Wow, you really missed it? Really? Go to the link again, and scroll down.

(Insert laughter devoid of evidence here)

Lets pause for a second and let this all sink in, you take the time to take screenshots, but not read under a big bold print "Summary" listed below a graph I provide?

(Insert Meditation without evidence here)

What statement? Ignore the video, Was 1998 the hottest year in the past millenium?

(No doubt, this will be a question of infamy, as it is devoid of AGW loving evidence)

Thats pretty haughty coming from someone who can't locate their scroll bar. (A claim without evidence)

Oh, so its funding now? (Observation without evidence) Why don't we talk about the Billions of dollars given by Al Gore specifically for research that supports his cause? (Insert dramatic "tables have turned" music here, without evidence) GreenPeace claims that ExxonMobil sends a couple million. (And if you believe what GreenPeace says its no wonder you believe in AGW (parenthetical point without evidence))

Last time I checked,

2 million > 5 billion (Mathematical statement without evidence)

So if money can corrupt scientists, the ones who agree with me are thousands of times less corrupt. (Another mathematical statement without evidence)

(And when you try to respond to this by saying I don't have evidence, since you obviously are dumbfounded to actually respond, why don't you show us yours proving skeptics are funded (Parenthetical prediction without evidence))

That there is NO scientist who attended any of these conferences or declarations who has done any climate research.

What makes you? I would think people like the head meteorology professor at what is arguably the most prestigious technological school on the face of the earth, are qualified. (Foolish concept, without evidence)

Of course, if they disagree with anyone with your credentials, I must be mistaken. (The only thing in this post with evidence) We all know graduate school is just where scientists get brainwashed into, you know, actually being interested in science, not politics. (Oh, and this too)

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it? (Mean statement without evidence)

Extreme enough hyperbole? You are funny when you are angry

You are backing yourself up by claiming well documented periods of climate history never occurred. Why do we have all of these paintings and writings of Industrial Cooling and a Medieval Warming? Why did the IPCC accept this back in 1990? Why did the IPCC completely replace Mann's entire section of the report when M&M so successfully rebutted his "evidence"? Why does the new author cut off the most recent 50 years of climate history in his new hockystick?

So frankly, your elf argument holds more water than your old argument. It takes a smart person to abandon ship like that, and I applaud your foresight.

Quantifying the effect of our Co2 on temperature. Nobody can tell me when to plan a fishing trip, but we think models (which can be made to show anything) can accuratley predict every single climate forcing and tell us what climate will be like in 100 or 1,000 years?

MannieD, how about you start answering my questions, reading my links, and responding to my posts instead of the tired "Claim without evidence" (claim without evidence)

What was the last thing you provided as evidence? (question without evidence)

No go look at the graph (yes, open it in your web browser) look at the summary, maybe even read some of the linked articles if you so desire, and then tell me what changed in 18 years to make the IPCC think they were drastically off-base with their previous interpretations of climate history leading up to Mann. (demand without evidence)

Then provide ME some evidence for why man made aerosols have a global cooling effect. (further demand without evidence) For giggles, why don't you actually answer SOMETHING this time? (sarcasm without evidence)

Here's the Summary in your link Could you bold or underline the part that explains what the red, black and blue lines mean? Stop trying to change the subject. You made a claim you had a link to a video in which Mann lied. Provide the link or admit Mann never made the "hottest year" comment. Incorrect 2 million < 5 billion Gladly. From Exxon's own website
From Exxon's own website American Enterprise Institute : $235,000 / Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change : $10,000 / Heartland Institute : $115,000 OK, I've named three. No show me three that Al Gore has supported specifically to support his cause. How can I prove what doesn't exist? Oh, I get it. That's the idea. I can't find any peer-reviewed research by any of these "scientists".So unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with my claim. Because I'll
take the research and evidence of the professionals over opinions of "scientists". What professor and what school? How do you come to the conclusion that I'm angry? I'm having too much fun to be angry.Huh? Where did I suggest that "documented periods of climate history never occurred." Industrial Cooling is not documented. a google search of ("Industrial Cooling""Global warming") gives no relevant results. That's why I asked you for evidence. 20 year old? try over 100 year oldHow about you providing evidence for your initial claims? I provided the evidence you just chose not to read it and chose to ridicule it.
See the beginning of this post.I'll provide with you links when you support your claim on Industrial Cooloing and link me to Mann's "lying".

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

i didn't day anything about the density of CO2 or talk anout how it was distributed in the atmosphere i made a point about how small a factor it really was..

Before you said there wasn't anything at all. Now you have changed your mind?

Read the article, or actually look at the graph. Either way it should be rediculously obvious to you that the IPCC accepted Industrial Cooling and Medevial Warming back in their 1990 report. Its common knowledge, but common knowledge is in the realm of the things you need to deny to unquestioningly believe AGW.

(Hint: Red is the 1990 IPCC report)

So again, what changed since then?

Just tell me, was 1998 the hottest year in the past millenium? If there isn't a video I can show you of him saying so, it should be no skin off your back to answer the question.


Sarcasm and you don't mix very well, do they?

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/0...n-climate.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...iness/gore.php

So again, if you want to play the funding card, you loose. What skeptics get paid are peanuts next to what the alarmists get paid.

