer model temperatur to above 270 C and keep going to 1700 C

Your idiotic denier cult drivel just demonstrates what a clueless retard you are, PoopBrain.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh OK, Corky.

I`m wondering why this idiot rolling what`s his name isn`t at Chick-Fil-A doing a love in with his friend "Oldrocks", harassing a waitress for a free lunch.
No he can`t "Take a step back" like most normal people can.
Isn`t it funny though how the center piece of their religion these computer "climate models" have to make one correction after another one?
And right from the start the "NASA Top scientist" showed a trend with satellite data, but it never occurred to him that orbits decay.
But when a Geologist like Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who never claimed to be a "Top NASA scientist" makes a much lesser satellite data calibration error it`s quite another thing, even though the evidence on the ground shows that the Indian Ocean is not rising and the opposite is true.
CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
He was crucified with personal attacks and had his carrier trashed by the Al Gore mob who claimed that Bangladesh + all the islands in that region will be flooded,...and soon after New York as well.

Now it`s the amount of CO2 the oceans absorb. I remember a high school experiment that demonstrated how hygroscopic CO2 is. A corked bottle full of CO2, with a straw through the cork sucks up water like a reverse thrust rocket engine.
No way will "Top NASA scientists" like Hansen ever consider the gigantic energy events occurring on the sun in their computer "climate models".
Well here is a computer model that predicts that the sun can do a tad more than what CO2 could do,...like making gravel and iron pellets "rain"..:
Simulation zum Ende des Planeten: Wenn die Erde verdampft - SPIEGEL ONLINE

http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-384911-panoV9free-nqis.jpg
Am Computer drehten die Wissenschaftler die Temperatur beider Modellplaneten langsam höher, auf 270 bis 1700 Grad Celsius.

....if You crank up the computer model temperatur to above 270 C and keep going to 1700 C

Your idiotic denier cult drivel just demonstrates what a clueless retard you are, PoopBrain.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just too damn funny.. We've just observed Pavlovian cussing. With a bit of drool -- I suspect..

It's part of the training the Princess got at the websites that HE reads...

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change? « Greenfyre’s

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
September 9, 2008 by greenfyre

Simple, the Deniers would win … because they have no evidence or facts on their side.

Huh? If they have no evidence or facts, how can they win a debate?

Easy, because a debate is not about being right, it is about winning by appearing to be right. The more the audience does not understand the issue, the easier it is to win. You just need one thing, it’s called “the Gish Gallop.”

How this works: as fast as possible you tell as many lies and distortions as possible, cram them into the available time. It really does not matter whether you know them to be lies or whether they are things you actually believe yourself. The important thing is to pack in as much outrageous nonsense as possible into the time available.

Your opponent is then stuck using his time to either:

i) Simply state each lie is a lie, one for one, in which case it becomes his word/my word;
ii) Refuting the lies with facts and data, but of course refuting nonsense takes longer than saying it, so he might cover 1 point in 5, which leaves the impression that he had no answer for 4/5 points;
iii) Try to make his own points, in which case it can seem that he had no answer to any of the points you made.

The Princess was trained well wasn't she? And SHE QUOTES THIS SITE repeatedly..

Also found THIS on the site. In an obvious attempt to convert the Urban Gang-Banger demographic...

Rap Attack: I’m A Climate Scientist « Greenfyre’s

In the media landscape there are climate change deniers and believers, but rarely are those speaking about climate change actual climate scientists…

yo….we’re climate scientists.. and there’s no denying this Climate Change Is REEEEALL..

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
Not a cleo finalist
No a climate scientist

Droppin facts all over this wax
While bitches be crying about a carbon tax
Climate change is caused by people
Earth Unlike Alien Has no sequel
We gotta move fast or we’ll be forsaken,
Cause we were too busy suckin dick Copenhagen: (Politician)

I said Burn! it’s hot in here..
32% more carbon in the atmosphere.
Oh Eee Ohh Eee oh wee ice ice ice
Raisin’ sea levels twice by twice
We’re scientists, what we speak is True.
Unlike Andrew Bolt our work is Peer Reviewed… ooohhh

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
An Anglican revivalist
No a climate scientist

Feedback is like climate change on crack
The permafrosts subtracts: feedback
Methane release wack : feedback..
Write a letter then burn it: feedback
Denialists deny this in your dreams
Coz climate change means greater extremes,
Shit won’t be the norm
Heatwaves bigger badder storms
The Green house effect is just a theory sucker (Alan Jones)
Yeah so is gravity float away muther f**cker

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
I’m not a climate Scientist
Who’s Climate Scientists
A Penny Farthing Cyclist
No
A Lebanese typist
No
A Paleontologist
No
A Sebaceous Cyst
No! a climate scientist! Yo! PREACH~!

