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

[WaltM]

I never said it was discredited by people I trust,

Did you say it's discredited by people you despise and don't trust?

I never used this chain of events to argue anything. You manufactured this nonsense from various replies to make your strawman argument.

Couldn't do it without you.

The Hockey Stick is discredit based on math and statistics and the peer-reviewed hockey stick papers on my list,

Which doesn't dispute GW, nor provide an alternative causation for GW.

Like I said multiple times, Mann's error bars allow for the correction

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (PDF)
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

- Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data" (PDF)
(Science, Volume 312, Number 5773, pp. 529, April 2006)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

WOW, an improvement, something other than Energy & Environment.

The Loehle paper is not used to discredit the hockey stick, it is simply evidence of an alternative reconstruction using non tree-ring proxies exists. The Loehle paper is used as evidence of the existence of the MWP. These are two separate arguments you distorted for your strawman. As for evidence of the robustness of Loehle's work, yes due diligence shows this to be true. If you want an explanation of due diligence I suggest reading,

Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

Why am I not surprised that "due diligence" is always coming from your own standards you accept?

How exactly, by the way, does a possible natural warmer MWP prove AGW is false (as if we can't be in a natural cooling, and artificial warming). Not counting the fact that just because something happen, doesn't mean it should or is good to happen again. (I forgot, you're not proving anything, you're just presenting justification for your denial)

 

[Poptech]

Not quite relevant when quality and significance is considered.

Quality and significance are subjective and irrelevant to a physical count.

So how many actually do?

Many but I am not going to count them for you.

Given your claim that whether one is a climatologist "purely subjective", this is less relevant

No it is relevant and has nothing to do with the subjectiveness of determining who is a "climatologist". Whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not is objective.

Thereby admitting, you add to your list and read what you want to read, not what the author wants you to read.

Lie, this is stated because certain papers support skeptical arguments such as that tornadoes are not getting worse due to global warming but the author may be a supporter of AGW alarm. This does not mean the paper says otherwise and it is being interpreted differently. This has to do with the personal position of a few of the authors on the list.

How many explicitly endorse it? Is it my handful?

Good qustion as everytime anyone has tried to make this claim they have failed to provide the evidence.

Age alone does not outdate a paper, papers however, are challenged, refuted, retracted and answered.

Challenged does not make a paper discredited and none of the papers have been refuted or retracted.

WOW, sounds familiar, this is the exact tactic you employ! Making a blog, citing papers you want, and read what you want to read.

Lie, I am not refuting a peer-reviewed paper, I am compiling a list of peer-reviewed papers.

That's hardly a lie, so your tactic is to "always be open", and collect as many remotely relevant papers as you can, but never taking a specific position or coherent theory.

No it is a lie as I do not discriminate against papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.

which allows you to jump around and never have to admit you're wrong, because you don't state a testable case.

If you were to actually formulate a theory or argument, your list would be dramatically smaller (this is not to say numbers are weaker).

That is not the purpose of the list. Again it is to, "provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them."

An overwhelming number of skeptical papers exist and there is nothing you can do about it. What alternative theory people wish to accept is up to them, I simply provide the resource for them to make up their own minds.

 

[Poptech]

That would make your 800 list less relevant, unless they're all due diligence.

No it would make any peer-reviewed paper less relevant not just those on my list.

Prove it's not subjective?
Fine, it's PURELY subjective (says you) so you're a climatologist and so is Al Gore, SETTLED!

Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective.

Give me something as an example that's not subjective (at all)?

1+1=2

A defining characteristic of a denier is refusal to admit what evidence he'll find acceptable (even hypothetically).

A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results.

This is why you rely so heavily on Loehle as an alternative and E&E to "discredit" Mann's graph.

Strawman, I don't use Loehle 2007 to discredit Mann I use it as evidence of the MWP.

 

[WaltM]

Quality and significance are subjective and irrelevant to a physical count.

Many but I am not going to count them for you.

Yeah, because it's irrelevant anyway, right?

No it is relevant and has nothing to do with the subjectiveness of determining who is a "climatologist". Whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not is objective.

is the peer review process objective?

Lie, this is stated because certain papers support skeptical arguments such as that tornadoes are not getting worse due to global warming but the author may be a supporter of AGW alarm. This does not mean the paper says otherwise and it is being interpreted differently. This has to do with the personal position of a few of the authors on the list.

