Except 1 is proveably false, thus 2 is irrelevant...

I'm certainly no expert and don't pretend to have any extensive knowledge of the issue. However, common sense dictates that climate is in a common state of flux. It never stays the same. So you have only 2 options: it's getting warmer or it's getting colder. If you REALLY want my attention, warn me about global cooling! Until then, hand me my sunglasses and a cold beer.

The arguments out there that say #1 is proveably false also by its very means make it not possible to prove it false no more than you could prove it true.

It is the denialist argument by nature...breeding doubt.

Lemme guess. They've close relations to the oil industry?

thanks for the vids Mumble

it is sad to see you hitting your head against a wall thread after thread

Only by the politicians and clowns.  The "consensus" among the competant scientists is about 1-2°C due to the negative feedbacks.  The question among the non-hysterics is how much is being caused by man, and how much is natural.  But then for those who cannot tolerate any questioning, they have to hyper inflate the predictions to make it a crises instead of a concern.  And as is being shown daily, that hyssteria is just not true.  not from a theoretical standpoint, but from reality. "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."

Yes, watch the video,  As it clearly was referencing the lack of non-disclosure data,  As the RSS, IOP, and RSoC have all stated, it is not standard practice in their fields to withhold supporting data.  Only in Climate "Science", with the last being apparently an oxymoron according to real scientists. (See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata for actual statements, not spin).

And how pray tell do you know the Telegraph is biased?  I was quoting the statement, which was clearly the writer's opinion.  Perhaps you would now back up your claim about the entirety of the publication?  instead of wasting the people's time having them watch someone twisting in the wind?  Do you need more links to something you can read that backs up the opinion of the writer by factual presentations of several organizations of scientists?  or are they biased as well?  I guess now the whole world is against you. Poor thing.

The sad part is you do not even reallize how stupid you sound when you use the word denier.  You take yourself out of the science category and put yourself squarely in the propaganda category.  Clearly you do not even understand what the term means, just that it is a perjorative meant to instill fear in the skeptics, so that you do not have to use facts and logic to prove your point, just scare and emotion.  really sad now that your own gods seem to be abandoning you.

"Professor Edward Acton, the Vice-Chancellor of the “University” of East Anglia, now thinks more money should be devoted to researching the Mediaeval Warm Period. "

Ugh, can we say out of context? Why do you think that out of that entire email thread, that is the one single line that gets printed in the press?

It has already been stated what was said in those emails on these forums and how that statement was taken out of context to make it seem like they can't come up with a way to play a hoax on everyone to explain why the globe isn't warming as much as expected.

In reality if you read the entire email that was taken from, he is saying that the energy imbalances show that the earth should be warming, but their climate computer models can't explain where that energy is going. Because it clearly isn't being radiated out as higher surface temperatures. He is merely saying that their observing systems are sufficient and they need to make them better. The better our models get at tracking energy on Earth, the more accurate our predictions will be.

It isn't that he is saying "global warming isn't real and it is a travesty that we can't come up with a new hoax to explain what is going on, yada yada."

Mumble using the word "denier" is no different than you making a claim that there are people in the global warming advocates group that feel the best solution to global warming is to kill ALL humans like you said in the other thread. Such beliefs are those of only fanatics and can't be included in the group as a whole. Your statement does just as much fear-mongering as does any other.

You can't argue one is wrong without admitting the other is wrong.

In any event, it is all just semantics. Far worse things have been said on both sides than "denier". My advice is no need to take offense by it.

Here's a great example of how denial works.

Bill O'Reilly hosted a debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi. It was a relatively short segment, slightly less than 7 minutes, and consisted of a lot of the same arguments that everyone here should be familiar with by now. While the debate itself is of interest that's really not what I want to point out.

What I want to point out was a comment made by Bill O'Reilly at the beginning of the clip that took less than 15 seconds but is extremely telling about how denialists work.

