Global Warming Question

[Alceste]

1.Other names include Dr. Vincent Gray...

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

Christopher Landsea,

Certainly did not "resign from the IPCC in disgust". He resigned from the IPCC in a snit, over a piddling disagreement with the views of his superior.

Professor Robert Carter...

...is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies

2. Your latest so-called "discrediting" was ripped to pieces here.

:biglaugh: That's what you call "ripped to pieces"? Then you haven't been paying attention to what I've been doing to you.

 

[Alceste]

I appear to have missed where you showed any of those four points are wrong.

That's because he's just been obfuscating, rather than responding to points. When you're arguing for a lack of consensus on climate change that's the only way to go, since this claim is so easily proven to be false.

 

[Oberon]

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

HAHAHA! Not only has he participated in ALL of the science reviews of the IPCC, he has authored over 100 scientific papers. Try doing your own search on google scholar, academic search premier, JSTOR, academic one file, etc.

CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

So this is the best you can come up with?

Certainly did not "resign from the IPCC in disgust". He resigned from the IPCC in a snit, over a piddling disagreement with the views of his superior.

Not according to him. He saw his work being ignored and the IPCC being blatantly hijacked by political bias. Nice try.

...is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies

According to whom? Is this your ever-so-credible sourcewatch.com again? If I found sites that linked various IPCC and AGW propenents to environmental groups. What does this mean? sourcewatch.com is blatantly leftwing. IfI find right-wing sites dismissing guys like Hansen, the father of anthropogenic global warming (recently arrested), should we reject all the guys who support you? Or is it that you are so politically bias ANY rumour of alleged involvement with so-called "big oil" is enough to discredit anyone, no matter if they are used by the IPCC as an expert or not.

And you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

And again, you seem to have constantly missed the point. Everyone gets funding. I know you like dismissing qualified academics with ad hominem attacks, but take a look at the multi-billion dollar "business" of environmental groups, and ask yourself where all this money goes.

That's what you call "ripped to pieces"? Then you haven't been paying attention to what I've been doing to you.

I have, and I find your attempts laughable. You claim to discredit a guy like Lindzen, but then you also cite the IPCC 2500 experts, of which he is one, and he was used by the IPCC after the events you say should "discredit him."

Actually, let's look at the charge of "intellectual dishonesty" and see who it fits.

1. You began our disagreement with your wiki article on DDT. I proved that DDT blatantly manipulated its own sources, and although themadhair was outstanding enough to admit being wrong, you never did.
2. I give you awarded and distinguished academics, leaders in their fields, some of whom are part of the 2,500 list of the IPCC, and you say that sourcewatch.com discredits them.
3. I have listed numerous articles that have passed peer-review to support my view, and I can't recall you listing a single one.
4. I listed a survey conducted by reputable scientists and you claimed that over 50% of those surveyed believed that humans were primarily responsible for massive climate changes prior to the existence of the human race, and have yet to retract that statement.

Whose intellectually dishonest again?

I do research, and you make ad hominem attacks against reputable researchers and scientists who disagree with you. I read the various journals and studies conducted, and you refer to sourchwatch.com and wikipedia.

Hmmm.

 

[themadhair]

I didn't say that point one was wrong, but subsequent peer-reviewed studies have backed wegmen.

So you did not address those four points and decided to red herring your way around them? And no, subsequent peer review has not backed Wegman. Hell, that was part of the reason Mann revisited his earlier work and incorporated more data sources. But the irony on all this is that Wegman was not peer reviewed – and it is somewhat funny watching you try and skirt around that little fact.

I am not saying you are wrong in that Wegman or other studies I have cited do not directly address that particular study.

Based on your comments I think it is abundantly clear that you didn’t even know this until it finally sank in after I reiterated it for the umpteenth time. Ffs you actually claimed the graph was discredited because it didn’t appear in the Feb 2007 IPCC summary despite the fact it didn’t exist until eight months later.

What I am saying is that is irrelevent to my point.

You rely on Wegman to criticise Mann, and you really expect people to believe that the fact Mann revisited, broadened and incorporated more data from a greater variety of sources confirming his initial result isn’t relevant to your point? I’m beginning to think Alceste might have a point with that whole intellectually dishonest thing.

they have their own research and studies (some of which I have cited) to back them.

I appear to have missed the peer reviewed studies that discredited Mann’s hockey team.