Not a lie, you're just repeating what I said, you read what you want to read.

Good qustion as everytime anyone has tried to make this claim they have failed to provide the evidence.

Challenged does not make a paper discredited and none of the papers have been refuted or retracted.

If they provide evidence you'll deny it.

So by this standard, Mann's paper is not discredited, or retracted.

Lie, I am not refuting a peer-reviewed paper, I am compiling a list of peer-reviewed papers.

No it is a lie as I do not discriminate against papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.

Yeah , you compile a list and read what you want to read.

You don't discriminate as far as collection, exactly what I said.

That is not the purpose of the list. Again it is to, "provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them."

An overwhelming number of skeptical papers exist and there is nothing you can do about it. What alternative theory people wish to accept is up to them, I simply provide the resource for them to make up their own minds.

If I were to do something, you'd cry foul and censorship.

Thanks for summing yourself up.

 

[WaltM]

No it would make any peer-reviewed paper less relevant not just those on my list.


Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective.

And I consider you one too.

Fair enough.

1+1=2

That's based on circular reasoning. And only valid to people who speak in base 10 math, Arabic numerals.

A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results.

So since you didn't witness MWP, it's not empirical and reproducible.

Strawman, I don't use Loehle 2007 to discredit Mann I use it as evidence of the MWP.

My bad, you use the same journal though.

Same handful no less, Loehle, McIntyre, McKitrick.

 

[Poptech]

Did you say it's discredited by people you despise and don't trust?

I never said this.

Couldn't do it without you.

Actually you did as I never made any such argument as you presented it.

Which doesn't dispute GW, nor provide an alternative causation for GW.

No prominent skeptic disputes the existence of a mild warming since the end of the little ice age.

Like I said multiple times, Mann's error bars allow for the correction.

That is irrelevant to why it is discredited. You obviously know nothing about this.

WOW, an improvement, something other than Energy & Environment.

So apparently you have not read my list? Because these are all on there.

How exactly, by the way, does a possible natural warmer MWP prove AGW is false

It provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations.

 

[Poptech]

Yeah, because it's irrelevant anyway, right?

Yes your subjective criteria is irrelevant. My personal opinion is they are high quality and significant but this has nothing to do with a physical count.

is the peer review process objective?

No, the process is not objective but whether something was peer-reviewed or not is.

Not a lie, you're just repeating what I said, you read what you want to read.

Yes a lie, because your stating that a certain paper says the opposite of why it is listed, which is not true. The disclaimer is for certain papers on the list which are not alarmist but the author might personally believe in alarm or have authored other papers that support this position. Your confusion like many others is that this would some how mean that a paper that refutes alarm about tornadoes cannot be used.

If they provide evidence you'll deny it.

No evidence has ever been provided.

So by this standard, Mann's paper is not discredited, or retracted.

Mann's paper is discredited by anyone intellectually honest as his statistical method is not supported by any professional statistician. You are correct in that it is not retracted.

Yeah , you compile a list and read what you want to read.

You don't discriminate as far as collection, exactly what I said.

No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they "support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW". I don't discriminate against competing skeptical positions.

If I were to do something, you'd cry foul and censorship.

Like I said there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Poptech]

So since you didn't witness MWP, it's not empirical and reproducible.

This does not help your case as you can then not claim the recent warming to be significant outside of anything but your lifetime and thus nothing historically unusual.

My bad, you use the same journal though.

Same handful no less, Loehle, McIntyre, McKitrick.

No I use multiple papers in multiple journals to discredit Mann which also includes others outside those three.

 

[WaltM]

This does not help your case as you can then not claim the recent warming to be significant outside of anything but your lifetime and thus nothing historically unusual.

No, I can claim it's significant outside of what I've seen in a lifetime.

FAIL.

No I use multiple papers in multiple journals to discredit Mann which also includes others outside those three.

you mean the 2 papers from Science?

 

[WaltM]

Yes your subjective criteria is irrelevant. My personal opinion is they are high quality and significant but this has nothing to do with a physical count.

Fair enough

No, the process is not objective but whether something was peer-reviewed or not is.

Yes a lie, because your stating that a certain paper says the opposite of why it is listed, which is not true.

When did I ever use the word OPPOSITE??

The disclaimer is for certain papers on the list which are not alarmist but the author might personally believe in alarm or have authored other papers that support this position. Your confusion like many others is that this would some how mean that a paper that refutes alarm about tornadoes cannot be used.

