Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Medilloni 6]

Here, I will make it easy for you, here's the next thing you can pick on - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583244,00.html

Congratulations, you can have a field day over this since you have no interest in discussing the science. That would be a bit hard to dispute right, the satellite images don't lie. Temperature records can be manipulated somewhat, but that gets old too. Hang on, there are millions of people working in the field, some ofthem are incompetent baboons, some of them are advised by incompetent baboons. There are enough of those apes to keep you busy for years, there are possibilities for endless obfuscation there.

You should invest in Maldives, the real estate prices are going to crash, and you lot will come out laughing coz you brought property that was going to be submerged. There's your easy get rich plan.

You know Cav, there are a huge number of people that know nothing of science, but are concerned about the conflicting reports in the press and directly from sources such as the IPCC - but I'm sure you know that. Many get involved in these discussions, not just because they are against making this place a better world for our kids, but that we have (to some extent) heard scientists' opinions made public, only to back pedal years later. And no, I'm not saying all scientists are bad, far from it.

The example that Meani Wan gave is a damn good one, how the hell could Syed Hasnain's email (not a peer reviewed article) later be used in a published IPCC report? Vijay Raina disputes it, and told the Indian Government there was no sign of abnormal retreat - so, how much more unsubstantiated rubbish do the IPCC base their reports (and subsequent advice) on? So the glaciers might go sometime in the future, but what will cause that? How could you talk with authority and tell us it wouldn't be part of the Earth's natural change cycle?

This is just a small example of the bad science that our lives are to be affeected by in the future, surely you'd find that understandable? - even if you don't like it. To get on a scientific high-horse and dismiss everything other than pro-global warming change being man made, or the problem is purely down to man is a dangerous assumption with so many mistakes/false/wrong/disputed data involved. The weakest argument is one that just slags off the other side, this is the impression you give (and most of the pro climate change people), and with that impression you encourage others to doubt.

[cavallino 2]

You know Cav, there are a huge number of people that know nothing of science, but are concerned about the conflicting reports in the press and directly from sources such as the IPCC - but I'm sure you know that. Many get involved in these discussions, not just because they are against making this place a better world for our kids, but that we have (to some extent) heard scientists' opinions made public, only to back pedal years later. And no, I'm not saying all scientists are bad, far from it.

Scientists revise their views - that's how science works.

The example that Meani Wan gave is a damn good one, how the hell could Syed Hasnain's email (not a peer reviewed article) later be used in a published IPCC report?

"But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist."

I don't care much about the IPCC report, the point is the science is there and the science works. Targeting political screw ups for being political screw ups is fine, but the science is there the science works, global warming is real. The way denialism works is to pick out a bad claim and then extrapolate that to imply some grand global conspiracy which is based on bad science. The 2035 number is bogus? Seems like it. Are the glaciers melting? Yes they damn well are.

To get on a scientific high-horse and dismiss everything other than pro-global warming change being man made, or the problem is purely down to man is a dangerous assumption with so many mistakes/false/wrong/disputed data involved. The weakest argument is one that just slags off the other side, this is the impression you give (and most of the pro climate change people), and with that impression you encourage others to doubt.

There is very little science being done by the denialists, there is a lot of obfuscation and selective quoting. Do science by all means, but that's far less glamorous than the instant attention that denial brings.

The science is there, mountains of it, and it works. I'll start talking about political problems when we talk about political problems.

The public cannot understand most of the science involved but they can damn well understand how good science is done. Scroll back and find my Ian Plimer video. That's a bad scientist, and the general intersted public must be given a few hours of instruction in the scientific method and then everyone of them should be able to pick out why that is bad bad science. A scientist not able to answer quesitons about his own writing, worse, not willing to is a bad scientist.

The scientist, who uncovered the problems in the IPCC report had this to say:

"Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough."

HE SAID THE GLACIERS ARE WASTING AWAY.

Are Mr. meanioni and mauroni and Piotroni prepared to admit the glaciers are melting? No sir. They will move on to the next bit of news they can use to further their agenda. The whole bloody piece is about how the glaciers are not melting fast enough to be gone by 2035. They have the audacity to use it to support their claim that there is no global warming.

A scientist, one who believes in AGW, was bold enough to question the estimates. What he gets for being a good scientist is unscrupulous commentators using his work to push their agenda. That is the kind of science that comes from the denialists again and again. There is no fvcking sincerity there, no interest in knowing the truth.

