The Medieval Warm Period – unprecedented global warming, or scientific manipulation?

And still preaching your sermon instead of engaging in a discussion.

I am not dodging anything. I am responding to your points. You, OTH, refuse to address my points.

 

Asked and answered!

 

I fear you are making our point stronger

You see, the graph posted was a MODEL and the graph from NASA was an actual temperature record

When you take into account the two different time scales on the two different graphs as well as the different temperature scales they are not dissimilar

Oh! And BTW I would be VERY careful about posting graphs from NASA or any other source and changing the wording underneath to suit yourself

Not only is this misleading and disingenuous (some would call it outright lying) but such things have been the basis of lawsuits before today


THIS is the text that accompanies that graph

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

 

You are mistaken, bird.

Here is exactly what the NASA report I referenced said.

Not only is your statement misleading and disingenuous (some would call it outright lying, which you do quite often) but such things have been the basis of lawsuits before today.

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

{{{{{{{{{shrugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Doesn't really worry me, after all I will not be the one having their arse dragged into court

Oh! And don't even THINK about messing with anything from "Sceptical Science" Queensland has some pretty nasty laws relating to this sort of thing.

 

Come now, bird.

You are blowing smoke and you know it.

Besides, I have many eighth grade students who have a better understanding of science than you!

The "warmies" is this group cannot see past the overly-simplified concept of AGW because they refuse to remove their blindfolds and see past their prejudices.

 

Than you, Inquisitor.

By the way, you cannot assume just because a paper has appeared in the "peer-reviewed scientific literature", the information it contains is actually correct. Many peer-reviewed papers in many scientific journals actually disagree with each other, and their shoddy conclusions are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.

 

Than you, Inquisitor.

The"warmies" in this group have a political agenda. If they had a true scientific agenda, they would be more concerned about water vapor (10,000 ppm, many IR absorption bands) as a powerful greenhouse gas than they are about the effects of carbon dioxide (390 ppm, two IR absorption bands) as a weaker greenhouse gas!

"SCIENCE + POLITICS = 99% PURE POLITICS!"

 

You misinterpret more than a dozen separate pieces of research which reach a similar conclusion because it confounds your dogma. You then compound the folly by attempting to use further data which is in agreement to challenge the findings. It's pitiable.

 

No sir, you have not! You have regurgitated the same lies and misinformation over and over and not addressed anyone whole has made valid points against you.
You may start with this one:

Do not bother with your attempts at deflection as I will continue to ask you until you have addressed my post.

 

You are mistaken, CK.

The NASA GISS global temperature data are clearly accepted and endorsed by most (98%) members of the scientific establishment.

Your incorrect dogma and inaccurate conclusions are clearly contradicted by the data provided by this chart. Do not blame me for the fact you worship false "gods"; instead blame yourself. Your distorted views of anthropogenic global warming are clearly refuted by most (98%) members of the scientific community.

 

Are you attempting to say that 98% of the scientific community refute the basic premise of AGW? (and Pleeese, pleeese, pleeese quote from the "oregon petition" to support that)

 

You should amend your claim to make it true. "97% to 98% of climate researchers actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the IPCC."

From the PNAS study where this number came from.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full?sid=a4a6fe53-3bac-427d-8dbd-faccf7fdd378

What it means is that those that receive funding from the government agree that there is ACC. Not surprising wouldn't you think? Unfortunately it is a bogus number for reasons below.

Here is a critique of that study:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full

 

This is an excellent review, Hoosier.

Thanks for sharing.

"In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation!"

 

These comments were very good.

All of your sources receive funding for the federal government and they cannot be trusted.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full

 

Your misunderstanding of what you have been told continues unabated. The scientifically unsupported contrarian stance is noted. How much are you paid?

 

You are mistaken, CK

You worship false gods.

Your sources are not credible.

This article clearly supports this statement.

'Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse. Prominent scientific journals must focus on scientific merit without sway from extracurricular forces. They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world.

 

What "data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio"? Unless Bodenstein produces evidence, his statement is nothing more than an opinion.

"Scientific merit does not derive from the number, productivity, or prominence of those holding a certain view" - Correct. Scientific merit derives from theories and evidence, something Bodenstein lacks in his letter.

 

Bodenstein does not need to produce evidence, he points to observations. Anyone who has been on this forum has been observing the same
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/...fcc4a844a6498af47fb8d562&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

As well it has been observed that no evidence, no numbers, no observations matter to warmists.

 

you are correct, Inquisitor.

This discussion sums up perfectly the objectives and misguided goals of the "warmists" who support and force the theory of AGW on the rest of us.

"They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world."

 

Once again you demonstrate total ignorance. Peer review is employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibilty. It is fundamental to how scientists work. 'Common-sense' is not really a scientific term, is it? Common sense will tell you stay in, out of the rain. Science tells you why it's raining.

 

This is a wonderful report, Hoosier.

Thanks for sharing.

"In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation."

 

1) This is from PNAS - one of those organisations that denialists constantly put down as being "biased" and "inaccurate", although admittedly they are usually not that kind

2) It is an opinion piece - not a science article

3) IT actually proves that science journals are willing to post contrary views

 

You are mistaken, bird.

Please read the full text.

You DO agree with this statmement, do you not?

"They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world."

The "warmies" are more about political agenda than the quality and accuracy of their science.

 

I would have more respect for leftists if they admitted that they are drinking the Kool-Aid of the AGW myth and that real science and thinking are beyond their capabilities and that because they are leftists they have cultural and environmental limitations to their cognitive abilities.