No, just that they can't be used without putting it into context with a bigger picture (which your list does not do, it simply indiscriminately lists them).

No evidence has ever been provided.

What's hypothetically acceptable as evidence?

Mann's paper is discredited by anyone intellectually honest as his statistical method is not supported by any professional statistician. You are correct in that it is not retracted.

Way to call, call the person intellectually dishonest and unprofessional to make your case.

No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they "support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW". I don't discriminate against competing skeptical positions.

But you acknowledge they can't all be right, yet you're so sure you're right?

Like I said there is nothing you can do about it.

There's nothing I intend to do about it.

 

[WaltM]

I never said this.

I know you didn't. You didn't need to.

Actually you did as I never made any such argument as you presented it.


No prominent skeptic disputes the existence of a mild warming since the end of the little ice age.

What constitutes warming greater than mild?

That is irrelevant to why it is discredited. You obviously know nothing about this.

So apparently you have not read my list? Because these are all on there.

It provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations.

if your definition of natural variation is, that it's happened before without humans.

But just because it's happened before, does not mean it can't happen by the cause of humans (especially when it's not expected, or the opposite is expected).

How many degrees outside of natural variation would justify AGW alarmism? (you either will not answer, or will answer something so left field that nobody takes seriously)

 

[Poptech]

When did I ever use the word OPPOSITE??

You didn't, it was implied.

No, just that they can't be used without putting it into context with a bigger picture (which your list does not do, it simply indiscriminately lists them).

No they can be used exactly as listed as the papers in question do not support AGW alarmism. You are confusing an author's personal position and other papers they may have authored with the papers on the list.

What's hypothetically acceptable as evidence?

A reproducible empirical experiment that man-made emissions are causing climate change.

Way to call, call the person intellectually dishonest and unprofessional to make your case.

The fact that you are defending Mann means you either have never fully researched the issue or are intellectually dishonest. What part of no professional statistician accepts Mann's statistical method as valid do you not understand? Why has no other proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his method? Why did the IPCC drop his paper and graph from prominence in their 4th report? Mann's paper has been overwhelmingly discredited and shown to be a worthless work of fraudulent science that it is.

But you acknowledge they can't all be right, yet you're so sure you're right?

I acknowledge nothing of the sort and I am right on what I have actually stated.

 

[Poptech]

No, I can claim it's significant outside of what I've seen in a lifetime.

You cannot claim it empirically. Your argument against mine defeats your own.

you mean the 2 papers from Science?

You apparently have a sever inability to read the list.

What constitutes warming greater than mild?

That depends on who you speak to. I personally would say something outside of the range of temperature change that can happen during a single day. Most people would say a temperature change of a fraction of a degree over 100 years is mild.

if your definition of natural variation is, that it's happened before without humans.

But just because it's happened before, does not mean it can't happen by the cause of humans (especially when it's not expected, or the opposite is expected).

How many degrees outside of natural variation would justify AGW alarmism? (you either will not answer, or will answer something so left field that nobody takes seriously)

I never defined natural variation as such.

Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual. It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans.

A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.

 

[WaltM]

You didn't, it was implied.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. So you can stop calling me a liar.

No they can be used exactly as listed as the papers in question do not support AGW alarmism. You are confusing an author's personal position and other papers they may have authored with the papers on the list.

And tons of papers don't support AGW (most of which are irrelevant to the topic).

A reproducible empirical experiment that man-made emissions are causing climate change.

Such as what? (You don't know, so whatever we find, you'll just say "that still doesn't count")

You even stated that pumping CO2 into a closed chamber, followed by an immediate rise in temperature wouldn't count.

The fact that you are defending Mann means you either have never fully researched the issue or are intellectually dishonest.

The fact you think I defend and depend on Mann means you're the one that's intellectually dishonest

What part of no professional statistician accepts Mann's statistical method as valid do you not understand?

the part where you consider who is or isn't a professional statistician.

Why has no other proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his method?

Better question, alternative studies don't claim to debunk or discredit him.

Why did the IPCC drop his paper and graph from prominence in their 4th report?

Because they have better information, since when is IPCC a credible judge?

Mann's paper has been overwhelmingly discredited and shown to be a worthless work of fraudulent science that it is.

This is according to you and your E&E papers

I acknowledge nothing of the sort and I am right on what I have actually stated.

