You don't realise that people lose faith in a theory which fails to predict simple climate outcomes. There mere fact that a prominent climate scientist in the CRU UK said snow would be a thing of the past is apparently not relevant to you - you go on believing. You don't question his scientific credibility.

Mann's "hockey stick" graph was great example of mathematical tom foolery. It was shown to give a rising temp no matter what figure you put in, - But that is still OK with you. A mathematician has written a book on this very topic, but you didn't know about it, apparently.

"The real debate should include people who are actually trained in and understand the various disciplines that comprise climate science"
But they aren't included in the debate if they don't take the oath of allegiance??. eg Richard Lindzen, Climate Physicist.

"It continues to snow in Kosciusko so AGW is negated
Oh, right then!"
No, it has continued to snow in Kosciusko so what is wrong with the models? According to you nothing - when they are wrong they are also right.

You're a believer and believers don't care about facts. They still believe.

Are you claiming that Mann "wasn't" exonerated?

Or that subsequent research papers on the subject haven't validated his findings?

Poirot
Actually Mann himself has conceded his original hockey stick was in error, albeit without actually saying so. If you look in the 2007 IPCC report there is a modified hockey stick by Mann with several discrete bumps where the medieval warming period (MWP) should be. Basically the debate ended there as the original hockey stick was meant to get rid of the MWP and, in that new analysis, it had reappeared.

Subsequent attempts to defend Mann have emphasised that the stick showed warming in the last few decades. That's the vindication you're pointing to. However, every analysis of proxy temperature measurements before and since have also agreed on that point - climatic conditions are warm at the mo - but they also had the MWP.

Mann's new analysis suggests that the MWP may not have been as strong as others suggest, but as he was wrong the first time around it is difficult to take him seriously. Global warmers have let the matter drop, as should you.

This reference provides a unique Understanding of the situation we are all in. And yes the author tells us that both global warming and climate change are created by human beings. Just by our sheer force of numbers and our powerful technologies.
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
Plus supporting arguments re the situation we are in, or have created in both our ignorance and hubris.
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Wow Robert have you found some evidence the so called climate scientists have not been able to find? If so rush off & give it to the poor buggers, you could save them having to continually refer to their failed computer models to invent some.

If you want to study denial Robert, you're looking the wrong way. There is now so much evidence proving CO2 is a very minor bit player in the earth temperature story, that the warmist scientists have got the denial mill cranking like never before seen.

Hell there is now so much evidence of CO2 being a non event that shortly even Poirot will have to admit, if only to herself under her breath, that the whole thing is dead. In fact it's been dead & rotting so long that it might be the smell she notices first, seeing as she won't read any of the evidence placed before her.

Perhaps you two could get together & have a good cry that your dream of Armageddon is no more, except in some warmists computer.

(Post 1 of 2)

On the question of “dangerous human induced climate change”, whether one favours this expert or that, it must be recognised that a weight of opinion among experts is not enough to be convincing – it has been unreliable in the past. At one time the weight of scholarly opinion held that the earth was flat!

If the fossil fuelled consumerism of rich countries is actually so out of balance with nature as to be the cause of a phenomenon like global warming, we would expect to see it causing other problems too. So is there other corroborating evidence in other things we see for ourselves?

If the way we live is a serious problem, those with a particular investment in consumerism might reject climate change and be keen to isolate it from less debatable evidence – like salination of the land, soil loss, air and water pollution, habitat and species loss et cetera.

We are social beings by nature – so is there evidence of social imbalance becoming so critical as to threaten life to the extent that global warming is said to?

If social imbalance is becoming critical there would be an emergence of winners and losers. We might see “winners” developing a new “ethic”, like that “greed is good” and developing an economy that encourages it. But we should not be surprised when an economy which rewarded such madness became unstable as a result.

We might also see an endless quest to fill a hole that cannot be filled by consumption, increasing levels of personal, family and community breakdown, disenchantment with materialism, depression, loss of hope and even suicide.

As a global phenomenon we might start to see critical social division in poorer nations where people started risking their lives and even the lives of their children to escape to somewhere better.


(Continued in post 2 of 2)

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all