My point is that this is NOT a decided issue in climate science, and you can keep showing your graph all you want, it isn't anywhere near agreed on by all the experts.

Looking at the literature it certainly seems the research agrees. I’m eagerly awaiting the IPCC to weigh in again this December.

To reiterate – you didn’t address those four points. Care to do another little dance?

 

[Oberon]

So you did not address those four points and decided to red herring your way around them? And no, subsequent peer review has not backed Wegman.

The National Academy of Science, Hans von Storch, Nico Stehr, Sheldon Ungar, and others, the various peer-reviewed articles I have already cited disagreeing, and yet, somehow, you stick to this ridiculous claim.

Hell, that was part of the reason Mann revisited his earlier work and incorporated more data sources. But the irony on all this is that Wegman was not peer reviewed – and it is somewhat funny watching you try and skirt around that little fact.

Because I have now cited numerous other peer-reviewed articles and even more experts who disagree with Mann and his hockey-stick, dropped from the IPCC 2007 summary for politicians.

Based on your comments I think it is abundantly clear that you didn’t even know this until it finally sank in after I reiterated it for the umpteenth time. Ffs you actually claimed the graph was discredited because it didn’t appear in the Feb 2007 IPCC summary despite the fact it didn’t exist until eight months later.

It is still a hockey stick, and I did know from the first time you came back with "this is a new graph from Mann." It is irrelevent. You keep harping on the fact that Wegman was not "peer-reviewed" while I have provided plenty of other sources, including peer-reviewed articles, which disagree with Mann.

You rely on Wegman to criticise Mann

Again you blatantly distort data. Look back at my posts. I have provided far more studies which argue for a MWP comparable to the current trend, and studies critical of Mann.

Mann revisited, broadened and incorporated more data from a greater variety of sources confirming his initial result isn’t relevant to your point? I’m beginning to think Alceste might have a point with that whole intellectually dishonest thing.

Considering you completely ignored all other studies and experts I referenced other than wegman to make the above point, I would say that makes you far more dishonest.

I appear to have missed the peer reviewed studies that discredited Mann’s hockey team.

Than look back at previous posts, and stop ignoring relevant information.

 

[themadhair]

Fact-Wegman was not peer reviewed.
Fact-You have not cited any research backing Wegman’s report.
Fact-You have not cited any peer-reviewed research disagreeing with Mann’s results.
Fact-You know so little about this issue that you think it a legitimate point that the graph I have been citing was ‘dropped’ from IPCC 2007 – despite it not being submitted for peer review until eight months after.
Fact-I have never cited Mann’s earlier work, only his later work and the other data it incorporates. You made that assumption and likely due to unfamiliarity with the topic.
Fact-The MWP studies you cite do not disagree or refute Mann’s work despite your insistence to believe they do.
Fact-The only source that did contradict Mann’s work (and this only his earlier work mind you) was Wegman, whose criticisms were incorporated into the revised work without altering the result.
Fact-You will now continue to do more dancing.

 

[Alceste]

Fact-Wegman was not peer reviewed.
Fact-You have not cited any research backing Wegman’s report.
Fact-You have not cited any peer-reviewed research disagreeing with Mann’s results.
Fact-You know so little about this issue that you think it a legitimate point that the graph I have been citing was ‘dropped’ from IPCC 2007 – despite it not being submitted for peer review until eight months after.
Fact-I have never cited Mann’s earlier work, only his later work and the other data it incorporates. You made that assumption and likely due to unfamiliarity with the topic.
Fact-The MWP studies you cite do not disagree or refute Mann’s work despite your insistence to believe they do.
Fact-The only source that did contradict Mann’s work (and this only his earlier work mind you) was Wegman, whose criticisms were incorporated into the revised work without altering the result.
Fact-You will now continue to do more dancing.

Fact: If Oberon can find one single dude (some naysaying, limelight seeking malcontent practically choking on Exxon Mobil's corporate schlong) who disagrees with the overt and clearly stated consensus nearly every non-ideological professional organisation of scientists in the entire world, he will insist this means the other tens of thousands of scientists are doing it wrong.

