Another inconvenient web posting "disappeared"

And here I had always thought only 3rd world dictators and people who had something to hide caused data (or enemies) to disappear………

Poor Andy every now and then he accidently tells the truth.The rest of the time its the mantra of the smug, we need to educate the public. I wonder as to the relevance of the cranial vacuum caused by a modern university education.Without getting too cynical I’m looking for the term for educated beyond ones intelligence, or the astounding arrogance common to highly papered experts who lack all common sense.

If you click through to the report it’s interesting to see that those classified as most concerned about AGW (called Alarmed in the report) are the least knowledgeable about AGW. For example, 24% of the Alarmed think the greenhouse effect refers to the hole in the ozone layer.

And down the memory hole it goes!

Funny thing about the study:
Even the people who find themselfs to being “alarmists” in the study. Have more trust in “Sciense programs” on television then they have in scientists 🙂
Strange things can happen 🙂

Severian says:
April 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm
And down the memory hole it goes!
————
1984 didn’t have Google Cache!! 🙂
But, anyway, Revkin could just have posted the ‘update’ without editing the original one…

WOW, did you read that study! I have issues with a study that tells people they’re wrong for not believing in global warming and then using that to say that skeptics know less than warmists (mainly Q4, Q15, but I also have issue with Q1, one line from each of Q10, Q13, and Q26 (they say “contribute to global warming” not “increases CO2”, same thing with Q27). At this point I stopped reading but I’m sure that many of the future questions are just as bad).

In climatology, no modicum of honesty goes unpunished (and/or unhidden).

Another Chinese proverb is applicable here: “For every mountain, there is one higher”. Certainly Revkin doesn’t stand atop the highest mountain, at least from my vantage point. And I can’t even see Gore, Mann, Hansen, and a crowd of others way off down in the valley somewhere. Do you think they’re lost?

Tom Fuller
Did you find those pictures yet that show coal trucks caused the traffic jams in China?

I think the term “luke-warmer” is rather a bad one to begin with. I understand the distinction between an alarmist and a luke-warmer, but to be honest, almost every sceptic believes CO2 does warm the planet to some extent.
The difference between a sceptic and luke-warmer is simply put: how much?
In any regard, I think anyone who studies the science to a certain extent comes to the same conclusion that the effects of CO2 are over-stated and that just because we can not explain the warming does not mean its not natural until proven otherwise.
Anything past that is just a gut feeling or an educated guess. As a sceptic I appreciate that my guess of roughly 0.1C of “human-caused” warming is probably nothing more then that. When I say human-caused I also include land-use changes which at this point I believe has a larger impact then a trace gas…but I digress. I do realize CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that undoubtably humans are influencing this to some extent. But no study can even come close to figuring out this within what I would call comfortable margins without resorting to wild guesses (as they are called educated I would disagree).
The problem with the alarmist position to begin with is that most of us sceptics started out as alarmists and moved into the luke-warm category or the sceptic camp due to self-education in this field.
To Tom Fuller: No, I do not need validation, its a simple statement of fact that if he had left it up we would have not cared. The entire process of disappearing previously (wrong) predictions and other shannanigans means that anything they do is rightly so put under a microscope. This unfortunatly tends to effect work done by luke-warmers as well, which I do concede are also rather educated on this process…..but that is the price to pay to have alarmists screaming and sounding shrill everyday of the week. It might be wrong, but its what we have been reduced to as a society.
There is no easy solution to any problem in society, and I think the luke-warmist position so to speak is much stronger and more backed-up then the catastrophic position of the alarmist, but the problem I have seen from anytime I try to dialogue with a luke-warmer is that they are stuck in a similar vein of group-think. I don’t say this as an insult, I have a lot of respect for the amount of information most luke-warmers are aware of, but I don’t think they traditionally ask the correct questions and do make assumptions.
They do ask questions about solar effects to some extent, but they are more (and I should add rightly so) after cloud effects on CO2. But the fundamental problems with the theory are also not asked by luke-warmers.
If AGW was happening on the Earth (besides the simple greenhouse component of CO2 as in the forcing) we would have seen warming oceans and a very distinct troposphere hot spot in addition to not having 15 years of either very little warming or no warming depending on how you read the last 15 years of data. The absense of either points towards either VERY weak feedbacks or even negative feedbacks in our actual atmosphere.
I have also not seen good answers to the questions about the oceans and their effect on CO2 concentrations. Even the most fundamental question is not answered there to any extent, and the amount of sureness that goes with it is rather in my mind bad.
Scientists should be sceptical of any theory that never validated the null hypothesis in the first place. Its actually possible that the CO2 component is negative after feedbacks. That in itself should point to a rather direct question: since it appears that in the past CO2 increases after temperature increases, is this possibly what we are seeing? If that is not the case, what effect is putting long-sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere actually going to have?
We all know that the IPCC says 100 years for CO2’s life in the atmosphere, but most work points towards a half-life of around 9-15 years depending on the study. The 100 years comes from the theory that the atmosphere is saturated with too much carbon dioxide and that natural processes can not cope with the extra CO2 that was in the past sequestered. This is rather glossed over without much study. How do the scientists know that the plant-life will not adapt and eventually sequester more by themselves? Its just as good of a theory as stating that CO2 will start residing in the atmosphere longer with no proof of that matter.
Until we are more sure on this to begin with, measuring warming from even a simple doubling of CO2 which tends to make the math easier is still fraught with uncertainty since for one we are not even sure the dog is waging the tail so to speak…and even if the dog is waging the tail to some extent, could it be possible that the tail is also waging the dog to an extent? These questions go towards the heart of the matter.

