" It is a good summary of the science published as of 2005. Do I think it is 100% true? Of course not. It is the best we have though. Science is not perfect; it constantly builds on what came before it. Some theories are disproved, some become stronger."

PERFECT! Thank you! And that 2005 cut of date is to exclude data that shows the conclusions of the IPCC and other politically driven alarmist to be wrong.

And,yes, the MWP is mentioned, and dismissed as irrelevant because it would throw off the pre-ordaind conclusion. The same as the data from 2005 on - it didn't fit the political needs, so it was explained away. HONEST research demands that things that cast doubt on your hypothesis be included, not tossed out. If you have to come up with a new hypotesis to include it, so be it. But in the case of AGW, the politics driving it, and the conclusion already arrived at, will not allow a new hypotesis to be formed.

quote:

Originally posted by doradao208:
even if global warming is true, who is to say that this is the climate we should be trying to preserve?
Whats wrong with the climate say 100, 10000, 100000 years ago?
the earth will adapt, and the cretures on it will too, and theones that cannot adapt will die. This is the way it has allways been and will be after we die.

Without a doubt “the earth” will adapt. Humans will take a hit though. Our infrastructure, lifestyle and agriculture have all been established to take maximum advantage of the climate as it is. Adapting to rising, less productive more acidic seas, higher temperatures, longer droughts will all contribute to famine and hardship.

Bacteria, cockroaches, ants, some C4 based plants, jellyfish (to name but a few) will all likely thrive. You are right “The earth” is resilient life; will go on and continue to evolve.

quote:

Originally posted by Axeman 11B:
Hey Wrong Grave Guy...

are you aware that co2 is a basic building block of our planet, that without it, none of us would exist ? And just how long have they been monitoring co2 levels ? And how old is the earth ?

All of these are either pointless or of minimal relevance when discussing AGW. What is your point?

quote:

See ? You just solved the non-existent dilemma all by yourself. Good work - now you can become a stand-up guy and start informing the rest of the chicken littles that GW is nothing more than a cash and power grab by your government, and others around the world.

Your conclusion is not suported by evidence presented.

quote:

btw, Vesuvius spat more co2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind in total. You could look it up.

Bullshit. You haven’t read what I have already written have you? so why should I waste more words on you? You look it up and come back with something authoritative.

quote:

Originally posted by subdjoe:

PERFECT! Thank you! And that 2005 cut of date is to exclude data that shows the conclusions of the IPCC and other politically driven alarmist to be wrong.

What studies might those be Joe?

Hahahahaha Who ever believes this article is an id!ot.

Steven Fielding in FEB. 2009 told a Senate hearing that he believed divorce added to Global Warming because it resulted in people switching to a "resource-inefficient lifestyle".

Ok, arch, you seem to be a bit combative, and a mite adverse to any and all differing science, so I'll boil it right down for you.

You want proof that there is no global warming ?

Here it is...


Al Gore believes that there is global warming, and he's always wrong, so there is no global warming.

K ?

Careful with that axe Eugene

BTW Joe,

I hope that the irony of your use of politically loaded propaganda terms while discussing those that disagree with your opinion is not lost on you.

I hope you also realize that your accusations have essentially accused thousands of scientists of dishonesty and corruption.

Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence for justification; please provide it for our evaluation.

arch

quote:

Originally posted by arch stanton:
BTW Joe,

I hope that the irony of [i]your use of politically loaded propaganda terms while discussing those that disagree with your opinion is not lost on you. [/I]

Of course I do. Basically, I'm using the same tactics as the alarmists. It think the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" applies here.

I hope you also realize that your accusations have essentially accused thousands of scientists of dishonesty and corruption.

OH MY!!! And the alamists havn't??? All the belittleing comments about those who have been, and are, saying 'Hey! Wait! The data don't support AGW' are a bunch of ignornat stooges who have sold out to 'big oil' aren't exactly laudations. While those making the accusastions are feeding are taking money from groups and businesses with vested interests in prepetuating the myth of AGW?


Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence for justification; please provide it for our evaluation.

