Apart from that anybody who questions the science is either a denier or just doesn’t get it.

Well… it’s December 2009 and Climategate has hit and all your citations and appeals to peer reviewed science have been blown away.

You must also then assume that CO2 had a smaller effect, something that you seem to have left out. Comparing an assumed solar induced cooling rate to an unadjusted GW rate is invalid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/langswitch_lang/in

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/langswitch_lang/in

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little-ice-age-lia/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

There you will find, indexed for easy research, rebuttals of assertions in post 230 plus links to many other similar furphys.

For those unaware, the middle age warm period was on the order of 1°C warmer than we were at our recent warmest.

Perhaps looking at a graph that goes back more than 100 years is in order? In all sincerity, 100 years is barely a pixel on a movie screen when you’re trying to look at overall climatology of the Earth. For instance, what do we know temperatures to be like during the years before the little ice age? What do we know of the temperatures during the little ice age? The Younger Dryas? The general trend of the earth over the past 1 million years? It gets warmer and warmer, then hits a tipping point and cools back off fairly quickly, then slowly warms back up, with little hiccups in between. Rinse, repeat.

I myself am no expert, having done only moderate research and drawing my own conclusions from data presented by various sites, however, I would assume based on what little I’ve seen myself that the average person would understand the earth simply does not hover at a moderate temperature for a very long time, even on the scale of the human life. Honestly, to me, the idea that humans believe they’re affecting the climate directly just seems flat out arrogant.

tl;dr: Earth will do whatever it damn well pleases, and humans don’t understand how intricate climate change is well enough to predict it, let alone blame themselves for it. Any theory, warming or cooling, is all bollocks if you ask me. You’re all sheep for believing one way or the other. Just look at hard facts from the past and draw your own conclusions.

Slamdunk seems to have called time-out.

1. Please learn to use quotation conventions – your posts are nigh on indecipherable.

2. What is the credible evidence for each of your points in #223? All of the sources you have referenced to date are dubious at best; if you have suddenly better sources please provide them. In fact, whatever your sources are you should provide them, otherwise you are just another troll promulgating Chinese whispers and unsusbtantiated hearsay on the web.

Chris,
It is obvious the person going by the tag of “Slamdunk” does not understand the science.

Slam: You’re right about that, David. What I do understand is that man made global warming is a massive hoax, or as John Coleman calls it, “scam.”

In fact, if you read carefully his comments, his arguments are very often predicated by association to political ideology – this is not science.

Slam: It isn’t ment to be. Men with agendas are just using bad or manipulated science to promote them.
Classic example is the hockey stick. I urge you to visit http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Fortunately, the vast majority of political leaders around the world (from whatever persuasion) know climate change is real and that humanity is complicit in its affect.

Slam: You don’t have to be a head of state not to be deceived. If not deceived, then part of the problem because they know the GW issue is being used to promote interests that will is some way benefit them, or so they think.

They also believe we should be focusing on adaptation and mitigation (not arguing the nuances or fine details

Slam: No, let’s not argue why the IPCC overstated the effects of CO2 on climate sensitivity, or why the MWP and LIA were omitted from the hockey stick.

of the science that is better left to real scientists). Of course this won’t be easy and it won’t happen over night, but it is.

Slam: At least you have part of this right: Adaption. Man’s influence on nature is negligible at best.

While your (and others) responses to this ’slamdunk’ are illuminating, I don’t see any benefit in humiliating a person who clearly can not think rationally or with any scientific logic.

Here’s what I think you should think about.

1. No science has proven that man made CO2 drives up temperatures to the point of environmental harm or climate crisis.

2. Temperatures stopped rising in 1998 and began to cool after 2007. How can this be if CO2 drives temperature up?

3. Oceans are cooling.

4. Arctic ice rate of loss slowed from last year.

5. Antarctica ice is increasing.

6. Polar bears are doing fine.

7. The IPCC, Gore, GISS, Houghton et al are political and religious entities to help bring about social, economic and political change. The last thing on their mind is their phony concern about a small rise in global temperatures.

I have a great deal of respect for Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer (one can hope they are on to something) but they have not been able to provide robust or rigorous research to counter the prevalence of CO2-e as a major driver to this current episode of GW.

Slam: That simply is not true. Spencer works with NASA researchers and has produced evidence that indicates there is no positive feedback. If they is right, man made global warming is a dead issue.

Carter et al is another story. He is not a sceptic (in the scientific sense), he is a ‘denier’ – he intentionally distorts and misrepresents the science for his own agenda. His action (and inaction) represent the antithesis of science – no wonder he does not publish his ’smoke screens’.

Slam: The real deniers are those who think the small contribution of human CO2 has a greater effect on climate than the sun, oceans, precipitation, clouds and urban island heat.

Carter is a proven fraud as I have explained over and over again.

Why don’t you take the opportunity to show that you understand by explaining the difference between lower troposphere and mid troposphere temperature? You could then show that you have more than substance-free assertions.

Lindzen was not talking about surface temperature.

Singer was not talking about a valid surface temperature record in your quote as I have already explained.

You still don’t get it. What difference does it make what temperatures were or are in any part of the atmosphere?

1. No one has shown where man made CO2 drove global temperatures up less than a degree over the last century in any part of the atmosphere, over any part of the world.

2. Fraudulent scientists got rid of the WMP and LIA so they could blame humanity for the sharp rise in temperature at the end of the 19th century.

3. No computer prohesied a halt in warming between 1998-2007, or a drop in temperatures after 2007.

4. Many scientists believe the world could be headed for a cooling or cold period. There is no man made global warming any more than man made cooling. It’s all natural and cyclical through solar activity, ocean oscillation, urban island heat, precipitation and cloud distribution.

5. Global warming is a hoax to bring about global government, a new religion (Gaia), demise of western capitalism and the greatest tax of all time- a global emission tax. If you haven’t noticed, the recent Wall Street bailout bill contains 120 pages on energy and carbon emission issues.

What more substance do you want?

Before you say it’s all baloney, go back and read those statements I posted.