I don't deny that IPCC as a politico-scientific organisation isn't doing too well and I am unimpressed with Pachauri. BUT THE SCIENCE IS SOUND.

[maure 1]

Pity I only have a few seconds... good enough to smile, though. (I've not forgotten you, dear Autumnpuma).

Scientists revise their views - that's how science works.

Good scientists do, as any intellectual mature adult does.

Fanatics don't. Consider your position when it becomes evident (once again) that bad science is taking place.

I don't care much about the IPCC report,...

Someone does. It is the IPCC after all. Is there a supreme commander about them?

Speak of conspiracies and puppet masters. That always gets a cheer.

There is very little science being done by the denialists,...

Considering they are not paid a cent for their effort, they are doing a great deal.

Besides which, and far, far more importantly, science is open to all sorts of challenges, not only from academics. Put aside your futile elitism.

The science is there, mountains of it, and it works. I'll start talking about political problems when we talk about political problems.

Pity the "good" science doesn't reach the IPCC... and even if it did, you just said you don't care about what IPCC has to say.

Paradoxical but amusing.

Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough."

But, are the glaciers are wasting away? Did the IPCC (that you don't care about) say this? Is this alleged "wasting" a thingy claciers do over thousands of years or is there a man, the Man, behind their "wasting"?

Question, have you ever seen a glacier?

HE SAID THE GLACIERS ARE WASTING AWAY.

Is this "HE" qualified? Perhaps, qualified by the IPCC you don't care about? Perhaps qualified by a paper trail that leads to a cake baker in Bangladesh that commented to her sister-in-law the best procedure to sugar the final product while within earshot of a journalist-soon-to-became bedrock of modern GW prediction. It has happened, you know.

Are Mr. meanioni and mauroni and Piotroni prepared to admit the glaciers are melting?

Is it settled that glaciers are melting (and which glaciers, btw way, there are thousands out there) and that this has to do exclusively with man produced CO2? Is the IPCC you don't care about behind this factual religious creed?

On a side note, do you kneel as receive this "wisdow" from above?

A scientist, one who believes in AGW,...

A scientist who "believes" is as useful as a preacher or a lawyer.

Crazy idea, for kicks, how about scientist that puts forth reproducible scientific methodologies that could lead independent researchers to equal results?

Scientist that hide methodologies and data are only academics in name (and paycheck).

I don't deny that IPCC as a politico-scientific organisation isn't doing too well and I am unimpressed with Pachauri.

Opps.

If you are unimpressed, well, the gates of hell are about to open. One point for GW, undeniably.

BUT THE SCIENCE IS SOUND.

What? Who? How?

Is this the IPCC you don't care about again?

Is this the baker's sister-in-law in Bangladesh running her mouth?

Is this the rant of a schizophrenic junky outside an LA restaurant begging to eat the doggy bags?

Is this a cry of hysteria on the face of clearly bad science endorsed all the way from a certain tangential fellow straight to the IPCC Queen's ear?

Anyway.

I propose a ban on all disagreement in order to facilitate the task of GW rehabilitation. Alternatively, I say (as have said all along) let the GW matter find the elephant cemetery where all such theories come to die...

... and reduce taxes. No for me, you understand. I could pay +70% and sing all day. But have pity on the least fortunate. Life is tough, my friends, a real btch.

[Medilloni 6]

Scientists revise their views - that's how science works.

I wouldn't disagree with you, and as I said, we've seen their revisions on many occasions. All the more reason why I'm surprised you got your knickers in a twist and shouted:

BUT THE SCIENCE IS SOUND

I think this statement makes your reply contradictory.

"But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist."

I don't care much about the IPCC report, the point is the science is there and the science works. Targeting political screw ups for being political screw ups is fine, but the science is there the science works, global warming is real. The way denialism works is to pick out a bad claim and then extrapolate that to imply some grand global conspiracy which is based on bad science. The 2035 number is bogus? Seems like it. Are the glaciers melting? Yes they damn well are.

