I already gave you the whole video. I just want an answer to one question, was 1998 the hottest year of the millenium?

If you think that it was, what is the point of me providing further evidence that Mann claimed this? Just answer the question, and stop whining (I've asked too much)

1. Why does the only person giving money to the alarmist cause have to be Al Gore? If WalMart was giving a billion dollars to skeptic science, would you accept the argument "It wasn't oil corporations so it doesn't matter"?

2. Yep, because ExxonMobil is going to spend all of its 242 billion dollars on bribing off scientists. The reports that I've seen suggest ExxonMobil has been paying millions of dollars, compare this to these funds that Gore has set up for the sole purpose of alarmism, and you will be forced to come up with more insane arguments to defend your side. (which I look forward too, we all need a good laugh every now and then)

Next

How long have the fundamental pieces of evidence for the theory that the recent warming trend has been caused primarily by our contributions to greenhouse gases been around? You've shown us people who had proposed theories, but our understanding of climate history of that time (up until Mann) would shoot down the concept that Co2 has a dramatic effect on climate change. The evidence supporting your theory consists only of recent evidence that flies in the face of all evidence before it.

You guys hop onto any talk of Global Warming in the past as proof that the theory isn't the infant it is, and then have the audacity to claim that no evidence in any of the (primary peer-reviewed) skeptic papers I've posted is real? You've claimed that everything skeptics say is based on their opinions (which is clearly absurd, scientific journals don't publish op-eds unless they support AGW), but without any evidence you accept anything that agrees with you?

I think this is a lost cause, but why don't we try it again? What scientific development in the past, what 18?, years found out that these (previously) basic eras of climate history didn't exist?

What on earth are you talking about? The very graph that you posted and were continually referring to showed that global climate has generally been increasing since before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. What is this "evidence before it" you are talking about?

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

Since you only seem to be able to post opinion pieces from the likes of Andrew Bolt and Benny Peiser - I will ignore them


I am still waiting for you to post links to any published work by these "scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it."

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

What are these "(primary peer-reviewed) skeptic papers" you've posted?

All I can find are these

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://projectplumber.com/GHW_Seriously.pdf

The first is publised by the Heartland Institute - you really don't expect anyone to take that seriously do you?

The link to the second one is broken, but if I recall correctly - it was simply a paper looking at the capacity of the oceans to absorb heat and suggesting that this wasn't being adequately accounted for in current climate models - hardly a paper skeptical about AGW.

The third paper is actually one of the very rare examples of Lindzen actually being published writing about AGW in a peer-reviewed journal! Well done you for finding one! Though claiming that Energy and Environment, is a valid scientific journal is a bit of a stretch. It is a social science journal edited by a geographer - not really a science journal.

According to Paul Thacker:
If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.
According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa..._skeptics.html

But lets look at the content shall we?
Lindzen concludes:
Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming

So - the king of the skeptics tells us - yes AGW is occurring, but there is uncertainty to the extent to which it occurring. Spot on! Couldn't agree more.

Are these what you mean by the "(primary peer-reviewed) skeptic papers I've posted"?

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

i think hes trying to point out that even with the greenhouse gas emissions by us, the globe still cooled. in fact, i think the globe cooled a little last year in comparison to the year before. i noticed how environmentalists changed "global warming" to "climate change" to fit whatever will happen..

Do you actually know when the Little Ice Age occurred and when the Industrial Revolution started?


Yes it did. Google ENSO and you may find one of the reasons why.

This is a bizarre claim I have seen often. When exactly did this happen?

Generally, 'climate change' is a better description, but 'global warming' isn't necessarily wrong. Basically, climate change is what will happen if the globe warms.

I find it very strange that you consider the use of the 2 terms to be some sort of conspiracy

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

[quote=bugalugs;496894]Do you actually know when the Little Ice Age occurred and when the Industrial Revolution started? yes. i wasnt referring to the little ice age was during the middle ages and i wasnt talking about the industrial revolution which was during the late 18th and early 19th century. im pointing out that even with all the greenhouse gases being released in the air, it hasnt had a noticeable effect. weve been putting greenhouse gases in the air for 2 centuries and we still havent felt a noticeable effect.

i would say within the past year..

Generally, 'climate change' is a better description, but 'global warming' isn't necessarily wrong. Basically, climate change is what will happen if the globe warms. yes but if the globe cools thats also climate change. you think the greenhouse gases will cause global cooling?

i couldnt care less what words youre using to describe something thats not happening. ive seen plenty of evidence that its not happening.

First - you were referring to the "Little Ice Age" and the Industrial Revolution - because you were directly responding to a quote by myself where I referred to them. If you weren't why did you even respond?

But you say "we've been putting greenhouse gases in the air for 2 centuries and we still havent felt a noticeable effect."
What do you base that assumption on?

Let me refer you to the graph that SuperDinoYoshi is so fond of quoting
http://landshape.org/enm/how-a-hocke...ittee-hearing/

look at the last 200 years. What direction is the graph moving?

Now - as I have stated earlier, I'm not saying that is definitive evidence of AGW - but there is certainly no evidence there that it isn't occuring


Could you show me some of this "plenty of evidence that its not happening"

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