Probably they rehearsed that while on a hefty NOAA grant..

Or a lot of Faux Zen nonsense on how to stifle your scientific curiousity by concentrating on personalities instead of facts and attacks instead of knowledge...

Method without Science, tactics without strategy « Greenfyre’s

Please note the HEAVY HANDED rules for discussion on this Blog.. No Deniers allowed.. It's a dissonance - free zone... What a bunch of pompous posers....

And THAT is why the Princess is sooooo useful....

 

[polarbear]

Just too damn funny.. We've just observed Pavlovian cussing. With a bit of drool -- I suspect..

It's part of the training the Princess got at the websites that HE reads...

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change? « Greenfyre’s

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Climate Change?
September 9, 2008 by greenfyre

Simple, the Deniers would win … because they have no evidence or facts on their side.

Huh? If they have no evidence or facts, how can they win a debate?

Easy, because a debate is not about being right, it is about winning by appearing to be right. The more the audience does not understand the issue, the easier it is to win. You just need one thing, it’s called “the Gish Gallop.”

How this works: as fast as possible you tell as many lies and distortions as possible, cram them into the available time. It really does not matter whether you know them to be lies or whether they are things you actually believe yourself. The important thing is to pack in as much outrageous nonsense as possible into the time available.

Your opponent is then stuck using his time to either:

i) Simply state each lie is a lie, one for one, in which case it becomes his word/my word;
ii) Refuting the lies with facts and data, but of course refuting nonsense takes longer than saying it, so he might cover 1 point in 5, which leaves the impression that he had no answer for 4/5 points;
iii) Try to make his own points, in which case it can seem that he had no answer to any of the points you made.

The Princess was trained well wasn't she? And SHE QUOTES THIS SITE repeatedly..

Also found THIS on the site. In an obvious attempt to convert the Urban Gang-Banger demographic...

Rap Attack: I’m A Climate Scientist « Greenfyre’s

In the media landscape there are climate change deniers and believers, but rarely are those speaking about climate change actual climate scientists…

yo….we’re climate scientists.. and there’s no denying this Climate Change Is REEEEALL..

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
Not a cleo finalist
No a climate scientist

Droppin facts all over this wax
While bitches be crying about a carbon tax
Climate change is caused by people
Earth Unlike Alien Has no sequel
We gotta move fast or we’ll be forsaken,
Cause we were too busy suckin dick Copenhagen: (Politician)

I said Burn! it’s hot in here..
32% more carbon in the atmosphere.
Oh Eee Ohh Eee oh wee ice ice ice
Raisin’ sea levels twice by twice
We’re scientists, what we speak is True.
Unlike Andrew Bolt our work is Peer Reviewed… ooohhh

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
An Anglican revivalist
No a climate scientist

Feedback is like climate change on crack
The permafrosts subtracts: feedback
Methane release wack : feedback..
Write a letter then burn it: feedback
Denialists deny this in your dreams
Coz climate change means greater extremes,
Shit won’t be the norm
Heatwaves bigger badder storms
The Green house effect is just a theory sucker (Alan Jones)
Yeah so is gravity float away muther f**cker

Who’s a climate scientist..
I’m a climate scientist..
I’m not a climate Scientist
Who’s Climate Scientists
A Penny Farthing Cyclist
No
A Lebanese typist
No
A Paleontologist
No
A Sebaceous Cyst
No! a climate scientist! Yo! PREACH~!

Probably they rehearsed that while on a hefty NOAA grant..

Or a lot of Faux Zen nonsense on how to stifle your scientific curiousity by concentrating on personalities instead of facts and attacks instead of knowledge...

Method without Science, tactics without strategy « Greenfyre’s

Please note the HEAVY HANDED rules for discussion on this Blog.. No Deniers allowed.. It's a dissonance - free zone... What a bunch of pompous posers....

And THAT is why the Princess is sooooo useful....

The funniest Thing is that the GW cult is calling us "deniers" while the entire Man made "Global warming" fairy tale rests on denying the medieval war period which was round the globe warmer than it is today, Greenland included....and that`s why the hockeystick remains the holy grail. Okay, I`ll post this video again, how much more clear can it be..???

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

Could be that CBC documentary exceeds his attention span or his bandwith. So I`ll post a few relevant screenshots from that video:

That`s what it looks like during summer on Greenland...obvously it ain`t winter because then it`s pitch dark 24/7.
The ice cores are 3 km long and give a accurate surface temperature histogram from 10 000 years ago to present time and it looks like that:

And @ the top right is the cooling that the Michael Mann made GW fantasy is trying to deny the same as the warmer temperatures 1000 years ago.
That has been confirmed by numerous methods, including C14 dating in permafrost layers, also in tree ring data taken from around the world and by
every real scientist who has nothing to do with the IPCC or the M.Mann occult...but there are still idiots who claim these are the "deniers" and to boot
they are all part of an "Oil conspiracy"...how much cookier could it possibly get?

