Just my oinion

[Oddball]

Really? So why don't you show us where there are some prominent scientists publishing in the field in peer reviewed journals that are stating that AGW is not a fact?

Peer review is rigged too, and you know it.

Got it! If does not agree with you it is rigged. No proof needed. Everyone knows THAT!

Has nothing to do with me agreeing or not.

The East Anglia e-mails clearly show that the "peers" were actively blackballing skeptics.

 

[onecut39]

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years « Emerging Truth

So tell us, which "conveniences" should the Romans have given up to stop all this global cooling...or was it warming?

Except, of course, that isn't what the study says, nor does it offer any compelling evidences regarding global climate.

The actual conclusion of the study from which these article distortions are presumably summarized states:

...Whereas our results on orbitally forced climate trends in a 2,000-year MXD chronology seem to be in line with coarseresolution Holocene proxies2,3 and are supported by CGCM evidence7,8, little attention has been paid to the lack of these trends in long-term tree-ring records and implications thereof.The JJA temperature reconstruction presented here closes this gap, a finding that largely stems from the exceptionally strong and temporally stable climate signal, and the unprecedented length and replication of the new N-scan MXD chronology. The ability of MXD data to retain millennial scale temperature trends seems to result from a number of properties, including a reduced age trend24 and biological persistence25 resulting in less distortion of retained trends through regional curve standardization26 (RCS), the ability of tree populations to develop cell walls of continuously changing thickness over millennia and the non-plastic response of the termination of cell-wall lignification with respect to the integrated heat over the high and late summer seasons27. It is the combination of these properties that seems to enable the retention of a millennial scale trend in the MXD record and the lack of this lowest frequency variance in existing TRW records. These findings together with the trends revealed in long-term CGCM runs suggest that large-scale summer temperatures were some tenths of a degree Celsius warmer during Roman times than previously thought.
It has been demonstrated4 that prominent, but shorter term climatic episodes, including the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, were influenced by solar output and (grouped) volcanic activity changes, and that the extent of warmth during medieval times varies considerably in space.

So the paper confirms that our planet has been following the Milankovitch cycles and from the models and evidences they looked at, at least northern europe has been in a general but slight cooling trend for the last 2000 years and that this group's proxy studies and computer models indicate that we should add a few tenths of a degree to summer temperatures in the southern European temperatures 2262 to 2412 years ago. Interesting work to be sure,but I'm not sure what you seem to be all breathlessly worked up over?

Breathing just fine thank you. But to your point, I'm in no way concerned about the science of climate and predictions made thereof. That's all fine and good. You may be correct about the direction of climate...or perhaps Lord Munckton is right. Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

Again, if you are 100% sure that the ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise, move inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Already live at 912 feet elevation. When things go bad don't come here looking for a handout.

 

[eflatminor]

Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

(first off, you do realize, don't you, that the government isn't some royal aristocracy? Here in the US the government is the people, it is expressing the understandings and will of the people, The reason our forefathers didn't want the ordinary, average citizen to vote on issues of governance is because they feared what would happen if we turned control of the nation over to uneducated rubes easily persuaded by rumour, gossip and self-serving rhetoric, I fully understand their fears, but I still have faith in the democratic process.)

And if you really appreciated the ideals of the founding fathers, you'd recognize that the federal government has no enumerated power to oversee climate change or to redistribute the wealth because of weather predictions. But then, we all know you're not a Constitutional conservative.

What expansion of powers do you feel I am advocating?

See enumerated powers and the 10th amendment.

The only money I am seeking is the money that is required to clean up the mess that a very small percentage of people should have paid out of their profits all along, and would have been, if it weren't for the market failure and distortion that let these sellers not account for the externalities of their products. This is money stolen from everyone on the planet. I don't seek to take anyone's money, I just want to see the money that was stolen from us all, put to work cleaning up the mess that was created in our name.

The money that was stolen from us? Be specific now.

 

[eflatminor]

When things go bad don't come here looking for a handout.

That's one thing a Libertarian could never do.

 

[Trakar]

Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

(first off, you do realize, don't you, that the government isn't some royal aristocracy? Here in the US the government is the people, it is expressing the understandings and will of the people, The reason our forefathers didn't want the ordinary, average citizen to vote on issues of governance is because they feared what would happen if we turned control of the nation over to uneducated rubes easily persuaded by rumour, gossip and self-serving rhetoric, I fully understand their fears, but I still have faith in the democratic process.)

And if you really appreciated the ideals of the founding fathers, you'd recognize that the federal government has no enumerated power to oversee climate change or to redistribute the wealth because of weather predictions. But then, we all know you're not a Constitutional conservative.

I certainly am not, but then, neither were the authors of the constitution and founders of our nation. They (as am I) were age of enlightenment inspired progressives seeking to establish a form of governance of, by and for the people, had they been conservatives, they would have never revolted against English rule.

What expansion of powers do you feel I am advocating?