Actually, all I need is one valid claim, one valid study, to refute the AGW theory. That is the problem with real science, Arch, all it takes to knock a theory off its pins is one valid "well what about X?"
arch

Check the references at the end of this: Link.

I have read some of them not too long ago. I have lost some of my bookmarks (laptop died suddenly a few months back), and havn't found all of them again - you know how it is, you go through 3, 4, or 5, or more links to get to what you want, and forget what the first link or two was. Anyway, that is a start. Enjoy.

I'll note that ANY of the stuff there that is valid puts a serious dent in the AGW theory, if not knocking it down completly.

Ok, Melvin, here's the skinny.

If you are a scientist and promote global warming, you get money. Wads of it.

If you oppose the crack-pot theory, you get zip. Zilch. Nada.

Who do you think would have the motive to adhere to an agenda ?

quote:

Originally posted by Axeman 11B:
Ok, Melvin, here's the skinny.

If you are a scientist and promote global warming, you get money. Wads of it.

If you oppose the crack-pot theory, you get zip. Zilch. Nada.

Who do you think would have the motive to adhere to an agenda ?

To quote Arch: "I hope you also realize that your accusations have essentially accused thousands of scientists of dishonesty and corruption." And I know you would NEVER do that.

quote:

Originally posted by subdjoe:

quote:

Originally posted by arch stanton:
BTW Joe,

I hope that the irony of [i]your use of politically loaded propaganda terms while discussing those that disagree with your opinion is not lost on you. [/I]

Of course I do. Basically, I'm using the same tactics as the alarmists. It think the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" applies here.

I hope you also realize that your accusations have essentially accused thousands of scientists of dishonesty and corruption.

OH MY!!! And the alamists havn't??? All the belittleing comments about those who have been, and are, saying 'Hey! Wait! The data don't support AGW' are a bunch of ignornat stooges who have sold out to 'big oil' aren't exactly laudations. While those making the accusastions are feeding are taking money from groups and businesses with vested interests in prepetuating the myth of AGW?


Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence for justification; please provide it for our evaluation.

Actually, all I need is one valid claim, one valid study, to refute the AGW theory. That is the problem with real science, Arch, all it takes to knock a theory off its pins is one valid "well what about X?"
arch

Check the references at the end of this: Link.

I have read some of them not too long ago. I have lost some of my bookmarks (laptop died suddenly a few months back), and havn't found all of them again - you know how it is, you go through 3, 4, or 5, or more links to get to what you want, and forget what the first link or two was. Anyway, that is a start. Enjoy.

I'll note that ANY of the stuff there that is valid puts a serious dent in the AGW theory, if not knocking it down completly.

Joe,

I have brought neither knives nor guns to our fight. I am using bare knuckles. Who are you fighting? Not me that is for sure. Must be some straw man…

You also demonstrate a severe ignorance of the scientific process if you believe one claim can invalidate a theory.

I will read Carlin’s paper, but a quick perusal brings up these glaring weaknesses:

It has “references” instead of “footnotes”: This makes it very hard to establish the origin or credibility of any given statement he makes. This is a common tactic of propagandists and is not tolerated in peer reviewed “published” papers. This fact alone would prevent this paper from ever being published in a credible journal. One can only assume that he knows this. This fact alone makes any future claim of bias on the part of journals for not publishing his comments completely bogus.

He cites an paper by Theodor Landscheidt that was published in E&E. Do you have any idea how discredited both this scientist and this journal are?

He cites WUWT as a reference...

I could go on…

Before I read it for the basis of its own merit let me ask you Joe:

Honestly now…

Have you already read It?

Be honest now.

If so, what do you personally find to be its strengths?

Please be specific.

arch

quote:

Originally posted by Axeman 11B:
Ok, Melvin, here's the skinny.

If you are a scientist and promote global warming, you get money. Wads of it.

If you oppose the crack-pot theory, you get zip. Zilch. Nada.

Who do you think would have the motive to adhere to an agenda ?

You didn’t even gother to Google my reference did you?

What kind of axe man are you? obviously not a very inquisitive one.

You can sit down now.

Test, test,

****, ****, ****, dick, Up****

Why is my sig censured?

LOL, I can say "dick" but I can't say d*i*k*e?