I`m sure this left threaded wingnut psycho will just go "postal" again, like the rest of his lot did over Chick-Fil-A.
For ex. this employee of a "medical device manufacturer"...why don`t they just come out and say it, he was selling vibrators and dildos to the Rainbow.orgies



Too bad dueling is no longer legal, if it still was there is no way a *** would get away harassing a nice girl like that in public.
Incidentally we still allow saber duels at the University of Heidelberg Germany. And a saber scarred face will open doors in places at the highest echelons and not just in good old Germany.

 

[flacaltenn]

P.B.

Never seen that CBC production. I'll watch it.. How do you Canadiennes get to have an OPEN debate on National TV??

Can't imagine NPR or Public TV in the States to do a documentary like that. Our public funded media HIRES far left nutjob orgs to produce for them.. Like Pro-Publica..

 

[polarbear]

P.B.

Never seen that CBC production. I'll watch it.. How do you Canadiennes get to have an OPEN debate on National TV??

Can't imagine NPR or Public TV in the States to do a documentary like that. Our public funded media HIRES far left nutjob orgs to produce for them.. Like Pro-Publica..

Well it was a see-saw battle. That documentary was aired by the CBC which is structured the same as the BBC and DW (Deutsche Welle TV international) and is funded by the tax payer. At the time they aired this program there was still fair and equal political representation. That ended abruptly after we had the mis-fortune to have a Liberal majority Government in Ottawa. Shortly after we had gun-control, information control-....Canada signed the Kyoto accord, fuel taxes went sky-high etc etc..well You know their game, it`s the same no matter which country.
After the Liberals plunged Canada deep into debt they lost the next election, but the PC (our conservatives) had only a minority and the entire civil service apparatus the Liberals hired to "create jobs" was still in place.
They all have Union contracts and You can`t just fire them. In Canada the government appoints judges, too and although we finally have a majority Conservative Government these bastards are still in office and try to **** everything up. The first thing that changed due to overwhelming public pressure was the mandatory gun registry, these left wing judges tried to circumvent Parliament...most of them are even members of the Liberal Party...how "legal" is that..? They are supposed to be neutral..we are just in the process to clean house with that problem. Same thing with the CBC.
By law they are supposed to disclose how they blow over 1$ billion per year and tried to have a judge overturn a Parliament decision ordering them to do so. The CBC still puts out crap like that from our local Al Gore, David Suzuki, get a load of that moron:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVtZAhGScQ"]WhereWillSantaLive.ca - YouTube[/ame]

And used CBC satellite links to pipe crap like that into schools. But that`s all over now. The CBC budget got cut. Our IRS is after Suzuki and the rest of these bastards like "Greenpeace" the Rockefeller, Tide- .orgs + the Sierra Club who opened franchises in Canada and broke the law by not declaring themselves as a (foreign) lobby group but posed as "Charitable" organizations to avoid paying taxes for the 100`s of million$ that poured in from foreign sources and was used to block pipelines, hire this or that Native Group to demonstrate etc etc..it was getting totally outrageous.
The public simply had enough of this riff raff and after we removed the free speech gag laws the liberals put in place any news paper or TV station can publish and air without fear of being sued by "activists: who claim they were offended. All of Canada is breathing a sigh of relief !
Just as soon as You guys get rid of Obama, Canada can cover 100% of all Your energy needs,...from hydro, to gas & Oil.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFqIS8hDV0o&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=9&feature=plcp"]Northern pipelines.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

At the present we supply 60% in these 3 energy sectors. Obama for some strange reason prefers to buy oil from Islamic states where they still stone women,...maybe there is some truth to the rumors that his other first name isn`t just so by coincidence.

 

[RollingThunder]

The funniest Thing is that the GW cult is calling us "deniers" while the entire Man made "Global warming" fairy tale rests on denying the medieval war period which was round the globe warmer than it is today, Greenland included....and that`s why the hockeystick remains the holy grail.

That's one of the many myths of the AGW denial cult that you halfwits belong to but it is as idiotically wrong as the rest of the lies and pseudo-scientific nonsense that you've fallen for.

The consensus of the world scientific community, based on all of the available research, is that the MWP was about as warm as mid-twentieth century Earth in some locations and cooler than that in other locations, not really global, not as warm as late twentieth century Earth and, most importantly, even if the MWP had been global and warmer than current temperatures, it wouldn't affect the scientific conclusion that the current warming is anthropogenic or that the planet will continue to get even warmer in the years and centuries to come.