First here's a link to the video of the debate, the first 15 seconds of which is the subject of this reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZU5uvM5Ok

Secondly here's a link to the transcript of the clip from which I've quoted O'Reilly's opening paragraph.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587272,00.html

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: another global warming study debunked. In the journal Nature Geoscience, a study was printed that showed the oceans rising because of global warming. Well now the magazine says, sorry, the study was flawed. Just another in a long line of global warming problems, including the resignation last week of the U.N. global warming guy.

That's all the information he provides but sounds pretty damning doesn't it? Au contraire, mon ami, that's what they *want* you to think.

If you actually go to the effort and google "nature geoscience journal withdraw claims" you find the following link (among others).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

So let's just take a quick look at the Guardian article which opens up as follows.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

Still pretty damning, but wait. The article continues.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

However. many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

In other words it's likely that the mistakes in the retracted study resulted in a gross underestimate, not overestimate of sea level rise.

The bottom line is that mistakes are discovered in reputably published peer reviewed journals all the time, however the point is that they are found and corrected as this one was.

Also significant is that O'Reilly is happy to point out the mistake while making no mention that the instead of a maximum sea level rise of 32 inches as predicted the rise could instead be as much as 6 feet.

But that's how denialists work.

just because you cant follow a link does not make it so.  You seem offended (and rightly so) that some in the AGW camp are using the movement for Eugenics.  But I never said the movement was ONLY or ALL about Eugenics.  That is your own erroneous assumption.  MF makes a stupid blanket statement.

If you want to deny the truth, then that is your loss.  All that means is you will be the first missionary eaten.  I do not deny there are lunatics on both sides, but you seem to think that all AGWers are pure as the driven snow.  Itis apparent you are just a willing dupe.

And the quote?  I used it in context.  I was not proving that there is no global warming.  I just used it to show there are still questions about it (it is not settled).  yet you are so sensitive to anyone thinking differently than you, you had to jump in and contort the meaning.  You have just decided who your new god is, while rational people can look at contradictory evidence and then try to determine why (even Phil Jones was that smart).  you cant.

Goretites!  They surround us and they are cannibals!  Your sister, your mother, your son!!!  All might hail the reptilian Gore-master as their lord!

You remember those two marines who dropped a puppy off a cliff on youtube a year or two ago?  Yah, reliable sources inform me they were Goretites and members of the AGW camp. 

I also hear that in the AGW camp scientists have been selling baby organs to the CIA for crack which Taliban soldiers smoke right before launching attacks on good red-blooded American soldiers, all as part of a global conspiracy spearheaded by the Green Satanists who co-opted Majestic 13 back in '76.

Oh and also did you know that a radical fringe of the AGW camp is using the movement for Eugenics?  Yah, they want to wipe out most of humanity to save Gaia.  It's true, according at least to the thriller novel I picked up in the airport in 2004.

Not only are your conspiracy theories completely laughable, they are also stolen from hack fiction. 

If you are going to be paranoid at the very least look beyond poorly drawn pulp by the likes of Crichton, Clancy, and Card for your inspiration, eh?

Come on, man, be creative.

I mean, it would make sense for you to examine your talking points and pundits for cues indicating that they were crafted by Psyops teams in China or Saudi Arabia.  It's a conspiracy theory that has at least a bit of cache considering some of your argument was first dreamed up by the people who told you Smoking Is Good For America.

Ok Mumbles, you've cherry picked something to whine about.  I can find dozens of areas for legitimate concern in O'Rielly's comprehension capabilities, but you're blowing your load because he's repeating something a legitimate news paper has reported on(accurate or not) while opening a discussion between two actual scientists.  Congratulations, you're pathetic.

Since it gets you wet, a question for your high horse victory.  Some group did a study on the rate of sea level increase over the last x thousand years, and predicted a certain increase over the next century.  Since the sea level has been rising for the last x thousand years, where's the global warming in this?

