I guess you read no farther than the quoted statement, as I clearly did or was being omnipotent in the rest of my response.

And you have yet to prove anything.  "You Say", and that is it.  You have provided NO PROOF, just a bunch of your opinion. 

As I said, once you attempt to provide your proof, I will refute it.

And childish name calling?  I have not called you any names that you have not demonstrated to be true by your juvenile taunts. 

Go ahead and give me another one of your classic "you are an asshole" comments.

As I said, and you just proved again:

 

Your argument or the argument of the idiots that you provided does not hold water. The warming is not understood because it would mean that the Sun is providing the hear detected. Look at NASA and the reason they needed to send the Pluto Express. Pluto has already had its closest approach to the Sun and is heading farther out. The reason for NASA to hurry is because a few years after Pluto Express passes the minor planet the atmosphere will freeze over, this mission is the last chance we will have of seeing the atmosphere in our lifetime, the next chance will be in about a hundred years when Pluto is expected to warm enough for the gases that make up the atmosphere to thaw and rise again. So either the scientists at NASA lied to get the money for a worthless mission or your buddy has climate change suck up Uranus.

If what is provided about Mars is true then the planet should be getting colder because the brightness of the dust would help reflect the Sun's heat off the planet as ice reflects heat off of our planet. Also, what drives he weather on Mars is the same thing that drives the weather on the other planets, convection. since Mars is a dead planet, the only source of heat for convection is the Sun. The dust storms are a result of the planets rotation and convection. The snapshots reffered to in the article seem to ignore the probes that were reporting daily temps for over a year. 7 probes 4 on the ground reported what they saw and the ranges in temp as 3 of them moved around the planet.

Just how many have an atmosphere? Other than the inner planets the only places we have gotten accurate data are places we sent probs to. Pluto is too far out to get more than basic information. The accurate data on Pluto will come with the Pluto Express in 2015.  BTW, as of today the space craft is exactly half way there. Would those six planets and moons be the ones we have sent probes to?

Jupiter is a baby star, it gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun. Why it was included in that reprort is a bit beyond me.

You also need to read more carefully and not let your bias get in the way. I never stated the Sun was getting brighter I wrote that the Sun is expanding. Getting larger, not brighter, I guess that is another way to obfuscate the message.

Times of London did an article, The BBC finally came clean and stated that they had the e-mails a month before it was posted on the web sent to them by a confidential source. The BBC is heavily invested in green tech crap for the pension fund. To release that information would seriously damage that fund. As to why it was released in the fist place. All you have in science is your reputation, once word got out that this was a hoax everyone involved would lose their job and who is going to hire them? My 'guess' is that someone was covering their ass. When he or she gets fired for the hoax they will be able to point to the release of the e-mails and say I tried to blow the whistle. Notice the people involved are already losing their jobs. If the information was so weak why resign? Who is Amy Bishop? Oh wait, that was the left wing nut job that supports Mr. Obama and global climate change. I remember now. Thanks.

 

Well I have to tip my hat to you.

The reason that I use Wiki and not the actual reports is because downloading the actual reports is a pain in the fucking ass, pardon my french.

How do you have the patience? So OK. I bit the bullet and started downloading. First I downloaded the AR4 Synthesis Report. 52 pages and they provide a link to down load the entire file, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

OK so far so good. Next the first of 3 "Working Group" reports. This time not so lucky. 996 pages consisting of at a minimum of 25 downloads. OMFG! I drew the line at the figures however, there are two download pages consisting of figures only. The first one is http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html and consists of 164 individual files. No fucking way I'm going to download that. The second one is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis_figures.htm and and I can't even begine to count how many individual files are on that page.

So I guess I'll go through the effort of pasting the 26 downloads from just the Working Group 1 report into a single pdf and then I move on to WG2 and WG3.

So is there an easier way to do this or what?

You know it really isn't an absolute requirement to denigrate everyone that simply disagrees with you.

The source article that I referenced provided links to peer reviewed works that document every one of his claims. You however call him an idiot without providing a single source other than your bald assertions. You should try providing a bit of evidence with your assertions if you wish to be taken seriously.

Actually you said that the sun is increasing in some unspecified manner by 10% every 100 to 1000 years. However you never made a point using this so-called fact nor did you ever explain precisely what parameter of the sun is increasing by 10% every 100 to 1000 years. So now you're saying that you "wrote that the Sun is expanding", so am I safe in assuming that your claim is that the suns diameter is expanding by 10% every 100 to 1000 years? If so I'll see if I can verify that, however if it's some other parameter please let me know so I don't go on some wild goose chase.