You're telling me the science works again, even though scientists sometimes review it? I'm not nit-picking Cav, I'm disputing the amount of evidence they purport to have that blames man's contribution CO2 levels, and because their science is being disputed heavily, then many will believe the case isn't cast in stone. Of course glaciers will melt, sea levels will change, it will get hotter, then it'll get colder - this is like a scientist telling me he's studied rubber balls over the last week, even though they have been bouncing for years, and telling me it bounces xx feet from xx height, and that it's man's fault that it will stop bouncing. I know the Earth changes massively, it's been in that habit for over 4 million years, I just want to know by how much we've contributed, and how much we need to cut down, if at all - until then, the science is flawed.

There is very little science being done by the denialists, there is a lot of obfuscation and selective quoting. Do science by all means, but that's far less glamorous than the instant attention that denial brings.

The science is there, mountains of it, and it works. I'll start talking about political problems when we talk about political problems.

The public cannot understand most of the science involved but they can damn well understand how good science is done. Scroll back and find my Ian Plimer video. That's a bad scientist, and the general intersted public must be given a few hours of instruction in the scientific method and then everyone of them should be able to pick out why that is bad bad science. A scientist not able to answer quesitons about his own writing, worse, not willing to is a bad scientist.

Are Mr. meanioni and mauroni and Piotroni prepared to admit the glaciers are melting? No sir. They will move on to the next bit of news they can use to further their agenda. The whole bloody piece is about how the glaciers are not melting fast enough to be gone by 2035. They have the audacity to use it to support their claim that there is no global warming.

A scientist, one who believes in AGW, was bold enough to question the estimates. What he gets for being a good scientist is unscrupulous commentators using his work to push their agenda. That is the kind of science that comes from the denialists again and again. There is no fvcking sincerity there, no interest in knowing the truth.

I don't deny that IPCC as a politico-scientific organisation isn't doing too well and I am unimpressed with Pachauri. BUT THE SCIENCE IS SOUND.

Both sides are guilty of having its fair share of fruit-cases (Plimer, Gore and plenty more), though to say that 'deniers' don't do science is wide of the mark.

The article on glaciers that Meani Wan mentions - they're not melting fast enough, so it would be a reasonable example to use that the information used to influence the public was wrong, what's the problem with that? The fact he's right?

Last of all, Pachauri's case (and others with vested interests) means, for me at least, climate change and politics are inextricably linked, and as long as they are there will be 'deniers', I'm sure the reasons are obvious.

[cavallino 2]

If you are unimpressed, well, the gates of hell are about to open. One point for GW, undeniably.

See there's the problem. I concede a point, you pounce on it. Yet, In all the time you have been on this forum, not ever, not single time have you admitted you were wrong about something, not ever. You are intellectually dishonest to the core, atleast some of the others are genuinely skeptical, they have genuine concerns. For you, your ego is more important, you wouldn't care if the world was to blow up tomorrow if the alternative was admitting to your fallibility. I am an agnostic, I don't believe in any godly omniscience, far less yours. Trying to have a discussion with you is as pointless as negotiating with a terrorist.

And now I'll block your posts, this is the last time I ever bother replying to you at least on a non F1 issue. It is just too disheartening to be repeatedly reminded that people like you exist and it is probably the main reason the world is so fvcked up.

Meds I'll get back to you in a bit..

[Max Mosley 2]

... and reduce taxes. No for me, you understand. I could pay +70% and sing all day. But have pity on the least fortunate. Life is tough, my friends, a real btch.

Fair enough! Let's tax the rich and give to the poor.

For you, your ego is more important, you wouldn't care if the world was to blow up tomorrow if the alternative was admitting to your fallibility.

Yup. Maure's only concerns are that he is walking and he is smiling. The rest of the world can burn in Hell.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Cav

Your attitude stinks.

Labelling people as terrorists, being rude to them... Trying to demean people just because they are not scientists. Just because they don't believe in your version of the truth. Because, of course, we're all stupid, ignorant.

Shocking. Bloody arrogant, even.

I refer you back to my earlier post: #521 Nothing changed as far as I can see.

And you know Cav, this is the thing that annoys me more than anything else about the pro-GW camp....

People ask legitimate questions about the accuracy of data. Those that do get their character assassinated, suppressed, attacked........ Why?

If this is for the benefit of mankind isn't there a responsibility to get it right? Why are you attacking us for quite rightly questioning the provenance of data? If the data is good, what is the problem?