For those of you who's brain is still running on at least two cylinders, note the retarded nature of Nye's idiotic argument.  The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already far beyond that needed to be opaque to infrared.  He needed to use an ink dark enough to make the water pitch black ten times over at post industrial levels, and then start adding more.  It's not really something you can fault him for though, he's only a mechanical engineer.  Not having a legitimate argument against a meteorologist that specializes in long range forecasting and climate patterns is sort of expected.

Wrong.  The core samples from various glaciers and the poles prove that we've been through much greater shifts in temperature over a similar duration in just the couple thousand years.  Our comparably gradual rise we've currently measured by satellites is minimal.  Even the grossly inflated surface station data doesn't even rate with one of the bigger shifts, let alone something unusual.  The tree ring data shows nothing unusual as well, following the trends in solar activity irrespective of the supposed increase shown in the surface station data.

They only make the claim look real by using conflicting data sets for the different time periods.  That's called fraud.

As long as you're not actually reproducing, I don't really care what kind of breeding you want to bring up.  If you are, I'll be even more depressed.

Old and busted = Global Warming

The New Hotness = Global Cooling

The Ice Age Cometh: Experts Warn of Global Cooling

It goes without saying this is the fault of evil SUV's and drastic measures are called for before its too late.

D'Aleo is a joke, ICECAP is a joke and the Heartland Institute is the biggest joke of all.

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

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

Climate-change deniers are channelling the tobacco industry

A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke

Global Warming Denier Group Funded By Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial Conference

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Where there’s smoke, the climate change Denial lobby

Climate-change deniers reminiscent of Big Tobacco

Climate deniers are still creationists at an evolution debate

Past lives of climate deniers

Climate change deniers find themselves in bad company

Should Global Warming Deniers Pay Through the Nose Like the Tobacco Companies Did?

Who is behind climate change deniers?

The Smoke Behind the Deniers’ Fire

“Doubt is our product”: PR versus science

The Shameful and Shameless Links Between Big Tobacco and Global Warming Deniers

The biggest joke of all is the sun. I mean, think about it. Who in their right mind would even contemplate that the sun of all things could have an impact on warming the planet??

How long did this pile of shit take you to find Mumbles?  You seem desperate...

You don't care what people think if they disagree with you, yet you post to have people look at your evidence?  Are you baghdad Bob by any chance?

On the other hand it is totally simplistic to assume that the Sun is the *only* thing that has an impact on climate. It's those that believe that the Sun is the *only* determinent of climate that are not in their right mind.

In fact it has been shown that the sun's TSI (total solar irradiance) has *significantly* declined over about the last ten years and that we are currently in a pretty deep minimum of the 11 year sunspot cycle. If the sun was the *only* determinent of climate we would have cooled drastically. Instead we have continued to warm albeit at a slightly slower rate. Also note that there has been a downward trend of TSI over the last 35 years precisely the same timeframe as some of the largest temperature increases.

So sure the sun is involved but to say it's *only* the sun is proveably stupid.

This is the same graph I posted earlier in the thread however since it's not on this page it's easily ignored by deniers but it clearly shows how the upward trend in temperatures has continued despite the downward trend in TSI.

The temperature data is from NASA GISS and the TSI data is from Solanki and PMOD all of which are well documented and credible scientific sources that you're free to disprove in reputable peer reviewed journals or failing that simply deny.

The organizations that are most currently active in the global warming denial industry are exactly the same organizations that even to this day are opposing any and all anti-tobacco legislation. These are the same organizations, the same people and the same tactics as I've so easily shown. The point is that they fight science with advertising. "Doubt is their product."

Just because you don't want to read it and follow the evidence doesn't make it not true.

I simply present the evidence and let people make up their own minds. If you can't be bothered to read the argument then that is by definition what a "denier" is, someone that denys all objective evidence so that they can maintain their belief in their own subjective delusions.

Hello Mumbles!

What scientifically documented evidence have you presented? None.

If you're so smart then prove your case with something other than "who in their right mind could contemplate ..."

Provide at least *some* credible evidence other than we should believe it simply because you say so.