I concur with that sentiment.  Keep it dear & abide by it.

Link?

Pot Kettle.

Kettle Pot.

You do not know much that your masters do not feed you, do you? Emails sent to BBC a month before Leak

Seems everryone has more knowledge than you do.  But then if you are only getting your information from Gavin Schmidt and Grant Foster, you do not know much so to do your "work for you", here is One of many Analysis of the Emails. There is even a book out on it now! Need an ISBN number?

That is because you have not looked.

It "proves" nothing, but it does show the difference between a "whistleblower" and a hacker.  But then as indicated earlier, you do not know what "prove" means.

Don't play his juvenile game.  he likes to call people names and then accuse them of doing the same.  He is just lazy and as I have demonstrated, ignorant of the subject.  He wont (or more likely can't) prove any of his allegations when challenged on them.

sorry but I read papers, I don't know how to post a link, I go online to blog and to research my books. CURRENT BOOK SILENT THUNDER AT amazon! Sorry but I just had to do that. LOL

I have one of my girl friends do my website, facebook and other computer stuff. Here is an idea why don't you do a wiki search or maybe go to the times and look it up. Or you can ignore what I wrote and continue marching.

Doc, I honestly think that if he posts a link that is his proof. In most cases people read the link and accept what is written, I spotted errors in one of the links he provided and refuted it. I would love to read his opinions and his reasons but I don't think he will let us in that deeply.

I don’t have to go any further than this to have a reason not to take you seriously, you arrogantly post the same grossly inaccurate crap over and over again, this is the favorite tactic of the dogmatic. First you say the IPPC report predicts 0.006° then you say “I am in error, using only my memory I wrote 0.006°C when in reality it is 0.05°C if you want the full story look up my articles on global warming over the last two years they are a bit more accurate than Wiki”, a 5th grader could see the 0.05°C was the range of the prediction not the prediction of 0.64°C and 0.69°C.

However you already knew this, you acknowledged this error almost 2 years ago but here you are again flippantly throwing out whatever number that makes your case.

https://forums.politicalmachine.com/317534

Lauriekk, “By the way, you've misinterpreted that section. It says that the average temperature over the period 2011 to 2030 will be 0.64 to 0.69 degrees warmer than the average temperature over 1980 to 1999. The 0.05 is the range in the predictions.”

Paladin77, “You are correct, thank you for catching it. So we are looking at 7 tenths of a degree rise between 2011 and 2030 plus or minus .05th of a degree. Okay.”

And you have the cognitive dissonance to say trust me I have the facts and these scientist with their manipulated data are the idiots. 

This is classic Illusion of Superiority.

 

That's certainly how it seemed to me however I had wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and be able to look at the report directly just to make sure that the context validated this interpretation. After all from what he provided you pretty much need to conclude this from reading just the single sentence.

Turns out downloading the IPCC AR4 report is a major pain in the ass but I figure I may as well continue the process just so I have it.

That's always the case with skeptic arguments. They do not need to prove anything, their intent is to merely confuse and obfuscate. A good lie works quite as well as a bad truth and most times far better. Then when you respond with rebuttal after rebuttal it doesn't disprove their argument it actually reinforces their argument because now they can say "this discussion means that the science really isn't settled".

These are exactly the same techniques that have been used by the tobacco industry for the last 30 years and the thing is it's the very same people using these same techniques now against AGW. Again this is something I've posted about dozens of times I should probably keep track of them so that I can just copy the same post over but they're spread out over I have no idea how many different threads that it's usually easier to replicate the argument.

Just take a look at the following organizations all of which have been significantly involved in the fight against not only AGW but against anti-smoking legislation. And these are really just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

Then you should learn because by not providing any source for your assertion you are counting on people believing your assertions merely because *you* say so. And while I usually try to give folks the benefit of the doubt when someone posts ridiculous claims with no evidence whatsoever it gets old pretty quick.

I'm still waiting for you to back up you claim that the sun is increasing by 10% every 100 or 1000 years. Please prove me wrong but there is no single quantity related to the sun that increases on that short of a timescale. Even though I would prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt this strains all credulity.

Of course I do that's what everyone does if they are at the least bit responsible. If you make a claim you post supporting evidence so that the person that you're arguing with can examine your source and accept or rebut as the case may be. But you make claims based on *nothing* so of course there's nothing for anyone to check out and disprove.

This is a perfect example. Your so called refutation is merely you calling the author of the link I provided an idiot simply based on your say so. However your expertise in the realm of astrophysics has certainly yet to be established.