So what did you state?
Warming is natural
Not caused by CO2
No empirical evidence
Loehle has been through due diligence
MWP was warmer

(none of which offer a means to test and disprove these claims)

 

[WaltM]

You cannot claim it empirically. Your argument against mine defeats your own.

Why not? What CAN you claim empirically? What DO you claim empirically?

You apparently have a sever inability to read the list.

I rely on you to post them here when it's a relevant discussion.
Looks like you know yourself most of the list doesn't support your case (wait, do you have one?)

That depends on who you speak to. I personally would say something outside of the range of temperature change that can happen during a single day. Most people would say a temperature change of a fraction of a degree over 100 years is mild.

Thanks for admitting the obvious, people disagree.
So according to you, there's never going to be an agreement over opinion.
Therefore AGW will never be proven true.

I never defined natural variation as such.

Define it then

Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual.

No, it's not evidence.
MWP can have different causes of being warm than we have today.

It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans.

I know you deny it, which is why I've asked you over and over WHAT WOULD.

You're showing, that I might not be the best at reading and gathering evidence, but you can't even make a testable claim to meet what you keep denying.

A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.

Thanks.

So quit citing MWP papers, because it's IRRELEVANT.
You don't need ANY peer reviewed papers to say "no matter how much temperature change, it doesn't justify AGW"
(this is in direct contradiction to your claims that a warmer MWP proves it's natural and not unusual to have a warming trend, you SIMPLY DON'T CARE)
Further demonstration, that when pressed, your rants about how Mann is discredited and intellectual honest, statistics MEAN NOTHING.

This is what I mean by "I can't discredit your list more than you can yourself".
You've successfully proven yourself to be a denier, because a skeptic would actually say
"You didn't prove it, but this would, and I can show you what I demand to be convinced"
A denier says "no matter what, it'll never justify your case"

 

[Poptech]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. So you can stop calling me a liar.

No I will continue to call you a liar everytime you lie.

And tons of papers don't support AGW (most of which are irrelevant to the topic).

Yes, but those papers do not support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. All the papers on the list do and none explicitly support AGW alarmism.

Such as what? (You don't know, so whatever we find, you'll just say "that still doesn't count")

I am not the one promoting the theory, it is not my job to provide the evidence of it, it is yours.

You even stated that pumping CO2 into a closed chamber, followed by an immediate rise in temperature wouldn't count.

Of course not.

The fact you think I defend and depend on Mann means you're the one that's intellectually dishonest

So you are not defending him?

the part where you consider who is or isn't a professional statistician.

Someone with a Ph.D. in statistics and is a professor of statistics. Why do you think it is that none support his statistical "method"? When these professionals have been asked about it they argue in support of McIntyre. You are on the wrong side of intellectual honesty here.

Better question, alternative studies don't claim to debunk or discredit him.

You did not answer the question, why has no other independent proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his statistical method? If it is so robust surely someone would use his method?

Because they have better information, since when is IPCC a credible judge?

Wrong, because his work has been discredited. It was the IPCC that originally promoted his work and used it as propaganda. Strawman as I never said the IPCC was a credible judge, I am simply pointing out that the most prominent organization that supports your position does not feel Mann's work is robust enough to stand on it's own anymore. That should tell you something.

This is according to you and your E&E papers

Not just E&E but Science and GRL and a congressional report by actual statisticians,

Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (PDF)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)

Why not? What CAN you claim empirically? What DO you claim empirically?

I don't claim anything, I said I accept empirical evidence.

I rely on you to post them here when it's a relevant discussion.

I have better things to do as this is largely a big waste of time. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

Looks like you know yourself most of the list doesn't support your case (wait, do you have one?)

The list supports what it states.

Thanks for admitting the obvious, people disagree.
So according to you, there's never going to be an agreement over opinion.
Therefore AGW will never be proven true.

I have no idea if AGW will ever be proven true, I can only say that it has not as yet been proven true.

Define it then

You know how to use a dictionary and no I will not be providing a definition, don't ask.

No, it's not evidence. MWP can have different causes of being warm than we have today.

Of course it is evidence, otherwise there would be no need for the IPCC to promote Mann's work hysterically in the 3rd report.

I know you deny it, which is why I've asked you over and over WHAT WOULD.

You're showing, that I might not be the best at reading and gathering evidence, but you can't even make a testable claim to meet what you keep denying.

