Global warming not going away

[SaintsSeptember]

Can any of the alarmist congregation defend the use of "thousands of scientists" agreeing on anthropogenic global warming by many from their own side after this comment from?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html
Didn't krudd recently state that over 4,000 scientists agreed? This guy who doesn't understand the difference between dozens and thousands is our prime minister.

Could be technically correct if you count Lab Assistant's in secondary schools and other such irrelevant people who could be loosely described as scientists.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Donuts, it is very simple. More ice means more ice. Say hi to penny wong for me when you get some more propaganda like the obedient little lap dog you are.

Hey ******* spin this...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May


From the experts you know who do this sort of thing for a living. Unlike the frauds you like to quote.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Can any of the alarmist congregation defend the use of "thousands of scientists" agreeing on anthropogenic global warming by many from their own side after this comment from?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html
Didn't krudd recently state that over 4,000 scientists agreed? This guy who doesn't understand the difference between dozens and thousands is our prime minister.

Can you post one legitimate source which disputes AGW?
you cant can you.
Hint: anfernee doesn't count.
(U watching him in in Oz hawkie with the other pensioners?)

 

[Hawkamania!]

Spin, spam, spin, spam etc.

Can you post one legitimate source which disputes AGW?
you cant can you.
Hint: anfernee doesn't count.
(U watching him in in Oz hawkie with the other pensioners?)

Mike hulme was one of "the team" in the Climategate emails. So does he count as a "legitimate" source as he agrees with your religious beliefs?

Nice self pwn there donuts. You are kruddy are like two special peas in a pod.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Mike Hulme isn't your source, Lawrence Solomon is, and Lawrence Solomon is a liar, liar pants on fire.

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

Way to pwn YOUR self.

From mike hulme himself in this link (starting at the bottom of page 10):

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf

Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

It looks as if hulme is backtracking to spin his way out of his own comments. So Obtusafolia, anything else to add regarding pwnage?

 

[cat on acid]

Whether people like it or not, there is a scientific consensus in AGW. Anyone with a scientific background would know it doesn't matter if one scientist claims this and the other claims that. Science doesn't take into account the findings of a minority. Statistics are used to express certainty about the way the science is being undertaken, and as a result there is a scientific consensus built over time.

This doesn't make AGW right or wrong, but skepticism should be based on understanding the nature of climate systems as well as the literature, rather than reading the interpretations of others on the news and internet.

If you don't agree to the policies involved with AGW it doesn't mean it is not happening. The only way we can test the impacts of AGW is to do nothing and see what happens, but is it really worth the risk - i mean we only have one planet to test it on.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Whether people like it or not, there is a scientific consensus in AGW. Anyone with a scientific background would know it doesn't matter if one scientist claims this and the other claims that. Science doesn't take into account the findings of a minority. Statistics are used to express certainty about the way the science is being undertaken, and as a result there is a scientific consensus built over time.

This doesn't make AGW right or wrong, but skepticism should be based on understanding the nature of climate systems as well as the literature, rather than reading the interpretations of others on the news and internet.

If you don't agree to the policies involved with AGW it doesn't mean it is not happening. The only way we can test the impacts of AGW is to do nothing and see what happens, but is it really worth the risk - i mean we only have one planet to test it on.

So how do you suggest we ( Australia ) save the planet?
To me the big problem is making India and China stop increasing their emmissions exponentially. Maybe if all the developed nations declared that capitalism was wrong and declared themselves subjects of the Chinese communist regime it might go towards convincing them.

( If they made all their little motorcylcles 4 stroke instead of 2 stroke it would be a lot cleaner for starters though ).

 

[Hawkamania!]

Did you not read the link I posted? This comes nowhere close to disputing either global warming or the IPCC consensus, a lot of the disagreement they talk about was because the IPCC was being too conservative. This is the big problem climate science has when dealing with deniers because science has to be open, frank and forthright, whereas deniers have no ethical boundaries and are quite free to take such forthright discussions on thing such as uncertainty and disagreement and manipulate them into supporting whichever of their disparate arguments they happen pushing on any given day

This is absolute bull. The ipcc has cherry picked studies, used non-peer reviewed studies and accepted studies past their cut off date. Hell they've even cited a travel magazine. That is no where near being credible.

I agree that science has to be open, frank and forthright, however, the ipcc has shown to practice the opposite of that. Raw data has gone missing which does not allow replication of evidence to confirm conclusions of those studies.

