Look at the posts... Nice Try Though!

You are the one trying to prove something. You are the one yet to post any evidence. You won't answer my questions in response to my initial claims, so why should I answer yours?

Hooo Boy, This ought to be fun.

Wtf? This makes no sense, I claimed that we experienced Industrial Cooling and that the IPCC used to include this in their understanding of climate history. How did I transition from anything in here?

Oh, you mean the graph with a key and a link to "Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports?". Thats right... I forgot how hard it is to follow a description like:

"IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1.c (red), MBH 1999 40 year average used in IPCC TAR 2001 (blue), and Moberg et al 2005 low frequency signal (black)"

I can't wait to see what I transitioned to next....

Not before I had already given you a second link about the IPCC 1990 report... But for the sake of your argument, lets pretend that didn't happen.

1940 - 1979, The Globe Cooled, deal with it. I think you are looking at the Industrial Revolution where the little Ice Age ended. Or you aren't looking at all, who knows?

Industrial Cooling is just the term I have heard the cooling from 1940 - 1979 called. If it will make you happy, I'll refer to it, from now on as "The 1940 - 1979 Cooling"...

Sheesh, do some research next time. Now lets see if you answered my questions....

Oh, so close, this doesn't answer my question of "Was 1998 the hottest year in the past 1,000?" I gave you a link of an entire documentary which featured this quote from Mann. However, if you don't want to watch through it, then I want to know whether or not you agreed with what he said. Its been I while since I've seen the documentary, so I'm not going to go through it all and give you an exact time when he says it if you won't answer my simple question. So Mann aside, was 1998 the hottest year in the past millenium?

Like all of your sources? Wait a second.... you don't have any!

Oh, Boo Hoo. I'm such a bad person, primary literature, graphs, websites, ect. Why did I expect you to be able to read them? What was I thinking!?

Also MannieD, just because I you don't agree with what I'm saying doesn't make it misinformation... Maybe in your world, and maybe to someone trying desperatley to cling onto spending vast amounts of money on screwing evil corporations and saving polar bears, but in the real world...

Yes I am. Unfortunatley, you are smaller and less funny.

Okay then... So much for sniping rationally... I hurt MannieD's feelings.

As for making things up, at least I'm not trying to pretend periods of climate history don't exist. Thats like having WWI and WW2 in your history book back in 1990, but then having them gone today. You'd think if some drastic discovery came about suggesting such an absurd thing, it would be easy to answer what was discovered in 18 years.

Thats a clever disguise you have there Al Gore.... It really depends what Scientific "Debate" you are referring to. If you mean the one among the IPCC, that debate never really mattered, they can write whatever they want. (Of course if you go overboard, they will replace you, just ask Mann) If you are referring to the one here, you never really referred to any science. If you are referring to the one in the world, my list of scientists I posted are a testament that people disagree with AGW on all sorts of varying levels. You see, in Science 101, you learn the difference between a theory and a law. Go steal some grade-school student's science book and look it up.

This is like a game of password, you guys keep going until I figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Well scam might be taking it too far. Lots of people have legit concerns about the effects of Human Activity on climate change. However, the scientific evidence concerning it doesn't suggest we have anything to worry about. When people overstep their boundaries and want to spend your money on a problem that doesn't exist, its a scam. When scientists fabricate evidence to support their theory, its a scam. Al Gore's movie was a scam.

Actually, Global Warming might even be hurting our real enviromental interests.

I don't know where you live, but here In the States the drinking water is more than safe enough to enjoy, it even beats bottled water in taste tests (In some States).

SDY - I think is is about time you showed a little maturity and actually started reading people's responses to you and trying to understand them. You're posts are becoming ridiculous.


Re. this mythical "Industrial Cooling" you keep going on about:


Yet you never explained what this vague term "Industrial Cooling" meant


No - you provided this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ann-moberg.png

It contained no key.

Why didn't you link originally to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descrip...n_IPCC_reports which does have a key.
To insult MannieD for asking you to clarify a graph you have posted with no key is very childish.




