Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the history of planet earth, we cannot really expect geologic historical precedent for human-caused, CO2-triggered climate change. We must accept what we observe today. Surely it is not far-fetched that unprecedented consequences would follow from unprecedented events. But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some relevant insights and dire warnings. During the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles, the geologic period just before our own with the most evidence remaning, temperatures and CO2 concentrations showed remarkable correlation.

I understand what you are saying now, but not the thought process of the authors of this concept, since you have no link. I'm not sure I can accept the notion that "The sun will not produce more energy in the appropriate wavelength just because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere" without some evidence or explanation. What wavelength is deemed "appropriate?" How do they account for the temperature and CO2 correlations already documented? Who has challenged them?

Ah, our old friend, Lord Christopher Monckton. YEs, I have seen it. I really hate to keep debunking your experts, but . . .

From Wikipedia:

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s. More recently, he has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming.

He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism.

Monckton played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court of Justice in October 2007 in a bid to prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being shown in English schools. [censorship?]

The American Physical Society added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." In a response, Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". Notwithstanding, Arthur Smith, long-time member at the APS Forum, has identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions in the article.

 

I don't even do that unless it's necessary. No. a link to any supporting evidence will do or a reference to a legitimate scientific challenge, iike you did with Evans. But links to Kooks "31,000" lists, I will challenge.

Not really. There are a large number of opinionated people who reject AGW. But there is a clear and compelling consensus among the world's climatological experts, see my earlier post. Plus, as I have pointed out, the existence of dissent simply does not invalidate widely accepted scientific conclusions.

You continue to confuse AGW scientists conclusions with AGW political advocates positions. If I can get you understand this difference, I will be happy.

But I object strenuously to your unattributed notion of applying guilt by association to this subject. In your mind, some gun control kooks must also favors environmental action, which includes favoring global warming reduction policies, therefore the expert scientists conclusions must be wrong about global warming because these gun control kook are wrong about our AK-47s.

Tell me. How do you define what you call "bad science". Is it subjective, based on whether you like the politics you associate with it? Science is self-policing and those that practice it badly find it difficult to keep working in it.

I think there is only real science and phony science.

Dissent is vital to science, I've said it many times. It nudges the mainstream opinion back on course and on rare occasions reroutes it. But it essential to understand that a few dissenting voices do not invalidate scientific consensus.

Plus science is not "constantly" realizing it was wrong and fixing it. Science evolves in a steady and incremental fashion. Revolutions and reversals are exceedingly rare.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is proved beyond doubt. As is all science more is learned every day, but Darwin is still an great expert and a giant icon in Science.

Politics again, for God's sake!. You really, really want to believe that communists and climatologists are in league. Sorry, its a fantasy.

Why, . . . yes there is great truth in that . . . :lol:

There is always the other side of the argument in science. But if it's promoted by a small minority, it's the usually wrong side.

 

Where did financial interests come into play here? You are trying to distract from the issue. Monckton is simply not the expert he claims to be and has not convinced anybody in the scientific world or in a scientific manner. At long last, can you not realize that some guy who lectures his theories on matters outside his field cannot dismiss the published conclusions of the IPCC. He isn't taken seriously as an expert.

You are grasping at straws. The IPCC report is fully documented. If you find an error and want to discuss it, feel free.

You are misinformed if you think the IPCC is not peer reviewed.

The IPCC Peer Review Process

Make your case if you think you have one. Be prepared to defend it.

You have no experts. I have no experts. The experts exist and their opinions are on record. You can't cherrypick a few dissenters that you like and dismiss the vast majority. Well, you can, . . . but it's the road to being wrong.

You have no idea at all how the scientific process works, do you?

 

There is an ongoing debate about statistical parameters used to construct northern hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. You offer some lurid suggestions above without having established that any mistakes were made, figures falsified, or numbers massaged. So, make your case. Be specific.

Let me point out that the existence of scientific debate on statistical matters does not invalidate AGW.