I am not here to make a testable case for a theory you are promoting and if you have not thought this out I am not going to help you either.

So quit citing MWP papers, because it's IRRELEVANT.
You don't need ANY peer reviewed papers to say "no matter how much temperature change, it doesn't justify AGW"
(this is in direct contradiction to your claims that a warmer MWP proves it's natural and not unusual to have a warming trend, you SIMPLY DON'T CARE)
Further demonstration, that when pressed, your rants about how Mann is discredited and intellectual honest, statistics MEAN NOTHING.

I will cite whatever paper is relevant to the discussion. It is not a contradiction as one of the claims made to justify AGW is that the current warming is unusual. My position that an increase in temperature does not prove AGW, is a common skeptical position but it is necessary to provide evidence against positions others hold.

You've successfully proven yourself to be a denier, because a skeptic would actually say
"You didn't prove it, but this would, and I can show you what I demand to be convinced"
A denier says "no matter what, it'll never justify your case"

You have successfully proven yourself to be a zealot with your constant use of the word denier. Again you lie as I made no such statement, I said it is up to you to provide the empirical evidence that would demonstrate your theory to be true. I have simply rejected your pathetic attempts to do this so far. I have no interest in going over this with some online hack who knows jack about the subject. I have already read and studied extensively the so called "evidence" by the IPCC and am not convinced. There is absolutely nothing you with your reading comprehension problems could possibly provide. So yes from you personally you do not have the ability to justify your case, from the larger scientific community I am always open.

 

[WaltM]

No I will continue to call you a liar everytime you lie.

Go ahead if it makes you happy.

Yes, but those papers do not support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. All the papers on the list do and none explicitly support AGW alarmism.

All according to you.

I am not the one promoting the theory, it is not my job to provide the evidence of it, it is yours.

SO you don't even know what you're asking for. No need to discuss evidence to a person who doesn't know.

Of course not.

So what does? (I bet you have no answer)

So you are not defending him?

No, I'm not.

At least not as if I need his paper in question to support my position.

Someone with a Ph.D. in statistics and is a professor of statistics. Why do you think it is that none support his statistical "method"? When these professionals have been asked about it they argue in support of McIntyre. You are on the wrong side of intellectual honesty here.

Perhaps because they don't consider the details involved in his method.

You did not answer the question, why has no other independent proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his statistical method? If it is so robust surely someone would use his method?

Because his method was unique to tree ring data, but you know this.

Wrong, because his work has been discredited.

How is that inconsistent (if true) with having better information?

It was the IPCC that originally promoted his work and used it as propaganda. Strawman as I never said the IPCC was a credible judge, I am simply pointing out that the most prominent organization that supports your position does not feel Mann's work is robust enough to stand on it's own anymore. That should tell you something.

I don't use IPCC to judge scientific data, nor do I depend on Mann.
So the fact you keep saying I use Mann to support my position means you only pick what's convenient to attack.

Not just E&E but Science and GRL and a congressional report by actual statisticians,

Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (PDF)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)

And their best conclusion was that MWP was warmer? Wait, why am I even asking, you already said it doesn't matter how much warmer it gets.

I don't claim anything, I said I accept empirical evidence.

No you don't. THAT IS A LIE. BOLDFACED TOO. you won't even admit what you'll accept as empirical evidence/

I have better things to do as this is largely a big waste of time. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

Because you can't convince me. And all you do is call me a liar, post the same repeated claims, and then say "nothing will count" while demanding "evidence". That's my one notch above you, knowing not to waste time with a person who doesn't even know what he's asking.

The list supports what it states.

According to the compiler.

I have no idea if AGW will ever be proven true, I can only say that it has not as yet been proven true.

Oh no, you ARE sure it'll never be proven true, at least to you. (don't lie now!)

Otherwise you'd say right now what's required as irrefutable, credible, empirical evidence.

You know how to use a dictionary and no I will not be providing a definition, don't ask.

Because you know you can't answer this without killing your position and exposing your inconsistency.

Of course it is evidence, otherwise there would be no need for the IPCC to promote Mann's work hysterically in the 3rd report.

So in your world, IPCC decides whether Mann is right, and whether Mann's hiding of MWP makes a case for AGW.

I am not here to make a testable case for a theory you are promoting and if you have not thought this out I am not going to help you either.

Because you can't, I HAVE thought this through, which is why you continue to come back without a case. I'm asking you, because you're the denier, and you claim "there's no proven case" without knowing "what would make it proven".