Some scientists that agree with anthropogenic global warming have criticized the ipcc methods.

A few people mistake blog posts with real science. Fortunately though, their fringe views are not representative of any sort of popular opinion, despite their occasional delusions of grandeur. The real problem is with the media who give their opinions a disproportionate airing because in news media controversy sells.

Quoting the doran survey and naomi oreskes? Oh this will not end well for you.

From a previous post of mine regarding the doran survey:

Lets look at the questions shall we.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

The pre-1800s could have been in the little ice age. Although if I go back further to the Medieval Warm period and used that period as my starting point for pre-1800s, I would answer the question as "no". Can you see how the question can be interpreted?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

What would be considered significant? Is there an amount or threshold listed or just speculation? And what would be used for the "measuring"?

These questions are either poorly designed or are designed to lead the survey respondents towards a biased outcome.

And on oreskes, well, she was debunked back in 2004. Nice try though.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html

Benny Peiser has his own updated web page with evidence that Naomi Oreskes' paper is not right. See also: Less than 1/2 of the published papers support global warming theory.

Also, Avery and Singer collected names of 500 scientists who have published papers whose content contradicts some aspects of the recent warming alarm. Sen James Inhofe has a similar list of 400+ scientists. A petition against the AGW orthodoxy was recently signed by 30,000 U.S. scientists.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

 

[Doctor Jolly]

So how do you suggest we ( Australia ) save the planet?
To me the big problem is making India and China stop increasing their emmissions exponentially. Maybe if all the developed nations declared that capitalism was wrong and declared themselves subjects of the Chinese communist regime it might go towards convincing them.

( If they made all their little motorcylcles 4 stroke instead of 2 stroke it would be a lot cleaner for starters though ).

An (average) Australian produces over 10 times the Co2 that an Indian or Chinese person does, so perhaps you need to look a little closer to home before telling the poor of the world they have to tighten their belts.

Every country has to do the right thing. For example, the EU has emission trading schemes. They dont immediately solve the problem, but they make it easier for the next government to implement programs.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Whether people like it or not, there is a scientific consensus in AGW. Anyone with a scientific background would know it doesn't matter if one scientist claims this and the other claims that. Science doesn't take into account the findings of a minority. Statistics are used to express certainty about the way the science is being undertaken, and as a result there is a scientific consensus built over time.

This doesn't make AGW right or wrong, but skepticism should be based on understanding the nature of climate systems as well as the literature, rather than reading the interpretations of others on the news and internet.

If you don't agree to the policies involved with AGW it doesn't mean it is not happening. The only way we can test the impacts of AGW is to do nothing and see what happens, but is it really worth the risk - i mean we only have one planet to test it on.

What if studies determine that the Earth will face a deep cooling cycle are ignored?. If we spend a lot of resources on trying to lessen the impact of temperature rises on our environment when the opposite will happen, we would be doing more damage to our ecosystems and putting more lives at risk due to erroneous planning.

I tend to trust studies that can be verified via replication and the raw source data is open for that replication. The studies picked by the un ipcc on anthropogenic global warming has failed in that regard.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

What if studies determine that the Earth will face a deep cooling cycle are ignored?.

What if the sky falls down ?

I tend to trust studies that can be verified via replication and the raw source data is open for that replication. \

ehh, bullsh1t.

 

[Hawkamania!]

You mean like the so-called "Amazon-gate", where The Times was mislead by a journalist with an agenda and had to retract the story? This denial bizarro world you inhabit exists only on blogs and in the minds of people such as yourself.

Ever notice that when alarmists are losing they tend to go into an ad hominem attack strategy.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipcc-reliance-on-grey-literature-30.html

The government has told the IPCC through official channels that it must ensure review standards are robust and its communication effective. "They need to communicate that 99% of the science on which they base [their work] is peer reviewed," the official said. [bold added, first set of parenthesis in original]
​

As the citizen audit results I released four days ago reveal, the 18,531 references cited by the IPCC are so far from being 99 percent peer-reviewed it's laughable. A full 30 percent of them (5,587) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Moreover, in 21 out of 44 chapters (48 percent) the level of peer-reviewed references was so low the chapter received an 'F' on our report card.

Let's restate this: the rate of non-peer-reviewed source material cited by the IPCC is thirty times larger than what the British government suggested would be acceptable a mere 12 weeks ago.

The IPCC has disappeared raw data? This is a new one. Source?