But this graph you keep referring to does not show this. From 1940-1979, the blue line rises, the red line stays flat, the black line doesn't seem to go beyond ~1950

I have no what point you are trying to make with this rubbish - but the graph you keep referring to does not support the conclusion you seem to be making

Thank you for finally defining this "Industrial Cooling" you keep talking about. Try doing this in future when using ambiguous term that mean nothing to anyone but yourself.

I still have no idea what point you are trying to make - but at least we know what time period you mean - ie. the time period that doesn't show any cooling on the graph you keep quoting

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

They have plenty to do with it...

We are talking about environmental standards, and making lifestyle changes to improve the environment. By doing so we would naturally be cleaning up some of those other areas as well.

As far as Global Warming goes.....Scientists from all over the world say it exists. Conservative Scientists with ties to the Bush admin are the only ones I have personally ever seen who dispute it.

Ill take my chances with the rest of the world, the UN, and liberals & moderates here than with the Bush people.

Truth be told though, I hope they are all wrong because if Global Warming is a reality then we are all pretty much screwed.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps.

No they don't thats what you were told but you need to take time to look into these things:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50

As it explains in the article 15,000 scientists had voted against the kyoto accord. All of those who signed it were basic or applied scientists and it happened all in six weeks. When it comes to scientists signing petitions these kind of numbers are unheard of.

The IPCC's consensus containing 2500 of what they call the "worlds top scientists" wasn't actually started by scientists and contains very few. The majority of it is editors of newspapers, journalists, politicians or so called 'experts' in the field.

All aboard the propaganda train! of to leftard mountain! toot toot! chuga chuga chuga chuga..

Don't associate global warming skeptics with Bush its a bad habit just like screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" and "(*)(*)(*)(*) BUSH!!" at every possible occasion. The only people who are lying to you are the ones you trust the most.

Don't worry in the end all well have is a bunch of hybrid cars and a embarrassed look on our faces..

Im not going to respond to the rest of what you said because its clear that we simply just disagree and also wont agree with the other persons sources.

I saved this line of what you wrote though because I think thats an awful large, and risky assumption for you to make.

If your wrong then millions of people are dead.

If im wrong then our economy very well may have been weakened quite a bit and we still PROBABLY end up with a cleaner Earth.

I admit there are economic risks associated with the lefts ideas of how to combat Global Warming. Dont get me wrong, I fully understand that. However is it as destructive to the rest of the world if im wrong, than the destruction we could face if you are wrong??

Like I said though...I actually hope YOU are right. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

If im wrong we die, if your wrong i doubt we'd have time to stop it.

Luckily though its all propaganda and scare tactics from enviromentalists. It still remains that there is NO direct evidence linking Global Warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. And as i showed theres a whole lot of scientists who disapprove of the idea.

The question remains is if its okay to jump full throttle at anything that looks like a problem regardless of the consequences?

Chief educate yourself. This is a guy that has well documented the moneyed interest that has stymied our response to climate change- from an Australian, Liberals perspective, so you definetly ought to read it. http://www.guypearse.com/ Read his book, "High and Dry".

This issue has been slowed for decades by the tactics of confuse and slow- same as ciggarettes, same as asbestos. It annoys me that the deniers are presented as some kind of brave guerillas, when so many of them have been paid for decades to slow society down, and kept the real science silenced.

Edit: Do you mind telling meon which page you showed there were many scientists oppsed to it, and I'll show you they're lying.

four posts up click on the link.

This sounds familiar. Yeah he does mention it in the book.

Seeing as their site itself (http://oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm) is close to worthless as its a wall of names- thankfully the Wiki page is well updated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

"The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[10] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[10]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[11] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[12]

I'll see how you adress that- a list designed to be a fraud and with some fictional characters and non-scientists. Do you know who any of these people are?

My bold. Here's the "Summary":
Summary

IPCC 1990, Mann 1999 and Moberg 2005 data overlaid.

* IPCC hand-digitised from IPCC 1990 figure 7.1c (note: it has been assumed that the tickmarks on the y axis are in units of °C and that the middle of the three represents zero).
* Mann from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...annrogfig5.txt
* Moberg from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03265.html

By William M. Connolley.
No sign of data labels.
No you tell me I need to follow a link for the data labels.

Fine. I admit I didn't follow the link because you originally told me the labels were in the summary.
I'd also like an answer to bugalug's question.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?