See enumerated powers and the 10th amendment.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

pretty much covers everything I advocate.

The only money I am seeking is the money that is required to clean up the mess that a very small percentage of people should have paid out of their profits all along, and would have been, if it weren't for the market failure and distortion that let these sellers not account for the externalities of their products. This is money stolen from everyone on the planet. I don't seek to take anyone's money, I just want to see the money that was stolen from us all, put to work cleaning up the mess that was created in our name.

The money that was stolen from us? Be specific now.

If an individual leases a home from you, strips it to the bedrock selling everything for salvage and then sublets the hole in the ground for toxic waste storage and then leaves the mess for you to clean up when their lease is up,...did they take value from you?

 

[Trakar]

When things go bad don't come here looking for a handout.

That's one thing a Libertarian could never do.

Good thing Ayn Rand never went on social security or accepted medicare,...oh, wait...

 

[eflatminor]

I certainly am not, but then, neither were the authors of the constitution and founders of our nation. They (as am I) were age of enlightenment inspired progressives seeking to establish a form of governance of, by and for the people, had they been conservatives, they would have never revolted against English rule.

Sure, the founder fathers were progressives. Good god man, you have no shame. That is just about the most full-of-shit statement I've seen on these boards...and that's saying something. Wow, just wow...

 

[eflatminor]

The money that was stolen from us? Be specific now.

If an individual leases a home from you, strips it to the bedrock selling everything for salvage and then sublets the hole in the ground for toxic waste storage and then leaves the mess for you to clean up when their lease is up,...did they take value from you?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the terms of the lease.

Are you really this stupid?

 

[Oddball]

When things go bad don't come here looking for a handout.

That's one thing a Libertarian could never do.

Good thing Ayn Rand never went on social security or accepted medicare,...oh, wait...

She paid into the system by force, looter.

 

[eflatminor]

When things go bad don't come here looking for a handout.

That's one thing a Libertarian could never do.

Good thing Ayn Rand never went on social security or accepted medicare,...oh, wait...

A citizen has a choice to not pay into SS or medicare? I did not know that.

Okay, you're REALLY stupid...

 

[Trakar]

That's one thing a Libertarian could never do.

Good thing Ayn Rand never went on social security or accepted medicare,...oh, wait...

She paid into the system by force, looter.

She was only "forced" into paying for her side of the social contract by choosing to become a citizen of a nation that abided by these rules and conventions. She chose, both to enter that social compact and to reap the rewards of that social compact, the hypocrisy comes in trying to claim that given such choices "a Libertarian could never do," what most always have done.

 

[Oddball]

Compulsion ain't a contract, comrade.

 

[Trakar]

Compulsion ain't a contract, comrade.

Are you not free to leave?

 

[Dot Com]

 

[eflatminor]

Good thing Ayn Rand never went on social security or accepted medicare,...oh, wait...

She paid into the system by force, looter.

She was only "forced" into paying for her side of the social contract by choosing to become a citizen of a nation that abided by these rules and conventions. She chose, both to enter that social compact and to reap the rewards of that social compact, the hypocrisy comes in trying to claim that given such choices "a Libertarian could never do," what most always have done.

Uh, Rand became a US citizen in 1931. Social security was enacted in 1935. Medicare in 1965. She had no choice in the matter.

You should really stop trying.

 

[eflatminor]

Compulsion ain't a contract, comrade.

Are you not free to leave?

You first.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern.

When you start out of the gate with an outright lie, why would anyone wade through the rest of it?

The adults on the planet are no longer discussing this as if it is a debate, even the head of the petroleum group, USA version, admitted what is going on but said we are smart so we will solve the problem before it gets worse...

idiot

Yes, we will solve it by putting oil co's out of business

 

[Trakar]

She paid into the system by force, looter.

She was only "forced" into paying for her side of the social contract by choosing to become a citizen of a nation that abided by these rules and conventions. She chose, both to enter that social compact and to reap the rewards of that social compact, the hypocrisy comes in trying to claim that given such choices "a Libertarian could never do," what most always have done.

Uh, Rand became a US citizen in 1931. Social security was enacted in 1935. Medicare in 1965. She had no choice in the matter.

You should really stop trying.

This does not alter the fact that she had the choice to remain in a nation where the laws were as they are, or she could leave the nation she had only chosen to become a citizen of 4 years prior, if she found the conditions so morally abject. Instead she chose to stay and pay into that system she despised for 30+ more years and then reap the rewards of doing so despite preaching to generations that such was wrong and improper. You should really face up to reality, its not always pretty, but it is a sign of maturity.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is a forum for climate hobbyists. The only true question is, who is winning?

Wind and solar are still fringe energy markets.............so 97% means dick in the bigger picture. Its been that way for over ten years and wind and sloar are still laughable.

 

[eflatminor]

...we will solve it by putting oil co's out of business

More taxpayer money to Solyndra? That'll do the trick...