Their sources have lost data.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.​

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

No, I am quoting Anderegg et al. the latest research commissioned by the NAS.

Can you provide the paper for me in a link?

That's hardly being "debunked", I'm not at all surprised that you can't distinguish between a blog post and a research paper, but it's a moot point because I'm quoting neither Oreskes or Doran, which you'd know if you'd read the article before launching into your tirade.

And yet the article uses doran and oreskes as some sort of validation for their paper. Interesting...

 

[medusala]

Every country has to do the right thing.

Nonsense. It matters not a jot what Fiji, Andorra and even Australia does. Global output (if you accept the thermomaniac agenda) determines temperature increases.

China and India wont go along with this economic vandalism. Australia can do nothing by itself.

To suggest it should is ludicrous.

 

[Hawkamania!]

What if the sky falls down ?

Ask al gore and the un ipcc. I'm sure they can spin something for you.

ehh, bullsh1t.

An accurate critique of your posts.

But they're not ignored, they are put up to testing by their peers and are either rendered viable or dismissed as erroneous. The mere existence of such hypotheses don't give them credence, they have to stand up to the evidence, and very few alternative scenarios have managed to do so.

Well, that's easy, you do a risk assessment

[youtube]zORv8wwiadQ[/youtube]

For starters, it's obvious you couldn't read a scientific paper to save your life so your "trust" is entirely meaningless. Secondly, it is absolute baloney to say that the evidence reviewed by the IPCC doesn't comply to the standards of scientific method. And, predictably, the only "proof" you will be able to provide otherwise will come from blog posts and not from the scientific literature. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Start here.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

Now I challenge you to support the un ipcc claims of anthropogenic global warming based on studeis that adhere to the scientific method. The people you quote make the claim, at the very least they should be able to back it up.

 

[medusala]

More on Anderegg et. al.

It is a woeful arugment put foward by non thinkers. Even if there is consensus, so what?

If AGW causes temperatures to rise 0.25c over 100 years then noone gives a stuff. See Von Storch study ie belief to a large degree accounted for more than very much agree.

Interesting the use of the word consensus. After all the consensus is that the Stern Report was a joke, the use of a discount rate that low was wrong, the use of market exchange rates in the economic projections was wrong, that Treasury analysis done re ETS was a load of nonsense, Al Gore is a fool of the highest order, that Mann's use of statistics is crap

etc etc

 

[Hawkamania!]

Saying that science should be conducted by scientists, using tried and tested methodology, is not an ad hom. And, predictably, you present a blog post to prove your point, which funnily enough proves my point.

Misleading post. See here:

This denial bizarro world you inhabit exists only on blogs and in the minds of people such as yourself.

Ad hominem and a poor attempt of a stawman argument.

For starters, the CRU data is not the IPCC, it is just one of a handful of global temperature measurements. Secondly, the data that it doesn't hold is subject to commercial proprietary agreements, it does not own the data to release, it is merely licensed to use the data.

What about FOI requests? How can there be replication when these researchers hold back their data and methodology while saying in effect "Trust us".

http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/04/a-small-foieir-success/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/25/no-climategate-foi-prosecutions.html

I already have.

No. You have linked and article that refers to the paper. Please link the actual paper.

Yes, because it builds on their work, it is just one more piece of irrefutable evidence that the denier meme does not exist in academia, except among a small number of working climatologist that you could count on your hand, and even those guys don't actually publish research that implicity challenges AGW and on the few occasions they have it has been refuted and not even the authors dispute the refutations. And you have shown nothing that refutes either Orsekes or Doran anyway, so it's a moot point.

Please provide proof of your numbers please as stated marked in red.

I have provided criticism of the doran survey and orsekes paper. If you can't understand that, then the problem is with you.

 

[Hawkamania!]

And, predictably, the only "proof" you will be able to provide otherwise will come from blog posts and not from the scientific literature. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Start here.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Now I challenge you to support the un ipcc claims of anthropogenic global warming based on studies that adhere to the scientific method. The people you quote make the claim, at the very least they should be able to back it up.

I've supplied a list of scientific literature supporting skepticism of the anthropogenic global warming alarmism.

Now its time for you to put up or shut up with the un ipcc's dubious claims on anthropogenic global warming. You support their claim, then the onus is on you to back it up.

And I'm still waiting for a link to that paper, not the article. Why can't you link it for me?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Obtusafolia, don't worry about the link as someone has supplied the paper for me.