 

[Oberon]

Fact-Wegman was not peer reviewed.
Fact-You have not cited any research backing Wegman’s report.
Fact-You have not cited any peer-reviewed research disagreeing with Mann’s results.
Fact-You know so little about this issue that you think it a legitimate point that the graph I have been citing was ‘dropped’ from IPCC 2007 – despite it not being submitted for peer review until eight months after.
Fact-I have never cited Mann’s earlier work, only his later work and the other data it incorporates. You made that assumption and likely due to unfamiliarity with the topic.
Fact-The MWP studies you cite do not disagree or refute Mann’s work despite your insistence to believe they do.
Fact-The only source that did contradict Mann’s work (and this only his earlier work mind you) was Wegman, whose criticisms were incorporated into the revised work without altering the result.
Fact-You will now continue to do more dancing.

I work overnights to pay for grad school, so I am about to go to bed. It is unfortunate you were too lazy to refer back to previous post from peer-reviewd journals contradicting Mann, so I will do this all over again tonight.

Fact: If Oberon can find one single dude (some naysaying, limelight seeking malcontent practically choking on Exxon Mobil's corporate schlong) who disagrees with the overt and clearly stated consensus nearly every non-ideological professional organisation of scientists in the entire world, he will insist this means the other tens of thousands of scientists are doing it wrong.

I didn't find "one single dude. Nearly half of those surveys did not agree that humans clause climate change.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't find "one single dude. Nearly half of those surveys did not agree that humans clause climate change.

I'm amazed you find it so difficult to believe people will lie for money while you yourself are so perfectly willing to lie for free.

 

[yossarian22]

2003 is hardly outdated. IPCC still uses research from earlier than that

And they have released other reports since then. As have several journals You are either claiming that the IPCC has not revised its position from 2003 to properly reflect the new studies or that those scientists would not have reason to change their view.

I would like some evidence for that or citing disagreement with a position from 2003 remains disingenuous drivel.

Or you can drop this idiotic line of attack considering even wikipedia has the grace to list several surveys showing a consensus, the most recent of which happened near the end of the last year.

I'm amazed you find it so difficult to believe people will lie for money while you yourself are so perfectly willing to lie for free.

Calling the IPCC a giant bunch of liars is ultimately self defeating. The survey was phrased poorly, as mainly can be interpreted to be anything from a plurality to a supermajority.

 

[Alceste]

Calling the IPCC a giant bunch of liars is ultimately self defeating. The survey was phrased poorly, as mainly can be interpreted to be anything from a plurality to a supermajority.

On a related note, I conducted a survey myself last year of about 300 civil servants. It asked (among other privacy-related things) "Does your database contain personal information?" (yes or no). I spent the next five days on the phone explaining exactly what I meant by "personal information" and "database" and sometimes "your". Then I spent another week after the survey was complete manually changing the responses due to requests from people who'd had a re-think and changed their minds.

 

[Oberon]

Fact-Wegman was not peer reviewed.

Fact: It was not. However, it was not designed to be. It was a report commisioned by the Energy and Commerce Committee because of criticisms of Mann. Dr. Wegman (former Chairmman of National Academy of Sciences and member of the Board of The American Statistical Association) used a panel of experts also consulted with the Board of The American Statistical Association. They found numerous serious flaws in Mann's work.

Fact-You have not cited any research backing Wegman’s report.

Not true. I will give previous citations below, but not also this:

"At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable"

Climate Feedback: The decay of the hockey stick

Previous citations I have given:

“Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on
millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of
Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbondated box core show that SST was -1°C cooler than today -400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1 700 years ago, and 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation. [emphasis added]

L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea” Science 274 (1996): 1503-508.

The reconstruction of global temperatures during the last millennium can provide important clues for how climate may change in the future. A recent, widely cited reconstruction leaves the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during which the Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event was regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth's temperature began to rise steeply.
Was it a coincidence? I do not think so. Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene. Bond et al. have argued, on the basis of the ratio of iron-stained to clean grains in ice-rafted debris in North Atlantic sediments, that climatic conditions have oscillated steadily over the past 100,000 years, with an average period close to 1500 years. They also find evidence for the Little Ice Age (from about 1350 to 1860). I agree with the authors that the swing from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age was the penultimate of these oscillations and will try to make the case that the Medieval Warm Period was global rather than regional. [emphasis added]
Broecker, Wallace S. Science 23 February 2001:
Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499
DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1497

Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.



Science 29 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1140982

"The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP."

Cook, E. R., J. G. Palmer, and R. D. D'Arrigo (2002), "Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand" Geophysical Research Letters, 29(14), 1667

Fact-You have not cited any peer-reviewed research disagreeing with Mann’s results.