JRR Canada
You might be amused at the following crie de coeur from an exasperated Australian economist lamenting the economic fundamentalism that was taking over back in the 90s:
“Most economic commentary is unmitigated blather. It would be impossible to overestimate the extent of absurdity in contemporary economic culture. Black is white. Rubbish is good sense. … The economics profession has contributed to one of the great intellectual scandals of the 20th century. The centre of gravity of the economics discipline is a gigantic hoax. It involves an intellectual travesty and a social disaster of the first order. A respectable, rigorous training in economics is a cretinising process. It involves constant deskilling which leads to losing touch with the much maligned ‘common sense’.” [“Down With Economics”, The Bulletin, 8 / 10 / 91]

@ Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 18, 2011 at 10:26 pm
China coal truck traffic jam covered in the links.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article592015.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11168622

i’m passing this article along…thoughts? please discredit
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-nearing-greenhouse-gas-tipping-point

@@ Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 18, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Coal truck traffic jam (Hey, great name for a band?)
http://dontai.com/wp/2010/09/29/torstar-asia-correspondent-hassled-in-china/

Revkin is a “mood” based journalist. What he lacks in intelligence he makes up for in following the crowd mentality. With very little scientific understanding he depends on which way an argument is being won or lost at the moment. He “adjusts” accordingly.

Revkin removed the following line from his web page:
The last link is particularly important, given that it shows, among other things, that those dismissing human-driven global warming tend to have a more accurate picture of the basic science than those alarmed by it.
He says:
I’ve removed a line I’d tacked on here that gave too simplistic a summary of the Six Amercias [sic] study.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with total removal of a line or leaving it on the page with a line drawn through it, and a disclaimer is an open question. Doing the latter tends to create more personal trust of the blogger by the public.
That is distinct from the question, did the line give too simplistic a summary of the Six Americas study? If you read the report the answer is yes. Some skeptics who disagree with the conclusions of the report may believe that the original sentence Revkin had is correct, but it certainly doesn’t provide a summary of the report. In fact the “alarmists” got overall the best grade on the factual questions asked in the survey, according to the report, but it says the truth is more complicated than that.

Is Gary Neville moonlighting as a warmist?

Antonia says: (April 18, 2011 at 11:30 pm) to JRR Canada
You might be amused at the following crie de coeur from an exasperated Australian economist…
Sweet!
Thanks, Antonia (from an Australian).

I have little sympathy or regard for people like Revkin who think that it’s morally acceptable to be devious and expunge their own statements that they view with hindsight and regret for whatever reason.
.Morally grown-up people accept that saying stuff one might regret later is a part of life.

@Thomas says: April 19, 2011 at 12:25 am
I am agreeing with you there, there are a lot of logical errors across the board, from both sides. I think a lot of people seem to forget that we (sceptics and warmist) are not a majority in the population. Most of the people i speak with talk more about lybia or something simular then about global warming.

Where can I find the deconstruction of that Six Americas [sic] study Willis is (I hope) writing?

What exactly is wrong with replacing a paraphrase with the exact quotes?
Everyone is acting like Revkin has removed some gigantic truth and replaced it with propaganda.
Yes, that has happened elsewhere, and we’ve seen it in the Climategate emails. Kudos to everyone that has had a hand in dissecting those indictments of the “scientists” who wrote them. That was and is a despicable, non scientific process.
But simply deciding your paraphrase was a tad simplistic, and replacing it with the real quote? That’s not a scandal, that’s nothing.

BenfromMo @ 10:30
Elegantly put.
For Andy: now if you’d only hired different sociologists to dissect your mammoth AGU thread.
======

That echo chamber those guys are in must be really loud if it is successfully drowning out everyone outside of it pointing out their own hypocrisy. I’m thinking we need to revert to sign-language to get their attention.

JamesS says:
April 19, 2011 at 5:58 am
It also seems to me that the alarmists are just as prone to logical errors, e.g. “The Earth’s climate is changing at the moment, therefore humans are the cause of global warming.”
You think constructing a straw man fallacy demonstrates someone else’s error?
The physical properties of CO² have been known for over a hundred years and the greenhouse effect was predicted in the 19th century as a consequence of this. In the 1950’s we started to measure CO² levels in the atmosphere and found they were rising. Isotopic analysis showed us that these changes were consistent with fossil fuel consumption. Later observations showed changes in LW radiation being emitted into space and downward backscatter radiation consistent with CO²’s absorption bands. This explained an already observed imbalance in the planets energy budget.
At the same time increasing numbers of metrics were showing a change in the planets climate; temperature, ice mass budget, sea level, migration patterns, tree lines, etc, all showed a clear warming trend. Of course correlation is not causation, but what we now have is a known mechanism that has a high likelihood of causing the majority of the warming in the last 50 years. This is not a conclusion reached in the asinine way you suggest, it has been achieved through over a century of scientific endeavour and to misrepresent it as you have is insulting to say the least.
Science being science, we must always accept that there might be a better explanation for what has been observed, but none of the known natural causes explain the current trend and where others will invoke unknown natural causes I turn to Occam: the argument that requires the most new assumptions will tend to be wrong.

jc in ak says:
April 19, 2011 at 1:24 am
i’m passing this article along…thoughts? please discredit
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-nearing-greenhouse-gas-tipping-point
————————————————————-
Not really “on topic”, but since you brought it up:
I recall we discussed Tripati’s study here, some time ago. Extremely Good News!
No tipping point.
No runaway Global Warming.
No destruction of life on earth.
No irreversible trend.
In fact, conditions observed in that study (allegedly what rising CO2 promises for our future) led, in the long run, to… our present climate (whatever it may be).
Best,
Frank

Smokey says:
April 19, 2011 at 8:26 am
It’s clear that logical thinking isn’t Mr MacDonald’s strong suit. The rising temperature trend line since the LIA is essentially unchanged over the past 50 years
As ever, you are wrong. The rate of warming has increased from 0.2°C in the hundred years to 1960 to more than 0.7°C in the hundred years to 2010. I have plotted trends for the decades between 1960 and 1970 to show that this is persistent, decade on dacade rise in the rate of warming and not the result of simply cherry picking two periods that suit my own belief.

JamesS, during the ice age cycles the primary driver is generally considered to be orbital variations that cause snow to remain over the summer in the northern hemisphere. Snow reflects sunlight which causes cooling. CO2 acts as an amplifier and to synchronize glaciation of the hemispheres. But that was then, today our emissions of CO2 are the primary driver. There is no reason to assume that climate change is always caused in the same way.
As Kevin MacDonald has already pointed out, your “logical fallacy” is itself a fallacy. It would have been relevant if we first noted the warming and then tried to find a cause, but that’s not how it happened. Global warming is a prediction based on understanding on how the climate works which was later confirmed by observations.

MarkB says:
April 19, 2011 at 9:07 am
“His first post after the collapse of Cap and Trade was a psychiatrist explaining how global warming denialists were mentally defective. And you think that’s a ‘lukewarmer?’”
Maybe a lukesoviet.

Andrew30 says:
April 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Good one Andrew. The bible also does not mention 2012 even once. So it gets points just for that!

Smokey says:
April 19, 2011 at 10:41 am
Kevin MacDonald probably can’t understand why the planet contradicts his belief system.
If you think my beliefs preclude interannual variability you are even more ignorant that I thought.
Smokey says:
April 19, 2011 at 10:41 am
The slow, steady rise since the LIA can not be due to CO2, because despite a major 40% increase in that harmless, beneficial trace gas, there has been no corresponding or unusual temperature rise.
As I have already shown, there has not been a “slow, steady rise since the LIA”, the centennial rate of warming has increased by half a degree in the last 50 years. The graphics you keep linking to are useless for this purpose, a single OLS fit over the full period can tell us nothing about changing rates within that period.

Hmmmm….Arctic sea ice isn’t melting as expected, I’d suggest that WUWT readers keep a close eye on this site to see if anything gets “adjusted” suddenly!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Rather inconvenient truth for some, sea ice extent is now with two S.D. of the average, and growing.

Kevin MacDonald says:
April 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm

JamesS says:
April 19, 2011 at 11:22 am
Kevin MacDonald and Thomas should study this graph of temps over the past 10,000 years, derived from the GISP2 ice core data, to understand why the current gentle warming trend is neither unprecedented nor dangerous. “Things were different then” is not a scientific hypothesis, either.

You should study the definition of the word global, derived from the Latin globus, to understand why a single proxy from one location tells us next to nothing about the current warming trend. “Sorry, I was just regurgitating somebody else’s idiot meme” is not a scientific hypotheses, either.
So you’re saying the ice cores referred to above don’t contain a significant temperature signature for a long period of time? Do you have something better on a “global” scale? I submit they’re far better than a bunch of trees in Yamal (or I should narrow that down to a specific “tree”), or the fudged data Phil Jones refuses to find, or the hair-pulling climate rants of Pachuri et al because nobody takes his UN body seriously anymore due to faulty/politicized science. Just checking. I’d rather have one decent data string than junk science anyday.

Anthony — If you don’t use it for your archived pages, someone else will — there’s too much of this “disappearing” going on nowadays…
The Winston Smith Archives
Also, I think many find it remarkable that not only did they “disappear” all things that disagreed with their (current, up to the moment) orthodoxy, but that the government pushed propaganda through the view screens, with the news anchors encouraging everyone to get red in the faced, shrieking livid over their pet political talking points of the day (sounds like it could be any of CNN, MSNBC, or Fox).
The Winston Smitch Archives. The tube stops here.

Steve from rockwood says:
April 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Crosspatch, what is more accurate? The Internet or the Bible?
My guess is that “The Bible” has changed far less since the Fourth century than Wikipedia has changed since the Fourth of this month. Of course we’re talking apples and oranges here.

Okay, this “study” is idiotic and designed to produce a desired result. Riddle me this: I believe the earth has warmed since the LIA and that all other things held constant rising CO2 levels will result in some warming. And even considering feedbacks, that are a big unknown, rising CO2 should result in some warming. I also believe that there is mounting evidence that these feedbacks are likely negative and any warming due to CO2 will be harmless to beneficial for life on earth. Okay so what am I……….Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, or Dismissive.
The “study” also assumes its own answers are correct. If you believe that global warming is mostly due to humans then you are right……….otherwise you are wrong. There are other examples of this in the report under the heading of “Understanding of Climate Change” on page 2. This study is a disgrace. Perhaps the most telling revelation in the Executive Summary is that 63% of the alarmed and 49% of the concerned believe the ozone hole contributes to global warming……many of those most concerned don’t even understand environmental science in general let alone global warming science. Show me a study that asks questions about the science…this is useless.

Kevin MacDonald says:
April 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Do keep up, that particular cherry has already been popped. A single proxy, from a single geographic location tells as almost nothing about the global trend.

And you’ve conveniently ignored someone else’s mention of the most influential tree in the world. I might include Mann’s stripbark pines as another example. Without these questionable proxies, there is no hockey stick, no unprecedented modern temperatures.
And of course, we have the fact that the concepts of a global temperature or GT anomaly are meaningless.

@Gary Young Swift, re Petermann glacier:
Revkin gives Muenchow a forum to counter Box’s blather:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/vast-ice-island-breaks-free-of-greenland-glacier/

thanks frank

Chuck Dolci says:
April 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Check out the Global Warming Petition Project(http://www.petitionproject.org/), which shows that over 31,000 scientist have rejected the alarmist view of global warming.
Here is a list of scientists who reject HIV as the cause of AIDS and here is one where scientists reject evolution by natural selection. What are we proving?
Chuck Dolci says:
April 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm
how do you know I am not an expert?
Is it because experts don’t make their points by publishing meaningless lists of names?
REPLY: best argument I’ve seen against accepting scientific consensus on GW yet – Anthony

Chuck Dolci says:
April 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm
In response to eadler’s April 19, 2011 at 2:45 am posting:
In spite of eadler’s vituperative and personal attack I will endeavor to reply in a civilized manner.
First, it is a circular argument. The fact that the premise may ultimately be proven to be true does not alter the fact that what Yale presented in the question/response I identified is a circular argument, and therefore, the argument itself can not be relied upon to prove anything. Likewise, it doesn’t disprove anything, it is just nonsensical, and, as I said, one would expect better from Yale.
Second, consensus proves nothing. Moreover, there are big problems with your claim that “two independent polls of scientists who regularly publish papers in climatology have shown that 97% of those scientists believe that global warming is happening.” First, who conducted these polls and whom was polled? Second, the climategate emails clearly show that “scientists who regularly publish papers on climatology” is hardly a fair sampling, since the “climate scientists” have acted quite vigorously to prevent non-believers from publishing. Third, your numbers are nonsense. Check out the Global Warming Petition Project(http://www.petitionproject.org/), which shows that over 31,000 scientist have rejected the alarmist view of global warming.
eadler goes on “For someone who is not an expert…”. Well, how do you know I am not an expert? Have you seen my credentials? How do you know I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Instead of calling names and insulting me why don’t you challenge my arguments with facts and logic.
I attacked your argument, I didn’t attack you personally.
I did not evaluate your expertise in climate science or anything else. My argument was that people who don’t have sufficient personal expertise in climate science would be smart to accept the consensus of climate scientists when it comes to taking a position on AGW. If one doesn’t have the knowledge of a subject, it is dangerous to overestimate your expertise if you come to a conclusion that is opposite to what 97% of the experts say is correct. A graduate of any good college would consider such behavior as intelligent. So the right answers to the quiz were based on what climate scientists would consider the right answer. This is what is normally done in an academic institution.
The Oregon global warming petition was sent out with a document that was designed to fool people into thinking that the National Academy of Science published it. A small proportion of people who signed it were scientists, and many have taken back their endorsements. It is not a random sample of scientists of any kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Classic ‘Animal Farm’ sleight of hand..
You remember..?
Notice on the gate put up by the pigs:
‘All animals are equal.’
Later:
‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..’
etc…

The changing of Revkin’s quotes reminds me of the old Soviet Russia proverb: “The only thing more unpredictable than the future, is the past.”

Hockey Schtick says:
April 20, 2011 at 8:30 am
The ice cores from multiple locations in both Greenland and Antarctica show similar trends, and along with speleothem, sediments, and other paleoclimate indicators from around the globe prove that the current global warming is neither unprecedented nor exceptional.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
I’ll grant you this is a slightly more sophisticated cherry pick, but you have still failed to direct me to a multi proxy dataset that shows that the current warming is not exceptional.

Smokey says:
April 21, 2011 at 6:50 am
Kevin MacDonald says:
“…you have still failed to direct me to a multi proxy dataset that shows that the current warming is not exceptional.”
The current [very mild] warming is not exceptional. Here is a multi-proxy data set of 18 [non-tree ring] proxies showing that fact.
Those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of the repeatedly debunked CAGW fantasy.
Uh, Lohle had to correct paper in 2008 due to data handling errors, so referring to it as “fact” is a little strong. Regardless, even in the erroneous graph you linked to the warming of the last century is the most pronounced.

Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 2:41 am
Kevin MacDonald presumes to criticize an honest scientist for making a mistake, as if he himself is somehow faultless. But of course, we know that is not the case.
This is an outright lie Smokey, you must be getting more desperate. I did not criticize Loehle, I criticized you for using a graphic from a flawed study.

Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 8:14 am
Kevin MacDonald,
You keep calling me a liar, when all I did was direct you to a multi-proxy data set composed of eighteen different proxies from peer reviewed studies.
I don’t keep calling you a liar, I called you a liar once and only then because you lied: I didn’t, as you fallaciously claimed, criticise Loehle, I pointed out that the graphic you referred to as “fact” had since been altered because of data handling errors.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 8:14 am
That data set shows clearly that the current mild, natural warming cycle is not unusual, unprecedented, or out of the ordinary.
That data set stops in 1935, it doesn’t show the current warming at all, here it is with the rest of the 20th added on. You’ll note that the warming from this latter period is not repeated anywhere else in Loehle’s reconstruction making it unusual, unprecedented and out of the ordinary.
Further, here is how Loehle’s reconstruction compares with some other recent reconstructions and here is how the warmest decades in those reconstructions compare to the last decade.

Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
That Skeptical Pseudo-science chart is totally bogus. It attempts to eliminate the MWP and LIA just like the debunked Mann Hokey Stick chart did. Don’t insult our superior inteligence with that kind of fantasy invention. And Ljungqvist’s chart goes right up into the 2000′s, although it’s hard to see at this scale.
The “Skeptical Pseudo-science chart” includes Ljungqyist’s chart which clearly shows that the current warming is unprecedented in the modern era.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
And current temperatures are still far below the natural warming cycles during the Holocene.
Back to the GISP2 cherry pick, and you claimed you weren’t desperate.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
The alarmist crowd got it exactly backward. The major concern is global cooling. And that is just what has been happening for the past decade, as harmless, beneficial CO2 continues rising, while the planet cools, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
The planet has been warming for the last decade.

Smokey says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:06 am
Kevin MacDonald,
Please stop posting those bogus Skeptical Pseudo-Science hokey stick charts. They are exactly the same kind of debunked charts that Michael Mann’s hokey stick chart fabricated, and which Nature was subsequently forced to retract in its Corrigendum. They are a deliberately false misrepresentation of reality that your cartoonist’s pseudo-science blog spoon feeds to the gullible.
Basing your argument on a debunked hokey stick chart fails. The chart you posted is faked. It is completely fabricated, and does not reflect reality. And the aptly named “WFT” site is every cherrypicker’s dream. Forget the fact that the globe is cooling, it’s much more fun to panic over natural climate cycles.
You were the one that, approvingly, introduced Ljungqvis to the discussion, but now you’ve been shown it doesn’t say what you thought it did you dismiss it as “bogus Skeptical Pseudo-Science”. It’s as funny as it is pathetic and sad. Got any more studies you’re hilariously wrong about you’d like to link to?

Smokey says:
April 23, 2011 at 10:11 am
Kevin MacDonald,
Dodging, weaving, and ignoring the central point doesn’t win the debate. I will concede that there is a “carbon” problem if you can provide testable, verifiable evidence of global damage from CO2. Provide the raw data source, and convincingly show us that CO2, specifically, is harming the planet. Because the rise in CO2 is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare.
Nothing else matters. If CO2 is damaging the planet, then prove it per the scientific method. Complete transparency of all data, metadata, methodologies and code is required. With a proposed cost of many $trillions, nothing can be kept secret from the taxpaying public.
Of course, if you can show convincing evidence that CO2 is causing global damage, you will be the first to be able to do so, and you will be on the short list for a [now discredited] Nobel prize. And you will be Algore’s hero!
So show us that mythical global damage caused by CO2 — or be a standup guy and admit that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial minor trace gas. Everything else is just impotent arm-waving.
I didn’t dodge, weave or ignore anything, I addressed the points you raised:
An OLS fit over the entire period is inappropriate for showing any change in the rate of a trend;
Two years data is entirely too little to show if there has been any change in the trend;
The globe has in fact been warming over the last decade;
A single proxy from one location can not accurately reflect the historical temperature record of the whole world;
Loehle’s 2007 reconstruction, which was presented here as “fact, was retracted due to data handling errors;
Both Loehle’s amended paper, released in 2008, and Ljungqvist’s 2010 paper show, contrary to your claims, the current warming and temperatures are unprecedented in the last milennium or two;
A best fit of all Holocene reconstructions suggest it is likely that the current temperatures are the warmest for that period.
In a move that you characterise as not desperate, you are now abandoning all of these claims, throwing down the straw gauntlet and asking me to prove a case that I never made.

Usually do not instantly halt sprinting halfway Part II
If ever the running whenever she quit the movements of bottom limb muscle rhythmic outcome disappeared, as well as gravity, a lot of blood for the short term stranded for the lower limbs, modify thy bloodstream significantly less equivalent decrease in cardiac creation of blood at this time, Hogan Hi-Sprin,the mind? blood circulation correspondingly reduced, the brain will build a moment of ischemia, the infirm to dizziness or perhaps shock may occur. [url=http://www.hoganscarpeuomo.com/hogan-interactive-shoes-goldsliver-p-94.html]Hogan Interactive Shoes Gold/Sliver[/url]
Gravitational shock occurs, patients should be supine, legs increased, remove the collar and massage, the final phenomenon of victims with cerebral ischemia is often lifted, people will shortly be very clear. [url=http://www.hoganscarpeuomo.com/hogan-interactive-shoes-sliverbeige-p-117.html]calzature hogan prezzi
[/url] Hogan sneakers men. To forestall gravity shock, urine remedy before you run, really don’t quickly stop running along the way; run concluded and do not all at once was standing still, should continue being stress-free jogging, walking, and step by step transitionon track.