Man Based Global Warming....

Not exactly, Doc. It is anti-AGW because there is no proof that AGW will result in global catastrophe. There is a difference between propaganda and the truth, is there not?

Read it and point out where the science backing Monckton's conclusions is in error. Point out where the E-mails do not say what they say or the code does not say what it says.

It is true that the good Lord (no pun intended, maybe) has challenged Al Gore to debate the science for a number of years now and Gore has refused, derisively calling all skeptics flat-earthers.

In another post you suggest that a few bad scientists do not spoil the science entirely. Well, when all the surface temperature records are kept and managed by TWO groups, and if those two are in collusion, that changes the importance of their promulgations. It contaminates the whole field when all other papers and related policy decisions revolve around the same set of questionable figures, does it not?

Adherents of AGW universally point to the IPCC's conclusions as 'the consensus' of thousands of papers and scientists. Who were the lead authors of the pivotal chapters in the IPCC douments? Did they know each other well and review each others' papers? Did they act as gatekeepers and reject the suggestions of other skeptical IPCC reviewers? Well, yes.

There is no question that this clique of climate scientists pretty much managed the whole AGW enterprise. The truth will come out. In fact, it is out already. What remains is for honest people to discover it and not sweep it under the rug.

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal. Mark Twain

Apparently, this lie was not told well enough.

 

P.S. I have to admit that Lord Monckton is strident in the ablve mentioned article. After being belittled and derided for his skeptical views, he no doubt is letting off some steam.

If you wish something more scholarly, here is a paper he presented over a year ago. Well, it is a link to the issue in which one may find the paper.

The journal:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm

The paper:
APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

 

Can you tell me what is unconvincing about these?

 

Oh no Alric - not the proxy data again.

What is it about Mann's flipping of the Tiljander data that you don't get? That's right - remember this discussion from months ago. Where I showed the majority of these proxies do not show current warming to be anything unusual and where I showed clearly that Mann flipped the charts upside down? Now how does that qualify as good science?



We also now know, thanks to Climategate, that the HadCRUT data cannot be trusted - certainly it can't be verified since it has all been DESTROYED. Hmm.

And we know that Yamal series was subject to cherry picked data.

 

Now Alric - about the 40 years without warming that you agree falsify AGW...

 

You don't get that data is not present in those graphs I presented. It is a set of data with problems as knowledged buy the authors at publication. Can you understand that. Do you absorb any information besides your preconceived notions. It is right there, in the post with a reference!!

 

Tim: you seriously have a problem.

 

Alric, if you have doubts that the data is flipped on that graph you can watch the video that was posted a few days ago. It has an interview with the guy whose data it is and he says it was flipped. It's 100% fact the graph is flipped.

 

It is not in the graphs I posted. Not present. Not related. Not there!

What is wrong with you people?

 

You could not be more wrong. Even if ice is melting and we have more warming vs cooling years it does not provide any proof of AGW. All it means is that there are natural warming and cooling cycles on earth. This has gone on for billions of years. None of that in any way proves that man is accelerating these natural cycles.

Also it's already been stated multiple times it's a logical impossibility to disprove AGW (just like you can't disprove the existence of an invisible undetectable unicorn standing behind you right now.) Humans *may* be causing AGW by elevated levels of greenhouse gases, or we may be causing AGW by means we have yet to imagine. Or we may not be contributing to it at all. Right now, the evidence is wholly insufficient to make claims (or legislation) that humans are contributing to the supposed change of temperature of the earth.

 

Alric did you by chance read this link? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf

Every last bit of the info you have been posted has been falsified or altered in one way or the other. Those graphs cannot be trusted

Take the blinders off please

 

What do you mean, "you people?"

 

No! Only one graph and portions of another would be affected if you take out all the data from CRUT. The others are independent verification of the observation that there is warming.

 

You once again have proved my point. You are so blinded by your faith in AGW that you refuse to read any information that proves its not accelerated by man. or that it even exists for that matter

 

Evan we all know about the antarctic ice cap melting slowly on the one side. But what about the fact that the ice on the other side of antartica is increasing at a far faster rate then the side is melting

 

...Sigh...

Let's look at a couple of the graphs.

Aside from the questionable source, one is of the Northern Hemisphere. As I've heard a thousand times from you and others here, 'That represents only a part of the globe and cannot be used to discuss GLOBAL temperature.'

Another has Ammann and Wahl looking at data in an attempt to verify Mann et al. They are characterized as 'independent'.

Uh, let's see just how 'independent' they are:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=491
Oh, they are collaborators on other papers or have been 'mentored' by the original authors. Some 'independent' review!

Yet another, the glacier melting thingy. Notice that the graph is centerd on the average temperature from 1951-1980. Gee, I wonder if that might have been chosen for a reason? The graph begins, conveniently, AFTER the Medieval Warm Period. In addition, as has been mentioned here many times, Alric, warming is NOT an indication, much less a proof, of anthropogenic cause.

I'll leave the rest of the rebuttal to others.

 

Evan, I don't understand why you can't see this.

What you said is exactly right: the burden of proof for those saying AGW is occurring *IS* higher than for those who accept the null hypothesis. We (the "denialists") aren't the ones making a fantastic claim. People who believe in AGW are making a positive claim that humans are causing global warming to happen at a rate faster than that of normal cycles. The people who make such a fantastic claim must provide fantastic evidence to support it. The problem is the evidence is not fantastic. It is not even lackluster. In fact it may be downright fraudulent - and we may never know for sure because "the dog ate it."

For those of us who accept (lets not get philosophical about accepting vs failing to reject a null hypothesis) the null hypothesis (that is, that AGW is not occurring), we do not have to forth fantastic evidence that it is not occurring. We have failed to accept your hypothesis. We have examined your AGW evidence, and found it to be insignificant. We have found there is not data that supports the accelerated warming of the earth in relation to human production of greenhouse gases.

You're an ER doctor. I would imagine you treat a lot of patients who are having hypertensive crises. Consider if I came to you trying to sell you a new type of beta receptor antagonist. Think if I made all these claims like "It starts to work in a half second. It has no side effects. It automatically stabilizes the BP to 120/80. It improves renal function, and stabilizes liver enzymes and will make you rich. It also makes you better looking and Jessica Alba will want to have sex with you."

Would you believe me right away? Or would you be skeptical? What if I provided computer simulations that showed it working? What if I showed you studies I had done that supported my claims? Would you believe me? Wouldn't you want to see my raw data? What if I couldn't produce it? What if I said the ball is in your court and you must disprove that this drug can't do those things? What if I wanted you to accept all my claims, without me having real evidence, and I wanted to pass laws that would affect billions of people?

This is the same situation we find ourselves in now with the idea of AGW. It may be true, but it may not be true. The science is far from settled.

I truly believe that a lot of AGW do not understand the difference between AGW and what we can call NGN (normal global warming.)

No one is saying we shouldn't do our best to conserve resources and treat the planet with respect. We are just saying that humans are not contributing to the temperature of the planet in the manner that AGWers would have you believe. I bet I'm "more green" than half the people in this thread arguing for AGW.

This is argument is a logical fallacy and is no way makes AGW more true.

 

Sources please. All recent reports I've seen show that while the Antarctic surface area has remained fairly constant (as expected), volume (as measured by satellite) has actually started to take an unprecedented dive.

Press Release - Lasers from space show thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets - British Antarctic Survey