In addition to all of the above, here are two peer-reviewed papers disagreeing with Mann's results:

von Storch, Hans, et al. "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data." Science; 10/22/2004, Vol. 306 Issue 5696, p679-682

S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, "Corrections to the Mann et al." Proxy-Data Base and NOrthern Hemispheric Average Tempratures series, 1998," Energy & Environment 14 (2003): 751-71.

More recently, we have the following peer-reviewed study, which (although it does not argue that the MWP was as warm as the warmest years in the late 20th century, DOES explicitly contradict Mann's graphy, including the more recent one):

While there are differences among those reconstructions and significant uncertainties remain, all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then.These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well. Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Section 6.4). There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant.​

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Jansen_etal.pdf​

Fact-You know so little about this issue that you think it a legitimate point that the graph I have been citing was ‘dropped’ from IPCC 2007 – despite it not being submitted for peer review until eight months after.

I used that fact to back the Wegman review.

Fact-The MWP studies you cite do not disagree or refute Mann’s work despite your insistence to believe they do.

This simply isn't a fact. Numerous sources cited above disagree with Mann's work (yes, the recent graph) because they DO liken the MWP with the current trend, while Mann's graph does not, and some find it quite possible that MWP reached temperatures as high or higher than the current trend, also denied by Mann's more recent work.

Fact-The only source that did contradict Mann’s work (and this only his earlier work mind you) was Wegman, whose criticisms were incorporated into the revised work without altering the result.

Again, simply not a fact. See above

Fact-You will now continue to do more dancing.

Right. I have now put several references to various studies all disagreeing with Mann's work, either his previous work, or his latest, or both.

 

[Oberon]

And they have released other reports since then.

You are missing the point. The latest IPCC reports use research conducted prior to 2003. 2003 is hardly out of date, even in the world of climate studies. The most current studies cite articles, books, papers, etc, prior to 2003.

You are either claiming that the IPCC has not revised its position from 2003 to properly reflect the new studies or that those scientists would not have reason to change their view.

I never made any claim about the IPCC's position in 2003. What I am claiming is that a survey of climate scientists in 2003 which found that nearly half of the experts surveyed do not agree that global warming is mostly anthropogenic is NOT out of date. Some scientists surveyed probably HAVE changed their view, but it could be on both sides. The idea that a survey from 2003 is out of date is laughable.
I would like some evidence for that or citing disagreement with a position from 2003 remains disingenuous drivel.

Or you can drop this idiotic line of attack considering even wikipedia has the grace to list several surveys showing a consensus, the most recent of which happened near the end of the last year.

You must have missed the last time Alceste tried to use wikipedia as a source, only it was found to be full of errors.

I can list similar sites: Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Unfortunately, many of these sites contain faulty information. So unless you have a study conducted by experts (rather than online consensus sites) like Bray and von Storch's 2003 study, you don't have anything.

Calling the IPCC a giant bunch of liars is ultimately self defeating.

I'm not calling them all liars. After all, three of the people I cited who were highly critical of the IPCC approach to scientists WERE IPCC scientists (part of Alceste's 2,500 number).

What I am saying it that there is a clear bias in the upper echelons of the IPCC, which creates problems for trusting it. If the upper echelons will discourage members from publishing or pursuing particular lines of research, or will simply delete lines from the drafts written by the scientists, than the IPCC cannot be trusted to accurately reflect the views of all the scientists it claims to represent.

The survey was phrased poorly, as mainly can be interpreted to be anything from a plurality to a supermajority.

No, it wasn't. The only debate in climate science with any relevancy to the survey question (the one under discussion) is whether humans are the ones mostly responsible for the current warming trend. No expert would read the question in any other way, because it makes no sense to. The whole point of the debate on anthropogenic global warming concerns the current trend, not the history of the world's climate or anything else. The question is quite clear.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You guys still haven't solved global warming yet?

 

[Alceste]

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...ansen_etal.pdf

I can see why you made your link so tiny, cherry-picker.

"It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during
the second half of the 20th century were higher than for
any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also
likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern
Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this
warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-
year period in the last 1.3 kyr... The rise in surface temperatures since 1950
very likely cannot be reproduced without including
anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings."