Looking at the first two references of that paper, you can already see that it amounts to nothing more than a political puff piece that no intelligent person would dare risk their reputation on:

1. Oreskes N (2004) Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686.
2. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Trans AGU 90:22–23.

Also, on the subject of that paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/

It doesn’t get much uglier than this. A stasi-esque master list of skeptical scientists and bloggers, with ratings put together by a “scientist” that rants against the very people he rates on his blog. Meet the author, Jim Prall here. And he uses this for a peer reviewed paper. What next? Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/the-global-warming-inquisition-has-begun/

A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.


Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

So you can find yourself on the black list as a "climate skeptic" or "denier" simply because you express strong support for greenhouse gas reductions, but have been critical of the Kyoto approach. On the other hand, a scientist like James Hansen, who has expressed considerable disagreement with aspects of the IPCC consensus, finds himself on the list of people who are said to agree with the IPCC consensus. In fact, it appears that simply being a contributor to the IPCC qualifies one to be on the list of those who are defined to be in agreement with the IPCC consensus and/or demand immediate action on emissions reductions and support Kyoto (unless of course one doesn't qualify, in which case you are placed on the other list -- it is complicated, trust me).

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d21-Global-warming-Black-list-a-black-day-for-science

Just when you think things can't sink any lower, the National Academy of Sciences has now published a list compiled by a non-academic weblogger that attempts to rank scientists by expertise, credibility and (oh!) belief in the consensus position on global warming. It is a blacklist. It's also hilariously wrong. As Roger Pielke Jr. notes on his weblog, his father, who firmly believes in man's impact on the climate, is rated as a skeptic, while James Hansen, who has repeatedly criticized the IPCC consensus (albeit for being too conservative) is mentioned as a supporter of the IPCC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...entists-less-prominent-and-authoritative.html

But the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been dismissed as misleading by critics. Opponents said that the paper divided scientists into artificial groups and did not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists.
They also pointed out that climate sceptics often struggled to get their papers accepted by journals, as they must first be reviewed and approved by climate change "believers".
Judith Curry, a climate expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology – who was not part of the analysis – called the study "completely unconvincing" while John Christy of University of Alabama claimed he and other climate sceptics included in the survey were simply "being blacklisted" by colleagues.

The last time I checked, physics and mathematics don't conform to political views no matter how much the ipcc acolytes try.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The last time I checked, physics and mathematics don't conform to political views no matter how much the ipcc acolytes try.

Good point, otherwise the world would be flat.

 

[cat on acid]

What if studies determine that the Earth will face a deep cooling cycle are ignored?. If we spend a lot of resources on trying to lessen the impact of temperature rises on our environment when the opposite will happen, we would be doing more damage to our ecosystems and putting more lives at risk due to erroneous planning.

I tend to trust studies that can be verified via replication and the raw source data is open for that replication. The studies picked by the un ipcc on anthropogenic global warming has failed in that regard.

Yeah I agree. It would be hard to find a good paper that has a high degree of certainty regarding what impacts human will have, whether it be cooling or warming. Maybe the most concerning thing is the uncertainty, as in we are obviously doing something to the environment and we aren't exactly sure what's going to happen.

The problem here is that we have to trust the scientists, and this is very hard for the public after 'climategate'. I think the IPCC has tried to sway the degree of certainty on AGW just a bit too much.


I think all this media and political hype needs to be redirected at reducing dependence on fossil fuels on a realistic timescale, because AGW aside, there are many good reasons for reducing carbon emissions and spending money on cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy solutions.

 

[Hawkamania!]

More on the paper that Obtusafolia brought up:

http://blog.american.com/?p=15768

Apparently, the researchers didn’t feel the need to do much diligence when looking for publications of the sampled population. In my case, they probed Google Scholar searching for “K. Green.” As I’ve virtually never published under “K. Green,” it’s not surprising they’d come up with so little. Just searching Google Scholar with my full name of “Kenneth P. Green” would have gotten them this list of 13 climate-related publications, while searching for “Kenneth Green” associated with one of my places of employment would have gotten them this list of 113 publications, about half of which are mine. Of course, working in think tanks rather than academia, the vast majority of my publications are in the “grey literature,” which Google Scholar doesn’t seem to capture fully, but which the head of the IPCC recently defended for inclusion in their assessment reports—the very documents claimed to define the scientific consensus. According to my AEI bio, I’ve put out more than 50 publications on climate change just since 2006. Googling “”Kenneth P. Green” “climate” comes up with 179,000 hits!