I know it is probably futile to show demented deniers any scientific evidence that debunks their dogmas but for any others who may be following this thread, here's an account from someone who actually looked into the way this issue gets spun up by the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine.

Hear ye, hear ye – Monckton’s medieval warming tale is climate heresy
John Abraham
14 July 2011
(excerpts)

...Monckton claims, “Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present.” This claim by Monckton has two parts that are important to the discussion of climate change:

1. Was the MWP global in extent and warmer than today?
2. Does the presence of the MWP call into question human-caused global warming?​

To be clear, the prevailing view amongst scientists is that the MWP was neither global nor warmer than present times. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly investigated this issue and concluded, “the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years." Other studies reinforce the view that when considered either by hemisphere or globally, the temperatures we are experiencing now are truly unprecedented.

Last year, I embarked on the task of actually reading the papers he referenced, and they all disagreed with Monckton’s interpretation. To confirm, I wrote to the authors and they assured me that my understanding of their work was more correct.

Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, “No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times.”
Dr. Jessica Tierney also had her work cited in this “study” yet she wrote to me, “No. The MWP is seen in many proxy archives, but it is not yet certain how global in extent it was. Whether or not it was warmer than today’s temperatures depends on the proxy and the place. Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn’t disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently.”
Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”
Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper “certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”
Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo stated, “We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming.
Dr. Robert Wilson added, “It really does not matter if the MWP was warmer or slightly cooler than present. Ultimately, it is the underlying causes of these warms periods that we need to worry about.”​

Copyright © 2010–2012, The Conversation Media Group

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh I GET IT --- The MWP was NOT GLOBAL -- therefore it doesn't count. But a DROUGHT in the US midwest -- THAT'S DEFINITE PROOF --- ain't it TinkerBelle?

Were the Siberian trees in the Hockey Stick MORE GLOBAL than the Finnish Trees in the new proxy study that DOES SHOW the MWP?

Real convienient re-definations of "Global" and "Warming" you got there..

Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”

Did I do enough font enhancement there for ya Princess???

That's a gem right there actually.. We CAN'T ALLOW a MWP because we would have NO EXPLANATION FOR IT in terms of CO2. Therefore --- we're gonna ignore it because we'd have to find an ALTERNATE explanation for how the **** that happened..

It "has little to say about Global Warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth's radiative balance" --- so we deny it... But AT THE VERY SAME TIME -- most of our historical proxies for temp come from close to the Arctic Circle..

Now that's the AGW "science" I reject right there....

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh I GET IT --- The MWP was NOT GLOBAL -- therefore it doesn't count.

No you obviously don't get it - probably because you're such a flaming retard.

What the climate scientists are saying is that the MWP was not global but it wouldn't matter even if it had been global because they understand what caused it and those factors aren't happening now. Too bad you're too stupid to understand plain English.

But a DROUGHT in the US midwest -- THAT'S DEFINITE PROOF ---

Since nobody said that, fecalhead, I guess this is another one of your moronic straw-man arguments.

Were the Siberian trees in the Hockey Stick MORE GLOBAL than the Finnish Trees in the new proxy study that DOES SHOW the MWP?

You still don't "get it". Not surprising, given how extremely retarded you are. It doesn't matter if the MWP was global or warmer. Even if it had been, it would do nothing to invalidate the scientific conclusions about the causes of the current abrupt warming trend.

In fact though, the hockey stick graph, even the original one, used a number of temperature proxies besides tree-rings, like ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature. Check it out - (Mann 1999).

Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years. Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

(source)

Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”

That's a gem right there actually.. We CAN'T ALLOW a MWP because we would have NO EXPLANATION FOR IT in terms of CO2. Therefore --- we're gonna ignore it because we'd have to find an ALTERNATE explanation for how the **** that happened..

And here's another one of your incredibly idiotic misinterpretations of the information you're shown. It's almost unbelievable how extremely retarded you are. He says nothing at all about not "allowing" or "ignoring" the MWP. All he's saying is that scientists know that the MWP was not caused by high CO2 levels so it has little significance to the current anthropogenic warming produced by our CO2 emissions.

 

[westwall]

@Westwall
Did You notice how CNN, the Associated Press etc promoted Hansen to "Top NASA scientist"

You know, the same "Top NASA scientist" who "proved a warming trend" with satellite data and never realized that satellite orbits decay till a "dumb sceptic" pointed that out...and then the same "NASA top scientist"

compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.

Yes, the media is driving the boat just as much as the lefty politicians. It seems that starting the Spanish American War wasn't enough for them. Now they think they are the elite of the world and should dictate policy now. They are willing propagandists.

 

[westwall]

Well, you called that one, polarbear.

trolling blunder is nothing if not predictable! A proper "useful idiot"