I repeat for at least the 5th time, provide some evidence that parameter of the sun is "increasing by 10% every 100 or 1000 years." If you can then perhaps, just perhaps I might be willing to accept your bald faced assertion about planets warming. Plus you really should learn how to post a link.

Here is an idea, do your own legwork. It's certainly not my responsibility to prove your case. If you want to make a case then fine I'll follow your links and at least give you the courtesy of reading the material you reference, but to ask me to do your work for you, no I think not.

Why should he have to do all the heavy lifting? It's not hard to learn how to post a link - if you can learn how to type on a keyboard and move the cursor with the mouse you should be capable of learning how to post a link.

It's evidence and can therefore be used to help back up a claim (subject to the reliability etc. of the link), and so posting such a link is much better than no link at all.

Without any outside evidence to back up your arguments, you're limited to either making unprovable claims which for all we know are made up on the spot with nothing to base them on, or arguing based on the evidence others have provided and finding flaws in that (which means although you might manage to discredit an opposing argument you'll be unlikely to be able to prove your own).

Take the OP as an example - without a link to what Dr Jones actually said who's to say he really did say that? There have been plenty of people who have mis-stated what he's said (e.g. saying that he said there hasn't been any warming since 1995), and so you could've read a false interpretation of what he said, posted it here as truth, and without a link there's nothing to back up your claim, or someone's counter-claim that he actually said there was global warming in the period. With a link to the actual statement he made though everyone can see what he said and whether it does back up the claim made.

Nice, if you read the report the range is correct between historical data and the projections from the modeling they used. If you wish to nit pick that is fine. No matter how you look at it the wild predictions leveled by the pro man made global warming still comes out to less than on degree rise in temp while the people that are looking at the science predict a 2 degree drop in temp. That was in 2008 it is now 2010 which one seems to be more accurate? Oh wait we are now told that the cold we have been experiencing is part of the global warming, even though it goes against the models they used to predict the less than a degree warming over the next few decades and the whopping five degree rise over the next hundred years. You seem smarter than a 5th grader but you still missed the point that the predictions were wrong. The point is that man made global warming predictions require the entire world to destroy their economies on a guess that has huge errors in it.

Well you can do what I did and look it up.

stub -

That's one of my favorite vids.

Look your obviously hold a fascination for science and I respect that, however you’ve let your conformational biases completely control your methods and conclusions. Your doing exactly what you rightly say would invalidate the work of other scientists. A decimal point in science is a big deal, it’s a mathematical straw man that almost always invalidates any conclusions. It’s more than enough to have an otherwise well structured and accurate paper be rejected for peer review and it wouldn't be just “nit picking” to do so. Sometimes a mistake is made and when corrected doesn’t invalidate the conclusion however the mistake must still be corrected. Don’t you agree? 

Mistakes are made, however compounding the error or just ignoring it is counter productive to say the least and people that make these mistakes and then refuse to correct them do not qualify as “dissenters being silenced”. You're not just making errors you consistently fabricate data to support your conclusion, (your “errors” are always in favor of your position) and when your caught you condescendingly act as if it has no bearing on your conclusions and others are stupid for not getting your invalidated point.

I’m not arguing here for or against AGW only for critical thinking and the scientific method, please stop butchering it and make an effort to recognize your own conformational biases. Doing so is not easy scientist struggle with it all the time but at least they’re aware of how detrimental it can to the advancement of science. The peer review process while not beyond CB’s influence in the short term will eventually weed it out, that’s why I trust it.

Mine as well, it helps me understand how others can come to hold such flawed positions and by extension that I could be completely wrong about something and simply not recognize it without a critical analysis how I came to that position.

Here’s one by his brother that helps in that respect as well.

 

falsifying evidence is not a "mistake" and it is something people do to affirm their faith, not in order to scientifically analyze something. It just so happens that this time we have faith in AGW which pushes people to falsify evidence, instead of faith in an invisible sky wizard who created a flat earth in the center of the universe and populated it with humans and fake fossils 6000 years ago.

If you comprehend the concept of "the illusion of superiority" fully you would see that if it is true then everyone must think that they are competent and that thus posting that video is supportive of their position.

The question has become an issue of whether the so called "scientists" (politicians and activists) falsified data; or is it a clever smear campaign. Whether the various legitimate organizations and researchers who have left the IPCC amidst claims that the data that they have uncovered is being falsified by the politicians running the place.

Showing a graph whose trendline indicates a rise in temperature (reply 7 by mumble) cannot be used as evidence to contradict a claim that the data which was used to chart it has been falsified. Certainly if the data in the graph was legitimate then you would have had a point.