I'd have more respect for you if you agreed and said: "yeah that is crap, but there is other convincing data". Instead you just act like a classroom bully.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

OK Cav/Graham - here we go again. So I will refer you back to my post of 6th December (detail below) which you have ignored. I mentioned this again later and to date none of the pro GW members have commented on it. If you wanna talk science, go ahead, blow my mind - prove me wrong with what follows, I'm all ears.....

Thermogeddon - OK let's say GW is true. What's the worst that can happen? (I can provide more on this)

- Increase of heat-related deaths - true but the net death rate will fall as more people die from cold than heat even with GW. So actually we will be better off

- Failure of crops - yes in some zones, but increased heat and dramatically increase CO2 will increase plant and food yields and made some areas of land which are currently unfarmable useable. Overall there will be a positive effect.

- Increase in disease - usually depicted in the media by malarial mosquitos - malaria is not heat dependent. It was first discovered in Lake Malaren in Sweden (hence its name) and used to be endemic across Europe. There is no evidence to suggest that increased temperatures will have any effect on malaria. People are confusing the fact that it tends to be prevalent in hot countries with the real cause: lack of infrastructure/investment to tackle it. There are no indications that any other diseases would increase as a result of heat.

- Increase in desertification - true, but then areas of tundra would also become more habitable

- More dramatic weather - already one theory has been blown to bits when pro-GW camp claimed hurricanes were on increase. Wrong. Anyway so we are predicted to get more wind/wild weather. Wrong. Wrongity Wrong. Our global weather system is driven by the difference in temperatures between the equator and poles. In a scenario where the earth is warmer, the difference would be less. So therefore less wind and less extreme weather.

- Melting of ice-caps - OK first of all Arctic is sea-ice anyway so even if it all melted there would be no major impact on sea levels. Issues are with Antarctica and glaciers which is "new" water. Anyhoo, so ice caps melt. Current predictions are from 20cm to 20m rises in sea level. Yes, that's right a margin of error of 10,000%!!! And admittedly to bangladeshis, inhabitants of islands this is a problem, BUT these rises are predicted to happen over 100 years so in the best case scenario, this is 2mm a year, worst 20cm per year. We are not currently seeing anything like the worst case scenario. Anyway at that rate of increase it would take several generations before things got serious. People would have time to move. Its happened before.

So looking at all this ^^^ the worst that could happen is a moderate sea level rise over several generations. Otherwise we'd be better off.

[maure 1]

See there's the problem. I concede a point, you pounce on it. Yet, In all the time you have been on this forum, not ever, not single time have you admitted you were wrong about something, not ever. You are intellectually dishonest to the core, atleast some of the others are genuinely skeptical, they have genuine concerns. For you, your ego is more important, you wouldn't care if the world was to blow up tomorrow if the alternative was admitting to your fallibility. I am an agnostic, I don't believe in any godly omniscience, far less yours. Trying to have a discussion with you is as pointless as negotiating with a terrorist.

And now I'll block your posts, this is the last time I ever bother replying to you at least on a non F1 issue. It is just too disheartening to be repeatedly reminded that people like you exist and it is probably the main reason the world is so fvcked up.

Meds I'll get back to you in a bit..

You delicate flower... ah well, we still have all those times when you admitted I was right.

On the other hand, I've never given a hoot about right or wrong. Granted I don't give a sht about ego... oops, you've missed that one too.

Anyway. Blocking me is a sweet as when you got that "totally hypocritical" thread going on.

Lighten up, child.

Fair enough! Let's tax the rich and give to the poor.

Funny man. Why do you think the rich are rich... and I don't mean rich like you, that is, by birth (in a particular country).

Taxing the rich is futile. The rich will then pass the cost on to the poor via the merchandise that the rich produce and the poor need to live.

Besides which, it is unnecessary. Most countries I'm familiar with have legislation (usually but not always put forth by the "left") that frees the rich from taxation, iow, proportionally speaking a CEO pays less than a truck driver.

The poor (I was one once) might pay no taxes. In fact, I remember being so poor that I was consider eligible to get some money back. Yet, how is it then that I paid taxes every time I bought anything? Because taxes are paid by those that don't have the means to protect themselves from politicians.

Yup. Maure's only concerns are that he is walking and he is smiling. The rest of the world can burn in Hell.

Never forget,

We walk through hell,

Gazing at flowers.

[cavallino 2]

Cav

Your attitude stinks.

Labelling people as terrorists, being rude to them...

