By the way, what made those atom bombs go off?

Hey that gives me an idea!

Maybe you could combine your critiques of both Einstein and anthropogenic global warming!

How about this, using tried and true sceptic methodology:

1. The atom bomb didn’t go off in Hiroshima, the heat was from natural variation due to sunspots.
2. It was hotter in Hiroshima on one day in 1945 than it is now.
3. Therefore Japan is cooling down.
4. Therefore the world is cooling down.
5. Therefore the IPCC is a bunch of alarmist frauds.

Gaz.

Or were the scietists misprepresenting their research to get more funding?

Gaz.

By the way I am not this unscientific label .. denialist”. It’s unscientific and quite impossible to prove a negative. You can’t. i.e. I do not need to prove anything against AGW because it is the AGW bandwagon that NEED to constructively/positively prove it correct or abandon this perception as false. Good luck here because from what i’ve ever seen it doesn’t seem to be obeying your instructions.

Dhogaza, just back to this set of graphs at …..
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png
Please just try a little harder to describe scientifically if possible, what you have found out about stratospheric cooling that is supposedly your validation for AGW instead of retreating to your cosy tiny playpen to avoid this request.

Barry Brook says … “Well said Gaz, well said.”

Well, Keiran here says to Gaz or Barry “deconstruct this mind virus known as Algorian Science”.

Nick Gotts, it just happens that I’ve always felt quite uncomfortable with people’s need for boundaries and frozen in mindsets. It is not hard for many people to imagine me to be seen as a transgressor and have some label in place like the need to use this politico/religious label “denier”. Worshippers love this label and i must say that Nick, you present as juicy fodder for a controlling hungry priest class because you are so easily impressed with all manner of golly gosh fiction. Personally i do not need a world full of insane people reduced from being responsible citizens to being infected hosts imprisoned by their fairytales and magic. If love means anything it is the love to find out for yourself with some initiative, observation, play, thought and reason. i.e. Have we ever seen any society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable?

Probably as a child many years ago, perhaps as an eight year old stepping away from Sunday school, I felt I just unexceptionally hyperlinked to the 360 degrees of an infinite connected material environment that we call the universe. This universe is not a fictional cosmological model nor a closed system with a big bang orgasmic beginning and presumably a depressing end, and nor with perfect boundaries. System experts will only demand a pre-conceived, closed finite system or set of closed disconnected systems or even a minute closed sub system and force/fudge all data to fit because this mindset is all based on the now obsolete hypothesis of finite universal causality. So people like myself are environmentalists NOT some cosy exclusive member of a minute closed sub system like the Al-AGWers who selectively ignore the bigger picture out of fear and ignorance.

This issue with climate, not unlike the all important cosmological issue, has for myself become such an interesting study in human behaviour. Both go deeply to all questions and the problems that really prepossess all others. As an unexceptional lifeform we need to know where we came from, what are the limits, what are our goals, to what do we tend to, to what do we have control over, to what are the possibilities, to what is determinable and to how much we desire the indeterminable. In this respect we need to be concerned about purposeful behaviour which is the control of input variables. Our behaviour does not come from the stimulus-response model nor the cognitive science model nor the rote learning model, because behaviour is the CONTROL of perceptions.

As a young boy i was, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the concept of control … like was i in control of myself or was something/someone controlling me? It became pretty apparent that if i wanted to be good at anything i needed to control perception big time. … hence our control of the inputs we perceive, is our behaviour.

It is our connected control of perception that creates purposeful behaviour like a will to truth driven by a curiosity as well as an altruism and the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived as well as the will not to deceive. My question is why should we allow some vested interest, or cult of high priests or some arrogant designer try to codify their domination by seeking to take over our control of perception and substitute their fake model of the world?

The point is that it can so easily happen to many people and we need to ask why? As an example of how a fake model can take over, consider high priest Einstein who considered that empty space is a possibility, then postulated this “mystical matterless motion” oxymoron along with this next bit of nonsense called curved space. Like how can anyone, even myself as a child fifty years ago, be expected to believe that “nothingness” exists, that everything in the vast expanse of the known universe came from “nothingness” and the clincher, that this “nothingness” is curved even though it contains nothing at all. This major regressive philosophical move by Einstein has been detrimental to physics ever since. Very simply, if scientists are not interested in causality as with much of Einstein’s work, then they are not scientists. With alarmist AGW we see similar faulty, initial assumptions.

Gaz, your paltry effort to deconstruct Lindzen’s simple statement of fact is pretty naive … much the same as your efforts to read a few temperature charts. I’ll just say it again … try to get control of YOUR perception, …. can you try to actually find something that is scientifically meaningful?

ps Just see how these disgraceful wildlife officials/Priests have lost control of their perception with the poor whale calf and put her down this morning in order to end its suffering.

Didn’t mean to dis generation 4 reactors (although I have my doubts, but I haven’t the time to go on a rant at the moment), I just meant to point out that a link to a magazine that thinks science is a branch of LaRouche’s made up disipline of “physical economics” is not likely to be well received.

For an interesting perspective on future reactor technologies, I recommend the WNA’s fact sheet on thorium reactors:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Hansen has some interesting things to say about it in his recent “Trip Report”:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080804_TripReport.pdf

This is based on the new book by Tom Blees: “Prescription for the Planet” (that is where the link now goes). Plausible? Yes. Possible in the right time frames? Who knows, perhaps not, but worth considering.

If a group of scientists develop a new drug, I want to then look at a study evaluating that drug from another team not associated with the same group. Do I really need to explain science 101?

Oh, Willi, Willi, not tennis players, then, but rather … computer scientists? geologists? field biologists? batting average statisticians?

The point here, dumb[insert favorite adjective here], is that paleo reconstructions supporting the AGW hypothesis don’t all come from “the same group”.

Simply put, you’re a liar.

But we know that. You claim that you’re virtually an internet commentary virgin, and moments in Google prove you’re lying. Gosh.

Good post, but be carefull who you link too. The link for nuclear reactors goes to 21st Centruy Science and Technology. This isn’t a scientific journal or magazine, it’s part of Lyndon LaRouche’s propaganda macine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Science_and_Technology

It’s published several (really bad) articles attacking the science behind AGW. Their about page list that:

“21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics.”

This is not a source I’d trust on any topic… let alone on nuclear reactor safety.

Go to any study you dispute, find the journal’s website and abstract, or go to the library and look it up.

Then look for “citing papers” or “related” or “cited by” and read the later work citing it. There are paper indexes for this as well as online compilations.

That will get you _all_ the developments to date in published science on the subject.

Ask your reference librarian for help.

Yeah, but, but, that’s quoting _Alastair!_ — he’s not saying there’s no problem. Quite the opposite. He’s convinced things are going to be getting worse much, much faster than the climatologists think. No math, but great conviction. Nice guy.

Thank you anyway! That is the sort of *gold standard* study I am looking for. I did not find the information I am after in it, but I will wade through it again anyway… maybe I missed something the first time.

I have even less kind thoughts in my head about this response than the dismissive and arrogant and rude responses that come out of the Realclimate site. But what would be achieved by posting more vitriol here, even if deserving of it?

Anyway, if anyone *can* answer the question, please post link(s). I’m not prepared to conclude yet that such information is non-existent.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Blurb: In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change. Because widespread, reliable temperature records are available only for the last 150 years, scientists estimate temperatures in the more distant past by analyzing “proxy evidence,” which includes tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, and glaciers. Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began using sophisticated methods to combine proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes during the last few hundred to few thousand years. This book is an important resource in helping to understand the intricacies of global climate change.

National Academy of Science of the United States of America