It should be noted that the proponents of AGW are pushing nonsense such as "scientific consensus" and are led by anti capitalism nut cases who have a history of falsifying data, and have been caught doing so many times. This does not necessarily make their position false (they could be falsifying data for a genuine cause), but it certainly calls it into doubt and demolishes any respect and trust one could have towards them.

I recommend you go to your local university geoscience department and ask them about the issue. Rather then listening to what Al Gore and his ilk say about it.

EDIT: It is actually possible that a genuine issue was discovered by real scientists. In a panic, green fanatics, activists, and politicians have picked up "the cause" and have started falsifying data to promote their faith (which could be coincidently true) and are actually harming "the cause" in their stupidity and eagerness to "aid the cause" by engaging in such illegitimate behavior.

But so far I have seen many legitimate scientists find flaws in AGW data and theories. While the pro AGW pundits run amok with unsound, unscientific, and unethical behavior wrought by their retarded beliefs (capitalism is bad, corporations are evil, business destroys the earth, etc etc).

AGW is very similar to creationism in this regards. Amusingly, it is usually equated to evolution by the "believers".

The source data in the graph that I posted in reply #7 is clearly stated to be the GISTEMP Land Ocean Index which is from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies. For someone to doubt the validity of such a source essentially requires them to believe in a world wide conspiracy of climate scientists that have been deluding everyone for years know.

Of course this is precisely the argument that the skeptics are pretty much making which is fine if you believe in conspiracies.

I'm positive that I've *never* quoted Al Gore as a source for anything.

But perhaps you should take your own advice because I have been to my local university and everyone that I've spoken to at the MIT meteorology department agrees with AGW. However I haven't spoken with Richard Linzen but then he also believes that smoking doesn't cause cancer. The bottom line is that you can always find an outlier, the problem is that there are 100 credible scientists that accept AGW for every one that doesn't.

Then post links to their peer reviewed articles published in respected journals where they disprove AGW. Note that finding a flaw that does not change the overall result hardly matters and does indeed happen. But I certainly would like to see the peer reviewed article that dsproves AGW. Please produce it.

Nothing but weather men.  Don't know shit about climate - you said so yourself.  Unless you're referring to the department secretaries - they're the ones with the real knowledge.

You've done this before.  No one needs to 'disprove' AGW.  The burden of proof is on the proponent.

Nice try, though.

Just as no one needed to disprove that smoking is bad for you.

There are thousands of peer reviewed articles published in well respected scientific journals that support AGW. To me that is sufficient proof. For any other field of science such as the medical field that would be sufficient for even you.

No one can prove anything to someone that simply denies all evidence and I have no desire to try. Believe what you want. I'm not arguing with you or trying to convince you because you are hopeless. I only try to present reasonable evidence to people that are reasonable enough to consider it.

You can lead a horse to drink but you can't make him water, or something like that.

arrg... "agrees"? what kind of morons are they to "agree" OR "disagree" and to provide that as their evidence. When I discuss the issue with professors the question of agreement never once came up. Discuss the actual mechanisms, ask for experiments showing CO2 contributes to global temperatures, ask about the percentage of yearly CO2 emissions caused by humans (under 3%)... also, look at the global levels of actual CO2 in the atmosphere. I expected much more from MIT. I have been discussing it with professors who work in the field, that is actually why I suggested it in the first place.

You are confusing faith and science. Your faith in NASA to be able to do no wrong is misplaced. (as can be evidenced by a series of mishaps which were preventable). Did NASA publish the data or actually measure it? where has it been measuring it? is NASA immune to political pressure?

Crazy idiots like 9-11 truthers and alien abduction nuts have cast the very concept of a conspiracy in a negative light. Conspiracies are very real. In fact people are convicted of conspiring to commit a crime all the time in courts. Look up the RAM cartels for an example.

For someone to doubt the validity of NASA does not actually require a world wide conspiracy, it only requires a few individuals within NASA cooking the books, who don't have to be scientists; AGW as a whole requires a conspiracy, or rather, a set of small conspiracies, they don't have to be global though.

One of the issues is of course the whole "but people will speak up". And indeed, they do. These aren't some nut cases living the woods and talking about how the "conspiracy is controlling everything", but the geoscience department heads of very prestigious universities who were invited to the IPCC and either in disgust seeing politicians perverting their work; or remain in the IPCC and point out that their work is being falsified.

As for the whole "the data shows warming"... one of the chief accusations is that of selectively terminating measuring stations showing cooling.