I already told you, I don't reserve the courtesy for maure I do for other people. There's good reasons for that and a lot of history. I don't care if you judge me for that. And I did not call him a terrorist - read my post.

[maure 1]

Just for kicks... as always:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1&ct=1

[Piotr 0]

Cav, I really don't have 40 hrs to respond to everything you said, but I have to state that, just like the rest AGW you have become very shrill in your "arguments," some of which are simply laughable. There is very little science done by denialists???? are you kidding me? just because main stream media refuses to report on articles/findings does not mean there aren't any (or a lot) of them. In fact, there are tons of climate/statistics studies done on the AGW that show how wrong the warmists are. The studies done by PhDs in climatology, geology, anthropology, and statistics. So far, the main lines of researched into the AGW include ice cores, tree rings, and direct temperature measurements. There is a common problem with all of them - they all require very rigorous process of selection and statistical manipulation to show that the last 100 years were abnormal in terms of warming. The statistics of the "hockey stick" and AGW have been disputed for over a decade by statisticians. in turn, the warmists that statisticians are wrong, because they cannot repeat the warmists results. Statisticians then ask for computer codes custom-written by the warmists so they can analyze it, to whisch warmists usually responded that the codes were proprietary and the raw data was commonly available to which statisticians responded they were not, etc.

Warmists also argued that the "denialists" (whatever that means) did not published peer-revied articles in scientific journals while they, the warmists, did. Denialists alleged that they were blacklisted and refused by the scientific journals to have their work published, to which the warmists (and their fans) responded with the "conspiracy theories" derisions.

Now all that changed with the climategate letters/e-mails. The material released showed that the warmists did, in fact:

1. Blacklisted the denialists from the scientific journals and even blackmailed joutrnals who datred to publish any research critical of warmists.

2. Did conspire to keep their data secret so none of their work can be independently verified/checked.

3. The only scientists allowed in producing IPCC report(s) were warmists - anybody critical was kept away from it.

4. Warmists peer reviewed each other's papers, thus making a mockery of a peer review process.

5. Privately, warmists were well aware that the scientific data does not confirm their theories, and planned how to manipulate the data to hide this fact.

6. Warmists manipulated data (cherry-picking data that supported their theory and rejecting any data that did not) and even the data presentation (inverting parts of a graph to hide the low temps, splicing instrument data on the proxy graph ) to hide the fact that their models did not agree with the reality.

7. Warmists were aware that part of the history had to be re-written to fit their models and actively worked in that direction (the guy in charge of the Wikipedia section on global warming was closely associated with the chief warmist scientists).

8. Warmists were aware that they had a major problems with the statistics and actively tried to discredit statisticians who were trying to show it.

Now, if the above was being shown about the scientists studying anything else but global warming, would you believe in ANYTHINGF they would have to say? Because we both know what that answer would HAVE to be, let's agree that facts do not matter in this discusion - only feelings and beliefs.

So, let's not try to pretend that your side has sciencce behind it. It does NOT. If the governments and many rich people did not invest billions and stand to gain hundreds of billions from spreading the AGW myth, this didscussion would have been over by now.

Oh, BTW - yes, glaciers are melting. Than the cooling comes and they increase. The melting has been taking place for over 25,000 years. The cooling will happen in a matter of decades. Let's hope that we will not live to witness it - it will not be pretty. The people who will suffer the most are the ones who live now next to the melting glaciers.

[maure 1]

Cav, I really don't have 40 hrs to respond to everything you said, but I have to state that, just like the rest AGW you have become very shrill in your "arguments," some of which are simply laughable.

Yep.

There is very little science done by denialists???? are you kidding me? just because main stream media refuses to report on articles/findings does not mean there aren't any (or a lot) of them. In fact, there are tons of climate/statistics studies done on the AGW that show how wrong the warmists are. The studies done by PhDs in climatology, geology, anthropology, and statistics. So far, the main lines of researched into the AGW include ice cores, tree rings, and direct temperature measurements. There is a common problem with all of them - they all require very rigorous process of selection and statistical manipulation to show that the last 100 years were abnormal in terms of warming. The statistics of the "hockey stick" and AGW have been disputed for over a decade by statisticians. in turn, the warmists that statisticians are wrong, because they cannot repeat the warmists results. Statisticians then ask for computer codes custom-written by the warmists so they can analyze it, to whisch warmists usually responded that the codes were proprietary and the raw data was commonly available to which statisticians responded they were not, etc.