I think I've figured out your rules:

1: If it says what you want it to say, it does not come from a reputable source
2: If it comes from a reputable source, it does not say what you want it to say
3: In case of 1, lie about the reputability of the source
4: In the case of 2, lie about the content.
5: When caught red-handed, change the subject or move the goalposts.
6: Introduce as much irrelevant scientific material as you can cram into every post in the hope that the appearance of academic leanings will lend weight to your argument.

Gotcha. Great tactics. I reiterate you should not be doing this for free. Exxon has a giant fund for people like you.

 

[Alceste]

You guys still haven't solved global warming yet?

Lol - didn't you hear the good news? It's not really happening, so there's nothing to solve!

(Or, if it is happening, it's probably not man-made. Or, if it is happening and it is man-made, it is probably going to be a good thing. Or, if it is happening, man-made, and going to be a very BAD thing, it's too complicated and expensive to do anything about, so we're better off sticking our heads in the sand and letting the Free Market work its Magic. Any of the above will do, for certain types of people.)

 

[Vile Atheist]

Lol - didn't you hear the good news? It's not really happening, so there's nothing to solve!

(Or, if it is happening, it's probably not man-made. Or, if it is happening and it is man-made, it is probably going to be a good thing. Or, if it is happening, man-made, and going to be a very BAD thing, it's too complicated and expensive to do anything about, so we're better off sticking our heads in the sand and letting the Free Market work its Magic. Any of the above will do, for certain types of people.)

Hallelujah. I guess Al Gore is out of a job now.

 

[Oberon]

I can see why you made your link so tiny, cherry-picker.

"It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during
the second half of the 20th century were higher than for
any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also
likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern
Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this
warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-
year period in the last 1.3 kyr... The rise in surface temperatures since 1950
very likely cannot be reproduced without including
anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings."

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. I posted this link to refute themadhair's claim that no peer-reviewed data contradicted Mann. Only this extensive study does exactly that. It states that the medieval warming period is similar to 20th century warming, although the highest temperatures may be warmer.

I think I've figured out your rules:

1. Never use academic sources. Rely on wikipedia or sites like sourcewatch.com
2. Create strawmen like the one above, where you quote MY source to refute a point I wasn't making.
3. Everytime an expert I cite has an opinion you don't like, find some sources somwhere that links them, no matter how distantly, with some group you don't like because of their politics or the fact that they are big oil or whatever
4. Make an argument that has been shown beyond all doubt to be completely and utterly wrong (e.g. 50% of climate experts believe that humans caused massive climate changes before they existed, or your support of the DDT article after it was proven to misrepresent sources), and then never back away.
5. If you can't address an argument, ignore it.

2: If it comes from a reputable source, it does not say what you want it to say

For example? Because the example above completely supports my point. You either accidently misunderstood my point, or (in another move of utter intellectual dishonesty) you created a strawman by quoting my source to refute a point a didn't make.

3: In case of 1, lie about the reputability of the source

This is rich, coming from you. You rely on sourcewatch.com to discredit the people I cite. Meanwhile, my criticisms of the IPCC are big names in your list of 2,500, or outside academics with numerous credentials.

4: In the case of 2, lie about the content.

For example?

5: When caught red-handed, change the subject or move the goalposts.

For example?

6: Introduce as much irrelevant scientific material as you can cram into every post in the hope that the appearance of academic leanings will lend weight to your argument.

Right. Every source I have cited has been used to address a relevant point I am making, all of which are relevant to my main points:

1. Humans are almost certainly contributing to the current warming trend
2. If left unchecked, although initial warming has benifits, if left unchecked for a long time, our contribution to warming will result in serious problems
3. The serious problems often touted by people like you (act now before its too late!) are almost always either completely false or highly exaggerated
4. Kyoto does more damage than good
5. The climate is vastly complex, and in constant flux. Several studies have shown and experts believe that the earth was at least as warm or warmer than the current trend during the MWP
6. Climate change is inevitable, and the earth has been both warmer and colder than it now is.
7. We need more research and development and less scare tactics in addressing climate change

 

[Alceste]

Hallelujah. I guess Al Gore is out of a job now.

And about time, too! I will never understand why he stuck his nose into things. Talk about un-necessarily politicizing an issue!

 

[Alceste]

Psst, btw, Oberon, I ignore almost everything you write. I established that you're a fist class bull****ter on about page two. Now I'm just batting at you for fun like a kitten with a ball of yarn.