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/pnas-climate-change-expert-credibility-farce

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/b...ReferenceFrame+(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d22-Global-warming-Open-letter-to-Stephen-Schneider

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d23-Global-warming-The-blacklist

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Global-warmings-Stephen-Schneider-The-Light-That-Failed

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/peter-webster-on-pnas-paper-very-likely.html

Re the PNAS paper, it is rather louche. What is the point of this paper? Are the arguments so old and stale that it has to rely on past statements to substantiate a point of view? Death rattle come to mind. Perhaps we are seeing the death throes of the old guard. Perhaps out of these ashes will emerge a more solid scientific view on climate and global change, free of orthodoxy and invigorated by debate.

From a link I posted earlier http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html there is a comment by eric steig of realclimate fame.

Wow. Roger, you know I disagree with you on many things, but not on this.
What the heck where they thinking? Even if the analysis had some validity -- and from a first glance, I'm definitely not convinced it does -- it's not helpful, to put it mildly. I'm totally appalled.

So the paper is nothing more than a political PR piece that fails to prove anything other than highlighting the beliefs of a quasi-religion as proof against science (see joe romm for an example).

In reality, you could have every scientist bar one state that the Earth is flat and yet it will still not change the fact that the Earth is not flat no matter how many references is dragged up by a climate student of alarmist steve schneider.

Yeah I agree. It would be hard to find a good paper that has a high degree of certainty regarding what impacts human will have, whether it be cooling or warming. Maybe the most concerning thing is the uncertainty, as in we are obviously doing something to the environment and we aren't exactly sure what's going to happen.

The problem here is that we have to trust the scientists, and this is very hard for the public after 'climategate'. I think the IPCC has tried to sway the degree of certainty on AGW just a bit too much.

I think all this media and political hype needs to be redirected at reducing dependence on fossil fuels on a realistic timescale, because AGW aside, there are many good reasons for reducing carbon emissions and spending money on cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy solutions.

Well said. We really need to invest in changing our energy dependence towards credible solutions. Its a shame that this cause has been hijacked by global financial interests and groups that they influence. This has in turn destroyed the credibility of climate science in the public eye.

 

[skilts]

I have the 5 IPCC synthesis reports. What do you have? A thoroughly debunked list compiled by a serial internet troll who presents papers that don't even come close to proving what he claims they do. As I've said before, your denial-meme exists only in your head and on internet blogs.

As for the paper, do you want me to follow you to the toilet and wipe your bum for you as well? I realise that an important part of maintaining a denialist mentality is to go to great lengths to avoid seeing evidence that calls it into question but I did just post the link on the last page

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18165626&postcount=147

And since you think the study is such rubbish, care to point to an alternative survey that shows some groundswell of scepticism among working climate scientists? It's all good and well to smear the study and its authors, but by extension you must have some credible alternative that shows a significant body of opinion that disagrees with the IPCC findings?

You must excuse Hawkamania. Up until a couple of months ago, we had on these boards a poster who used remarkably similar arguments and methods as do you.

Sadly, that poster proved himself to be barking mad, rendering any statement of his worthless. Now, I'm sure you're nothing like this previous poster, who was eventually banned, but you are displaying similarly inappropriate obsessional behaviour.

I'll give you the same advice I gave him: Get help before it's too late. Otherwise, I really enjoy reading your posts and welcome to BigFooty.

 

[Hawkamania!]

This may end up with myself getting pm'ed more inappropriate pictures from another account by this person, but this claim he linked has to be addressed by someone well versed in analysing agw claims.

You mean like the so-called "Amazon-gate", where The Times was mislead by a journalist with an agenda and had to retract the story? This denial bizarro world you inhabit exists only on blogs and in the minds of people such as yourself.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

Out in the Ama-zone

Posted on June 27, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There have been lots of articles lately discussing the retraction by the UK Times of their claims about Amazongate. Folks like George Monbiot are claiming that their point of view has been vindicated, that Amazongate is “rubbish” and that skeptics have been “skewered”. So I decided to follow the tortuous trail through the Amazon jungle, to see where the truth lies.

 

[morgoth]

Hows that warming going for you?

Nature just won't do what you want will it? First the Northern Hemisphere gets frozen, now our turn.

Hide the decline. You should have used some ice on Al Gore's libido.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

So the near-unanimous opinion of working climate scientists on this issue is wrong then, and you're right?