Stop repeating that nonsense. The only one of your sources I have dismissed as not being a scientist is Benny Peiser, who is not a scientist but a a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

He has never published a peer-reviewed paper in scientific journal on AGW or anything else. He did once have a letter published in a scientific journal trying to discredit the work of Dr Naomi Oreskes. He later said of that letter:

"I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included...."Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."

His opinion is invalidated - because he invalidated it himself.

Please stop making things up.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

What about all of the scientists who disagree with the IPCC but are on the author's list? Or the ones on the list who aren't even scientists?

You hold a double standard when it comes to scientific credentials.

What are my double standards? Where have I said anything about the IPCC or the scientists on it. If you want to argue - please stick to what I said - not what you think I said.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

[quote=skeptic-f;344544]***personal attack deleted.***

We have just had the warmest winter on record and there is no evidence of global warming?

Anyway, as I have pointed out before, it doesn't matter what is causing the global warming: whether it is natural, man-made or some combination of both. Given the warming is occurring and given humanities full use (overuse, in some cases) of many of the earth's natural resources (I'm thinking of farmland, fresh water, fish stocks and similar resources here), any climate change beyond the very minor will have major, major impacts.
QUOTE]

We have just had a winter so cold that the fear over the melting polar ice caps is gone.

It does matter what is causing "Global Warming", normal cycles that have occurred in the past are no reason for concern now. It is natural so we have no concern because it will reverse itself. Every 30 years the argument goes from global warming to the next ice age.

I really don't understand what your point is.
Yes, were are in an interglacial period.
Yes, we will enter a new iceage eventually.
Yes, anthropogenic Global Warming would probably be nothing more than a small mitigation of an unstoppable force.

But, with the coming iceage we are talking in geological timeframes and something we really can't do anything about anyway. Like Eleanorofaquitane's asteroid scenario, the liklihood that something like that will impact upon us in the next 100 or so years is very, very low. The liklihood that AGW will impact upon human habitations in the next 100 or so years is much much higher.

No - I don't know what you hear in your media

?????

From my earlier quote:
Surface temperature was rising by approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979

The satellite data:
- RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.178 °C/decade
- UAH analysis finds +0.14 °C/decade.
- Fu et al finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set.
- Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade


0.17 - compared to 0.178, 0.14, 0.19, 0.20

That seems to be a fairly strong correlation between surface and satellite data doesn't it?

First - I don't want to just discredit the source, but in this case, you should be aware of some factors that as an American, you may not be aware of
1) The Australian is a Murdoch owned paper. Certainly not everything it prints is biased, it is generally quite OK - but it has had its moments
2) You are quoting an opinion piece by Christopher Pearson, a speech-writer for the Liberal Party with significant right-wing leanings
3) He is in the piece interviewing Jennifer Marohasy, a spokesman for The Institute of Public Affairs - a "think tank" which is essentially a wing of the Liberal Party.

These people are not climate scientists. This is not science reporting. This is political comment.

But, let's not dwell on that - let's look at the content:

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.

....The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... "

Well, nothing new here is there - this is just more of the same thing eleanoraquitane was saying on p32 of this thread

As I wrote then:
The chief UN climatologist today predicted a small drop in global temperatures this year because of the cooling effect of the La Nina phase of the ENSO system.

And, while global temperatures have not risen since 1998, the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

So, all that article is really is is a right-wing journalist speaking to a right-wing 'pundit' in a opinion piece in a right-wing newspaper, trying to put a skeptical spin on old news.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

How can you honestly say that? IIRC, we are only tracking like 4% of what is out there.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

Following this thread, the first thing that I notice is that some people posting here don't understand how science works. Yes, peer review is necessary for a published paper to be taken seriously. Otherwise, anyone, such as the members of the Heartland institute, can publish BS which is not true using data that is incorrect. Articles by scientists, such as the list often provided by deniers, are opinions and opinions, without evidence or data to back them are in the realm of a political debate, not a scientific debate. A scientific debate, following the rules of science demands links and information from peer reviewed articles in accepted scientific journals. That's how science works. If you do not accept that, then you are engaging in a political debate. The scientific debate over AGW is over. The political one is not and will not be until the deniers understand how science, be it physics, chemistry biology etc, works.
CDP, Bugalugs has responded to each of your claims but you have chosen to ignore his responese because he called you a liar. I have never called you a liar, so show me these "thousands of papers that have been published". And please don't tell me to research them because I can't research what's not there. And your statement that is incorrect. Go the IPCC site and read the list of contributors. Count the climatologists and political scientists listed and you'll see how incorrect your statement is.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

My responses in blue


source, please for the new hockysticks. And you haven't addressed my response that other proxies have agreed with Mann's hockystick.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

But CO2 levels and temperature area not a direct relationship. There are other factors which affect temperature. What geological evidence?

Alarmists are not scientists.
Interesting article, but this states that and increase in OH radicals adds to smog, instead of destroying it.


And if nothing is done or can be done about AGW, then the problem of overpopulation may be solved.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You may have a science degree, but you, madam, are no scientist. Read the IPCC reports and then post again that AGW is not grounded in science.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe