And soon, when the weird, science-religion of the great Church of the AGW has been been relegated to the halls of junk-science in history, the protests of those 160 (who put their careers on the line in doing so) be part of that history.

What history? The Rise and Fall of the AGW Empire.

Except that this one will not take 500 years.

More like 5.

You keep believing that. How about we check back in 5 years and see what has happened?

He presented you with fifty (50) graphs NOT associated with ICECAP, graphs that are hard, HARD evidence to the contrary of the AGW religion.

Actually, at least one was directly from ICECAP, which shows you how carefully he checked them, and many more were from similar sites or God-knows-where (and many were even graphs that I had debunked before). Furthermore, there were others that were in no way hard evidence contrary to AGW. How is this http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0323co2emissions_global.jpg or this http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif contrary to AGW?

I suppose it was funny in a way, but not the way that I think he intended.

Joel Shore says: “Yeah…It was pretty sad.”

Now don’t you go puttin’ words in my mouth, young’un. ;-)

Naw Joel….it was brilliant. And hysterical at that.

You have certainly shown yourself, besides lacking startling amounts of objectivity when backed into a corner in an argument, that you have no sense of humor.

Hey even when Leif got me good with a snide remark, I remained objective enough to laugh and admit it was a good one.

He presented you with fifty (50) graphs NOT associated with ICECAP, graphs that are hard, HARD evidence to the contrary of the AGW religion.

It was a brilliant post….and all you can do is call it “sad.”

That…..THAT, my friend, is sad.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Reply: Seriously this bickering needs to come to an end ~ ctm

Joel Shore said “…you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP.”

Well, that’s not true. So in order to show that statement was not true, I posted fifty charts and graphs that I’ve previously posted, many using peer reviewed data. Not one of them was linked from ICECAP [although I do link to ICECAP charts on occasion. And I do not agree with Joel's opinion that ICECAP is a "junk science" site].

Is there something about the phrase “junk-science sites like ICECAP” that confused you? I didn’t say they were almost all from ICECAP…what I said is they tend to be mainly from junk-science sites such as ICECAP. And, by the way, at least #15 and maybe others are from ICECAP, so you didn’t even weed through your garbage very well.

In those 50, I will admit that you linked to more from reputable sources than you usually do (and there are some for which it is simply impossible to determine what the source is). However, I have very little idea of what many of the plots you linked to are supposed to prove. For example, #48 shows how CO2 from fossil fuel emissions has increased since 1750. How does that relate to any points you are trying to make?

When I link to graphs, I feel it is my personal responsibility to check that they are a reasonable representation and are not actively deceptive and I also feel that it is necessary to give the context or source of the graph and to explain it and how it relates to the points at hand. You don’t seemed to be burdened by any such sense of personal responsibility.

Well, that’s not true. So in order to show that statement was not true, I posted fifty charts and graphs that I’ve previously posted, many using peer reviewed data. Not one of them was linked from ICECAP [although I do link to ICECAP charts on occasion. And I do not agree with Joel's opinion that ICECAP is a "junk science" site].

I just wanted to point out that Joel Shore was being typically wrong when he said I get ‘almost all’ my graphs from ICECAP — which is only one of many sources. I read a lot, and when I come across a chart that I think would be interesting to people, I save it. But as I’ve mentioned, Joel finds fault with all of them; he’s never once admitted that any chart I’ve posted is worthwhile. Why? I think it’s because they contradict what he believes.

I can easily provide fifty more graphs that I’ve posted from various papers and sites other than ICECAP. Posting those 50 graphs above was done only to show that Joel Shore makes unthinking accusations that are more often wrong than right.

When Joel sticks to the science he’s better off. But he’s become obsessed with trying to convince everyone here that a rise in a minor trace gas is gonna get us all. If he would provide empirical measurements showing that a specific rise in anthropogenic CO2 can be translated into a specific rise in global temperature, I would sit up straight and pay attention.

But neither Joel nor anyone else has been able to measure such a relationship. Being a skeptic, I require at least some reasonable, verifiable evidence that a rise in carbon dioxide will cause climate catastrophe. So far, none has been forthcoming, and Joel’s frustration is evident.

Hahaha Smokey you kill me. Click click click click.

I was rolling on the floor when I saw this post. :-)

Yeah…It was pretty sad. I suppose that when one can’t make coherent scientific arguments, one just goes trolling for graphs. Maybe Smokey was hoping to distract us from the fact that he and D’Aleo have been caught using very deceptive plots or that his argument about the APS committee being a rubber stamp committee of cronies contradicts the glowing description of the committee as “a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists” by those who launched the petition (before the committee had rendered their verdict)? I suppose if I were in Smokey’s shoes, I might be trying desperately to change the subject too!

You still haven’t been able to explain the 160 human “outlier” heavy-hitter robust datasets.

I don’t understand the question. Do you expect viewpoints to be unanimous? Of those who signed the petition, how many are “heavy-hitters” in field of climate science? Those who could be classified as “heavy-hitters” (which certainly only a fraction of them unless you are very generous with the term) are generally so due to work unrelated to climate or even atmospheric science.

And your vilification of ICECAP is par for the course.

And, your and Smokey’s refusal to engage in the substance of my arguments about why that ICECAP graph is very deceiving is even more par for the course. I mean, you guys vilify highly-respected organizations like the IPCC and scientists who are top in the field. Do you honestly think ICECAP is viewed that way by the scientific community?

A professional who is peculiarly being emotive, biased, dogmatic, and manipulative in the way they answer questions (or dodge the questions, as the case may be)…is in a field that relies upon the quest for absolute truth.

You may view things that way. However, it is you guys who are continuing to have to come up with grander and grander conspiracy theories to explain the fact that again and again, the scientific community comes down on the side of the scientific consensus. And, you even have to come up with excuses why Exxon-Mobil now touts the IPCC and its scientists work on it. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

It is almost amusing to see you guys get your hopes up when something like the petition to APS happens…and you are just so sure (or at least hopeful) that this time, the decision will go in your favor and provide the evidence you sorely crave that you are not in the tiny scientific minority that you are. And, then of course, when those hopes are dashed, do you consider the fact that your view of reality might be a little bit warped? No…You just come up with some excuse to dismiss it.

Smokey says:

Since Joel Shore is incapable of providing the empirical evidence measuring the amount of warming due to human emissions, he makes a red herring of graph provenance the issue.

I’m not going to get distracted from the subject of this thread into an “explain to me in a few paragraphs everything about AGW”. There are plenty of places that you can go for such explanations and there are plenty of times here when I have in fact given short summaries.

I was rolling on the floor when I saw this post. :-)

—————————————

JOEL!

You are dodging Smokey’s questions and you are dodging mine.

You still haven’t been able to explain the 160 human “outlier” heavy-hitter robust datasets.

Think of each of these Physicists as normal, healthy trees sampled, not just from one region, but from across the globe.

;-) Hint hint.

But you will not explain their objections, because you CAN NOT.

Just like you can not produce forth solid REAL data that CO2 is causing you-know-what, as Smokey has asked you to do about 900 times now.

And your vilification of ICECAP is par for the course.

Except the longer you stay in your defensive mode (digging yourself in a hole) the less credible you become.

It is now becoming evident…(and disturbing) of the irony, folks:

A professional who is peculiarly being emotive, biased, dogmatic, and manipulative in the way they answer questions (or dodge the questions, as the case may be)…is in a field that relies upon the quest for absolute truth.

Ironic.

That being said, I think he has a great mind, he is just deceived.

Hey…it happens to the best and brightest of us all.

Such accounts are littered throughout the annals of human history.

There is always time to change, and thus further one’s evolution, by letting loose the shackles of preconceived beliefs and cognitive dissonance.

Time will tell….

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“You have posted a lot of graphs and it may be true that a few of them came from the sources that you mentioned but I certainly don’t recall them.”

Isn’t that convenient? Not only does blaming a bad memory take Joel off the hook, but the whole post is a red herring, trying to avoid my concluding comment:

I will be convinced that CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe when real, falsifiable, testable evidence is provided that measures the temperature change resulting from a specified increase in CO2. Alarmists claim that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Show us, empirically. Until that happens, I am skeptical of the impotent word games that form the basis for the AGW hypothesis.

Since Joel Shore is incapable of providing the empirical evidence measuring the amount of warming due to human emissions, he makes a red herring of graph provenance the issue. That’s what happens when an alarmist is cornered. So, here are a few non-ICECAP graphs that I’ve posted over the past year or so:

click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
click21
click22
click23
click24
click25
click26
click27
click28
click29
click30
click31
click32
click33
click34
click35
click36
click37
click38
click39
click40
click41
click42
click43
click44
click45
click46
click47
click48
click49
click50

Not one from ICECAP. Got lots more, too. They all say the same thing one way or another: there is no credible basis for climate alarmism.

1. ICECAP is one of numerous sources that I get the graphs from that I post. As I’ve pointed out, graphs from NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and many other sources have been posted. They seem to be acceptable to others, just not to those suffering from CD.

Really? You have posted a lot of graphs and it may be true that a few of them came from the sources that you mentioned but I certainly don’t recall them. Hint: A graph from ICECAP that takes HadCRUT data and replots it in a way where it has cherry-picked the time period that is used and perhaps have overlaid a plot of CO2 rise scaled in a very deceptive way does not constitute a graph from HadCRUT.

2. Joe D’Aleo has forgotten more about the climate than you will ever learn. Labeling his site as “junk science” is purely ad hominem, and typical of alarmists’ arguments.

Whatever. Here is a graph that you have showed a lot from that site: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg Even leaving aside the issue of why he started in in 1997 and how it would look if he started it earlier (or why he chose the UAH MSU data in particular), why did D’Aleo (or whoever produced it) choose to scale the CO2 axis so that the rise in CO2 over a 10-year period corresponds to a rise of about 0.65-0.7 C on the temperature axis? Does D’Aleo honestly believe that the IPCC is predicting decadal temperature rises of that magnitude? It would not be hard to look up the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers and see that they say, “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.” [If you want to go with a prediction made before most of the data shown, one could also go with the IPCC TAR Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers prediction that "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario."] The only problem would be that if one adjusted the scaling of the CO2 axis in that graph accordingly, it wouldn’t really produce the “desired” effect.

I would argue that the more charitable interpretation of this graph is that D’Aleo doesn’t know what he is talking about. I will leave it to you to infer what the less charitable interpretation would be! In either case, it really makes me wonder why anybody, let alone someone who calls himself a “skeptic”, would ever trust D’Aleo again on anything. Yet, you not only continue to show graphs from his cite in general, you even show this particular graph (or ones very much like it) after the problem with it has been explained to you!

I am sorry, but calling oneself a skeptic does not make one a skeptic.

“…it could be that you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP.”

1. ICECAP is one of numerous sources that I get the graphs from that I post. As I’ve pointed out, graphs from NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and many other sources have been posted. They seem to be acceptable to others, just not to those suffering from CD.

2. Joe D’Aleo has forgotten more about the climate than you will ever learn. Labeling his site as “junk science” is purely ad hominem, and typical of alarmists’ arguments.

3. Putting quotations around the word skeptics is an attempt to marginalize those who make the Scientific Method work.

4. Ducking the repeated point that the alarmist contingent has failed to provide the necessary empirical evidence to convince scientific skeptics [which are the only honest scientists] that their CO2=CAGW conjecture is valid, and always changing the subject, is a tactic used by those who have no reasonable answer.

5. And constantly ducking the fact that lots of the big names in the alarmist peer review crowd have been discredited for refusing to provide their raw data and methods is not surprising. They are hiding that information for one reason: if they made everything transparent, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis would be falsified.

I will be convinced that CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe when real, falsifiable, testable evidence is provided that measures the temperature change resulting from a specified increase in CO2. Alarmists claim that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Show us, empirically. Until that happens, I am skeptical of the impotent word games that form the basis for the AGW hypothesis.

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this:
The American Geophysical Union is sending science back four hundred years!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911157302/energy-and-environment/galileo-silenced-again.html

I don’t know. Without knowing the details of how the AGU meeting is organized, this sounds pretty much like a manufactured controversy. Noone is being silenced. It sounds like all of the papers will be presented…and a large group of them will be in one session. Others will be in other sessions in the conference where the conference organizers thought that they fit better.

To be honest, if these “skeptics” really want to talk to fellow scientists beyond themselves, they might do better to have their papers spread out in the conference. Chances are that when all grouped in one session, they will pretty much be talking to each other.

Smokey says:

When someone disparages literally everything another poster says or links to, it must be chalked up to a case of cognitive dissonance.

Or, alternatively, it could be that you like to pull almost all of your graphs from junk-science sites like ICECAP. It is not like you are linking to graphs from peer-reviewed sources.

At any rate, I don’t think I have objected to every single graph. Occasionally, you have linked to a reasonable graph but I have explained how it doesn’t really show what you presumably think that it shows.