I will cite whatever paper is relevant to the discussion. It is not a contradiction as one of the claims made to justify AGW is that the current warming is unusual.

There are many varying forms of "unusual".

My position that an increase in temperature does not prove AGW, is a common skeptical position but it is necessary to provide evidence against positions others hold.

No, evidence is not necessary, it takes no brains to be a denier.

You have successfully proven yourself to be a zealot with your constant use of the word denier.

I may have overused it, but I can live with being called a zealot as you've admitted increase in temperature no matter how much won't justify AGW.

Again you lie as I made no such statement, I said it is up to you to provide the empirical evidence that would demonstrate your theory to be true.

Your demand is meaningless, as it makes no criteria as to what counts. So you are essentially asking for the something you won't see yourself.

I have simply rejected your pathetic attempts to do this so far. I have no interest in going over this with some online hack who knows jack about the subject.

Somebody who says "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" doesn't need to know jack about a subject.

I have already read and studied extensively the so called "evidence" by the IPCC and am not convinced. There is absolutely nothing you with your reading comprehension problems could possibly provide. So yes from you personally you do not have the ability to justify your case, from the larger scientific community I am always open.

LIE. You said yourself "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" so you are not open. You failed to even HYPOTHETICALLY make a testable case.

Why did you bother reading evidence when you've already decided it's all irrelevant?

 

[Poptech]

WaltM without a doubt you are one of the most clueless individuals I have every met on this subject.

All according to you.

You have yet to prove otherwise.

SO you don't even know what you're asking for. No need to discuss evidence to a person who doesn't know.

Strawman, I did not ask for anything, you did! How many times are you going to state strawman arguments?

No, I'm not.

At least that is settled.

Perhaps because they don't consider the details involved in his method.

ROTFLMAO! I just spit my drink on my keyboard. You are the most clueless individual I have ever met online about this issue, you just keep arguing from a position of ignorance. God your stupidity is so tiring.

Because his method was unique to tree ring data, but you know this.

No it wasn't, it was unique to Mann. WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe to know anything about this? Your comments are just ignorant. I just can't keep doing this.

blah, blah, blah.

This is just a waste of time, I have no interest in discussing this with you as you are too stupid to have a conversation with. Just for the record, I do no agree with your position and it is impossible for you to convince me of anything. You have failed the basic criteria for me to begin to take you seriously, you are a liar and a zealot. Go waste someone elses time, I have entertained your miserable existence long enough. You are dumb as bricks. I suggest performing a lobotomy on yourself. Now fuck off and go play with the other children.

 

[WaltM]

WaltM without a doubt you are one of the most clueless individuals I have every met on this subject.

You have yet to prove otherwise.

Impossible to you.

Strawman, I did not ask for anything, you did! How many times are you going to state strawman arguments?

you started by saying there's no evidence, empirical evidence, but don't know what it is that counts.

At least that is settled.


ROTFLMAO! I just spit my drink on my keyboard. You are the most clueless individual I have ever met online about this issue, you just keep arguing from a position of ignorance. God your stupidity is so tiring.

I can live with being called stupid when you've admitted nothing will convince you.

No it wasn't, it was unique to Mann. WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe to know anything about this? Your comments are just ignorant. I just can't keep doing this.

Oh, gotcha!

That means anybody who doesn't use Mann's data, but uses tree ring data, can be taken more seriously?

blah, blah, blah.

This is just a waste of time, I have no interest in discussing this with you as you are too stupid to have a conversation with. Just for the record, I do no agree with your position and it is impossible for you to convince me of anything.

Then what WOULD convince you that AGW is true?

Quit beating around with "empirical evidence" as if you know what it is.

You have failed the basic criteria for me to begin to take you seriously, you are a liar and a zealot. Go waste someone elses time, I have entertained your miserable existence long enough. You are dumb as bricks. I suggest performing a lobotomy on yourself. Now fuck off and go play with the other children.

You've failed the basic criteria for asking for evidence, you don't even know what you're asking for!

LIE. You said yourself "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" so you are not open. You failed to even HYPOTHETICALLY make a testable case.

Why did you bother reading evidence when you've already decided it's all irrelevant?

(anybody wanna bet he'll come back and reply?)

 

[WaltM]

Ron Paul on Climate Change:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html

this you mean?
YouTube - 32000 Scientists