Warmists also argued that the "denialists" (whatever that means) did not published peer-revied articles in scientific journals while they, the warmists, did. Denialists alleged that they were blacklisted and refused by the scientific journals to have their work published, to which the warmists (and their fans) responded with the "conspiracy theories" derisions.

Now all that changed with the climategate letters/e-mails. The material released showed that the warmists did, in fact:

1. Blacklisted the denialists from the scientific journals and even blackmailed joutrnals who datred to publish any research critical of warmists.

2. Did conspire to keep their data secret so none of their work can be independently verified/checked.

3. The only scientists allowed in producing IPCC report(s) were warmists - anybody critical was kept away from it.

4. Warmists peer reviewed each other's papers, thus making a mockery of a peer review process.

5. Privately, warmists were well aware that the scientific data does not confirm their theories, and planned how to manipulate the data to hide this fact.

6. Warmists manipulated data (cherry-picking data that supported their theory and rejecting any data that did not) and even the data presentation (inverting parts of a graph to hide the low temps, splicing instrument data on the proxy graph ) to hide the fact that their models did not agree with the reality.

7. Warmists were aware that part of the history had to be re-written to fit their models and actively worked in that direction (the guy in charge of the Wikipedia section on global warming was closely associated with the chief warmist scientists).

8. Warmists were aware that they had a major problems with the statistics and actively tried to discredit statisticians who were trying to show it.

Now, if the above was being shown about the scientists studying anything else but global warming, would you believe in ANYTHINGF they would have to say? Because we both know what that answer would HAVE to be, let's agree that facts do not matter in this discusion - only feelings and beliefs.

All true... thus besides the point.

So, let's not try to pretend that your side has sciencce behind it. It does NOT. If the governments and many rich people did not invest billions and stand to gain hundreds of billions from spreading the AGW myth, this didscussion would have been over by now.

You do have a peculiar perspective here.

Oh, BTW - yes, glaciers are melting. Than the cooling comes and they increase. The melting has been taking place for over 25,000 years. The cooling will happen in a matter of decades. Let's hope that we will not live to witness it - it will not be pretty. The people who will suffer the most are the ones who live now next to the melting glaciers.

Decades? Decades!

Why? How? What? Who?

[cavallino 2]

There is very little science done by denialists???? are you kidding me? just because main stream media refuses to report on articles/findings does not mean there aren't any (or a lot) of them.

That's bulls##t. The mainstream media, at least a certain significant segment of it will willingly go out and print anything given out by a denier, sometimes driven by pure agenda, sometimes in a very mistaken attempt to present a 'balanced' picture. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald here let Ian Plimer write an opinion piece, a guy who is a blight on the name of science. Could they not find a better scientist who was willing to write on the same issue? They were very willing to print a denier, all they could find was a senile arrogant person who is a very very bad scientist. Again, for anyone who doens't know him, please look up the link I posted to an interview with him a few pages earlier and note that noone has come out to defend him. For very good reason, his conduct is indefensible. And yet, cretins like ihm have a voice, and you suggest that GW critics are being smothered??

In fact, there are tons of climate/statistics studies done on the AGW that show how wrong the warmists are. The studies done by PhDs in climatology, geology, anthropology, and statistics.

Really? Where is it? Why are they hiding it?

So far, the main lines of researched into the AGW include ice cores, tree rings, and direct temperature measurements.

And satellite data, visual data of glaciers receding for example, and a millon other things, and I am not a climatologist.

There is a common problem with all of them - they all require very rigorous process of selection and statistical manipulation to show that the last 100 years were abnormal in terms of warming.

They require an understanding of statistics. Wow really we need to understand science to do science? Who would have thought?

You're just repeaating typical denialist myths.

Warmists also argued that the "denialists" (whatever that means) did not published peer-revied articles in scientific journals while they, the warmists, did. Denialists alleged that they were blacklisted and refused by the scientific journals to have their work published,

Bollocks, all you have is a small shred of easily explained evidence from the CRU emails, and which offers no evidence of any global conspiracy - with the sheer amount of emails leaked, you sohuld have hundreds of emails detailing how the journals are hiding the science.

to which the warmists (and their fans) responded with the "conspiracy theories" derisions.