Last time I checked, I've posted 4 pieces of primary literature in this discussion, how many have you posted? Now what was that about proving something that doesn't exist?

Richard Lindzen, MIT.

Just one example, but he disagrees with you, so he's obviously wrong. I understand.

Reading statements like that. And living in immagination land is always fun, so maybe I was wrong, maybe you are having fun.

Because thats such a conclusive way to find out if something doesn't exist. Good job, I'm sure that whole evidence thing won't catch up to you (after all, if you ignore what I post long enough, I'm bound to forget it eventually)

Furthermore, I provided evidence... Immagination Land is a scary place MannieD, its a scary place.

Again, there is a difference between saying Co2 has a greenhouse effect than saying that the Co2 we add to the atmosphere is the dominant radiative forcing and responsible for the majority of warming today, and that furthermore we can tell you what temperatures will be 1,000 years from now.

Of course, in Immagination Land, that subtle (By the way, SARCASM!) difference won't hold you back.

Such as? You never actually respond to anything I write, you just claim that I don't have evidence. Then when I post evidence, you just pretend it doesn't exist.

If you have some specific thing that you want me to provide you with evidence, thats reasonible. However, you can't blanket that request over every statement I make since at this point everything I've talked about is the basics. Either you have never ever discussed this topic with someone who disagrees with you, or you are trying to do anything but actually talk science.

Of course. Its a trick I learned from you. (Is still confused by what evidence MannieD is referring to)

Already showed you that the IPCC used to accept Industrial Cooling. So tell me what changed.

As for Mann lying, just start by answering my question, was 1998 the hottest year of the millenium?

Reading comprehension problems again? or lying? Here's what I wrote
Since I'm obviously mentally handicapped, humor me and explain how the graph shows your "Industrial Cooling".

Show me the link
Sorry. Not what I asked for. Care to try again?

No, you posted political opinions.
I posted links to research papers. You chose to believe opinions. I accept the science research. Go take an introductory science course and learn that opinions are irrelevant in science. Or you could check out this linkI'll see your Lindzen with Stephen Schneider of Stanford and raise you with The American Meteorological Society


Unlike Dorothy, repaeting it won't make it come true

That's why i wanted you to clarify what theory you were posting about.Here's your answerHere's a quote from the linked article
I bolded the the words so you wouldn't miss them again.

Again, keeping repeating it...
You don't know the meaning of the word "science"


You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to teach you something.

Don't worry if you don't see my posts tomorrow. I won't be able to post again until Saturday. The nurses have taken away my internet privileges.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

What exactly is this "Industrial Age" you keep speaking of?

That is a very ambiguous term to be using in what (is trying) to be a scientific discussion. Please elaborate.

And MannieD is right. That link does not provide the necessary information to understand that graph. If you want people to discuss that graph - please link to a page that explains what the graph is representing.

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

Are you still on about that? Again, Look at the graph, read the articles its linked to. The information is there, why don't you answer my questions now?

Why don't you answer the question first? I already gave you a playlist of the documentary, if you want me to tell you the exact minute he says it, I want an answer. Was 1998 the hottest year in the last 1,000 years?

Drugs are bad kiddies.

The fact that they were peer-reviewed and came from scientific journals would lead me to believe otherwise.

But go ahead, keep posting your secondary nonsense.

Nope. You accept the science research that your preconceived notions already agree with.

Thats funny. Too bad you are the one defending opinions with secondary sources. When you have scientists with impeccable credentials writing peer-reviewed literature in prestigious scientific publications, it isn't an opinion piece, its evidence supporting scientific theories and hypothesises.

If you want to bring Meteorology into this, meet John Coleman.

You can't make something come true if its been true for ages now.

Quantify:to make explicit the logical quantity of

The IPCC does it all the time, and even assigns values of how certain they are that temperature will be affected by X degrees with Y ppm of Co2. This is what I say is hilariously incorrect.

When did he do that? (Arrhenius was a good man, I use his equations all the time, but I'm not denying the GreenHouse effect, just that our contributions of Co2 aren't responsible for today's warming.)

MannieD, your posts keep getting further and further away from the Science. Whenever I discuss this topic with believers, this seems to be the method of attack. Saying that the peer-reviewed primary literature merely expresses opinions juxtaposed to your secondary sources and denial of any evidence I submit is laughable.

So do you still wish to pretend the IPCC didn't accept Industrial Cooling and Medevial Warming?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=233
I'm sinking to your level and providing a source with an arguable bias. This article isn't of the caliber of things I have posted in the past regarding the science since it doesn't go through any peer-review process. (I tried to use Wikipedia earlier because its bias leans towards your side)

By arguable bias, let me clarify that it is written by a scientist (something that you can't claim of some of the crap you have been giving me) and that all he is really doing in here is quoting the IPCC's report.

So here's how its going to work. I am the only one among MannieD and myself to have posted an argument so far (MannieD is only interested in claiming I have no evidence). Every time that MannieD rejects a source because he doesn't feel like reading, I'll just throw him another one, all the while poking fun at his hypocrisy and lack of coherent thought.

Will questions be answered? (Still waiting on the 1998 thing) Of course not!

Will we ever learn what believers actually believe? Highly Unlikely!

Will MannieD keep saying that everything I post is an opinion? Yeah! What else can he do?

Are we gonna have fun? Yeah!