Hrrummph a wonderfully grumpy statement. Although the Gaians have claimed the quotation, there is nothing in the statement itself to say which part of the population he’d target.
Frankly it’s fairly tame compared to a pre-coffee morning me.

Regards

Andy

Thats hate speech. Doesn’t Britain have laws against hate speech? Thats also threatening to commit genocide. Someone get him a KKK application form.

That warm zone is due to the ‘PDO’.

Drat, I wish there was a preview option on this board. Moderator, could you correct my tag so that only Flanagan’s comment is in italics? Thanks.

“Errr, I actually don’t see what you’re trying to point at… What is the point in looking at a situation where there were no emission to “prove” emissions have no effect?

Robert (16:44:57) has already done a good job of answering you comment, but just to ram the point home, it’s not up to me to prove that emmisions have no effect, it’s up to you to prove that natural cycles are NOT responsble for the fluctuations we see in the climate today. After all, we can see there is absolutely nothing unusual about todays climate by looking at the past, so the rational response is to deduce that these natural changes are continuing. That is before you get to all the empirical evidence that contradics man made AGW theory. Until recently the AGW camp was hiding behind long term (100 years in the future) style predictions for our doom. Fortunately they’ve started giving more short term predictions of drastic changes to scare us, such as Gores ice free Arctic in about 4 years from now. This means we won’t have to wait too long now to see how utterly wrong they are.

You seem to be cutting your teeth in the debate, so here’s a heads-up.

I won’t speak for them, or pretend to know their minds, but it seems the good folks on this blog responding to your comments are being firm though gentle; choosing civility, to their credit.

But make no mistake. If you and I were to “debate” in person, my choice of discourse will be ridicule, civility be damned, and heaping helpings, too.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001319verification_of_ipcc.html

Then people would have been able to read Pielke Jr writing…

“2. The IPCC actually has a pretty good track record in its predictions, especially after it dramatically reduced its 1990 prediction. This record is clouded by an appearance of post-hoc curve fitting. In each of 1995, 2001, and 2007 the changes to the IPCC predictions had the net result of improving predictive performance with observations that had already been made. This is a bit like predicting today’s weather at 6PM.”

DaveE.

Any and all data that does not conform to expectations will be adjusted, corrected, homogenized and tortured until it begs for forgiveness and signs this form:

I’m sorry. I was wrong. signed… The data.

It appears that torture is ok in some limited circumstances.

(I know that data is plural, but it just don’t flow like that.)

“Recent studies have found that temperatures would reach the threshold for dangerous climate change if they rise by an additional one degree Celsius.”

I just looked at my thermometer and realized that it is an additional one degree Celcius warmer than it was yesterday!!!
I probably won’t be able to sleep tonight wondering how I and my woodland friends will die….
Thanks,
Mike

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0de39bd4dba2dbb99cff5ee364630f00.21&show_article=1

“Errr, I actually don’t see what you’re trying to point at… What is the point in looking at a situation where there were no emission to “prove” emissions have no effect?

Let’s take a simple example. If you pour tons of acid on Muir woods, it will disappear. Now, one can easily show that sequoia already disappeared in the past, without the need to put acid on it. Does that mean the acid has no effect?”

From your example, it appears that you believe that the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and the late 20th century warming trend is as unambiguous as the correlation between tons of acid and the hypothetical deforestation of Muir Woods. With this belief, then the preceding sentence makes sense.

For me, the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and the late 20th century warming trend is less clear. So examples of periods since the last ice age that are warmer than at present are highly relevant. Whatever the mechanism that led to those other warm periods may have been operative in the late 20th century and may be a more important forcing function than anthropogenic CO2.

I agree that such prior warm periods do not “prove” that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate. However, until the mechanism for the prior warming is explained and incorporated into the current understanding of climate science and, yes, the models, then people like me who see far more pressing global social concerns will remain skeptical of the need to spend vast sums to reduce CO2 emissions.

BTW, there seems to be a huge cognitive disconnect in this type of exchange. Those who are passionate about the peril posed by Anthropogenic CO2 are seemingly completely uninterested in these prior warm periods and the fact that we are heading into another ice age. People like me who see the current interglacial as a blip in geologic time are unconcerned by a few degrees of warming that is similar to other warming episodes that have happened in the past few thousand years.