You are suggesting there is a coherent hidden conspiracy among thousands of scientists, journals, universities to keep out anti GW research? Rubbish. That is exactly the kind of derision you deserve.

So, let's not try to pretend that your side has sciencce behind it. It does NOT. If the governments and many rich people did not invest billions and stand to gain hundreds of billions from spreading the AGW myth, this didscussion would have been over by now.

I odn't know why I bother but here goes. Have you ever ever read about the strongest efforts to keep things secret from the public and from the other side, and how spectacularly unsuccessful they were? The cold war? Torture during Bush's war on terror? The Israeli nuclear program? And you are suggesting a vastly bigger conspiracy composed of vastly more disparate groups. Geez.

Oh, BTW - yes, glaciers are melting. Than the cooling comes and they increase.

So wait, is the earth warming or not? Or is your argument is that cold will follow the heat based on some yin yang argument???

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

More bad news for the IPCC:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

[cavallino 2]

They got there before you, it's what denialists have been harping on for the last two weeks instead of doing some real work - guess that wouldtake too much effort.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Done a LOT of reading on this subject. I don't profess to be the greatest or most intelligent person in the world with regards to GW - but I guess everyone is entitled for their two cents.

The 'temperature increase' came before the cause.

CO2 is removed from the air by natural/man made processes.

Satellites have not reported temperature increase in last 20 years.

No scientist will and can ever agree fully on the side effects of GW. Ok, this does not disprove GW, but it goes a hell of a long way toward pointing facts that man has conflicting points.

I'm not trying to disprove anything, merely find truth in what is being said is factual.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

They got there before you, it's what denialists have been harping on for the last two weeks instead of doing some real work - guess that wouldtake too much effort.

For goodness sake what is your problem Cav? This is going to get very tiresome as I will continue to post articles of interest and leave it up to individuals to follow up with their own research.

[mikathegreat2 2]

Weren't the himalayan glaciers meant to melt in 2008?? Oh wait, twas the poles that were meant to melt in 2008 & strangely they're here today!

[maure 1]

For goodness sake what is your problem Cav?

Hilarious.

This is going to get very tiresome...

Well, Grab, rethink your motives.

[maure 1]

See what I mean, Grab:

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

(follow the link, I dare you)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

[cavallino 2]

For goodness sake what is your problem Cav? This is going to get very tiresome as I will continue to post articles of interest and leave it up to individuals to follow up with their own research.

you're posting the exact news you posted a week ago, again.

[cavallino 2]

Done a LOT of reading on this subject. I don't profess to be the greatest or most intelligent person in the world with regards to GW - but I guess everyone is entitled for their two cents.

What exactly constitutes a LOT of reading for you? And just curious, why do you think you are entitled to your two cents? Do you feel you are entitled to your two cents when you go to a hospital? And you follow it with four lines of pretty outlandish claims? Really, this isn't a high school exam question with a one line answer. Take one of the claims you have made out of the 4 or 5, come back with 5-10 sources and we can begin to have a discussion. As a scientist, I find your claim that you have read a LOT and that you are qualified to make these claims offensive. I am not trying to be condescending here, but really, either you should stay out of this debate, or you put a lot of effort in. A lot more effort.

[maure 1]

Kopite Girl, either laugh or don't give a sht about Cavallino's rant.

He's perpetually going through a difficult time while thinking the world of himself. Those two facts are as most definitely related as most oblivious to him.

Besides, the whole GW is falling apart on him. It is our duty not to speak of it... like lewisteria, for instance. When people like him fck up, their pride is the only thing left for them to hold on to.

[AleHop 0]

What exactly constitutes a LOT of reading for you? And just curious, why do you think you are entitled to your two cents? Do you feel you are entitled to your two cents when you go to a hospital? And you follow it with four lines of pretty outlandish claims? Really, this isn't a high school exam question with a one line answer. Take one of the claims you have made out of the 4 or 5, come back with 5-10 sources and we can begin to have a discussion. As a scientist, I find your claim that you have read a LOT and that you are qualified to make these claims offensive. I am not trying to be condescending here, but really, either you should stay out of this debate, or you put a lot of effort in. A lot more effort.

There are plenty of links in this thread to back her arguments and it's GW worshippers and whore scientists who pretend to answer the question with a one line answer to kid people.

After all the fraud exposed you should stop connecting Global Warming to science.