Now she just has to catch up on a thousand years of science and she'll accept AGW.

__________________
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein
"Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding..." — Brian Greene

it is ridiculous because you still can't comprehend that a couple of cold days in your trailer park is meaningless on a global scale...even the entire continental land mass of the USA is not that significant, but you typically think your the center of the universe and if it's cool where you are it must be cool everywhere.... I live further north than you it wasn't even close to the record for cold, in the arctic it was even warmer still...2007 is the second warmest year on record...the mean global temp since 2000 is steadily upward...


show me the cooling!!!!

Maybe your graph is not accurate.



http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter
"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." -- Ann Coulter on Fox News 6/22/09
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” -- Ronald Reagan

So you too are denying the earth is getting warmer even though the people that you introduced (like Peiser, Singer, Lindzen etc) to support your posistion admit that GW is happening?
Do you see the problem with your opinion?

__________________
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein
"Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding..." — Brian Greene

You still don't get the point do you.

You keep telling us that there are scientists that think that AGW is not occurring. I have never disagreed with that.

What I do not understand is - if there are so many scientists that think that AGW is not occurring - why are so few of these scientists able to support this opinion with any sort of peer-reviewed research?

After almost a year of trying, out of all the research published on this subject in recent years - what have you found us? One paper by Douglass, Christie et al. And one paper over 10 years old listed on that blog you posted.

Why can so so few of these scientists that believe AGW is not occurring mount any sort of scientific argument to support their opinions? Where is the rigourous scientific debate?


Yes - and why don't you actually go and read what those dozens of papers are about. None of them support in any way your statement that "global warming is a myth". I highlighted the only ones on that whole blog that were in any way relevant to your argument.

Why don't you actually read your own links before posting them.

__________________

OK - let's check his CV:
Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

Nope - not a scientist.

__________________

accuarte only missing a data entry for 2007....here's another with 2007 confirming 2007 as the 2nd warmest year on record


the pic you posted, 1st thought looking at was the trash barrel was placed there for the shot, if had been used on the pallet we'd see charring and there should have ashes on the ground if it had been there any length of time(I had one at one time)...then there's the wooden or cardboard box next to it, where are the scorch marks and who would be so stupid to something flammable next to a burner...my guess is the burner has never been used at that location

2nd tennis court ...if the court was installed after the station there may be a one year jump in temp values, after that it would be relative and wouldn't matter as it would still show real temps and legitimate increases or decreases....if it was installed after the tennis court it wouldn't matter at all...

and there literally thousands of stations around the globe, if a few are knocked out by a storms, fires, earthquakes whatever data lost is short is term and insignificant...and there are thousands and thousands of temp readings taken at sea

Your graph shows that there was a cooling in Jan 2008. And that is what we have been telling you. Yes we produce CO2 no one said we didn't , It has no effect on warming and cooling . Nature contrils the weather. Did you also read that the CO2 levels were 3 times higher in the ice age?

thats Jan 1 08 ... there is no data for the rest of Jan or 2008...

which confirms my point....A-you can't read a graph or B-you so good at predicting the temps that havn't been recorded you should head up the IPCC...


co2 levels 3 x higher in the ice age...now you want to turn accepted science on it's head....

show me where CO2 levels are 3 x higher during Ice ages... hint the Wurm was the last Ice age and present day CO2 levels have been cut off in this graph it shows it 310 (ppm) it should read 375 (ppm)....


or show me on this graph where CO2 squiggly green line during the glaciation periods (the blue lines at the bottom) is 3 x higher todays CO2 on the extreme right

Denier Conspiracy Theories: More Paranoid Than Thou

"Capturing the madness in a nutshell, the premise is that scientists are motivated by the generous, biased, government controlled grant system to do research that supports the current understanding of climate change. The claim is that there is a climate of political correctness such that those who do not support the model of anthropogenic climate change are denied grants, honours and awards, and even punished.

These various claims are rebutted repeatedly and in detail here and I will not be repeating those arguments, although I will mention one or two in passing.

Now every crackpot with a perpetual motion carburetor claims their genius is being censored by a cabal of oppressors of one form or another. That some of the crackpots have bad proposals and silly ideas for climate research is neither surprising nor noteworthy. So how do we distinguish the crackpots from the legitimate whistleblowers?

The obvious and simple way to provide evidence of the alleged conspiracy is to publish the research proposals that were turned down. Let the world see how the applications were rational, robust proposals for solid science. This is such a no brainer that the Deniers naturally published them …. nowhere that I know of.

Does anyone? has anyone ever seen one of these? Apparently not. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith that they were good science that should have been funded. We have the word of people who have been shown to misrepresent and distort over and over, so why would we not trust them now?

Now we get to the interesting parts. The fact is that other than a few anecdotes tossed about the Denialosphere there is no attempt to actually document the conspiracy. Why not? There are any number of ways that evidence could be provided. Grant guidelines and terms of reference could be offered and their bias revealed. Statistics could be generated on what research is funded to demonstrate bias, and so on.
Looking for clues

Looking for clues

It is fascinating that the Deniers invest almost no energy into documenting the alleged conspiracies. Most conspiracists obsess on gathering evidence. They watch videos over and over, study floor plans and forensic reports, plot trajectories and lines of sight, read and compare testimonies of witnesses endlessly, post youtube videos explaining byzantine timelines and event sequences. Their obsession with documenting evidence is almost pathological. Indeed there is a process to validating a conspiracy.

Yet the Deniers toss out a few anecdotes and move on. Why?"
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...oid-than-thou/