What a joke! The flea demanding references to the science relied upon, and saying “one or two papers do not prove your case.Please provide appropriate URLs.”
This from an ignoramus who has no science to justify his support of the baseless “human caused climate change”. No science, much less urls.
All references from the flea are in respect of extreme weather events not shown to have any causal link or in respect of warming attributed to human emissions, despite the fact that he has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.This
Is the ignoramus demanding references to science. He referred us to an article by a journalist about whom a scientist has written an article:
” You've heard of pseudoscience, of course. Well, Chris Mooney is a pseudoscientific writer. He twists and bends and remolds data any way he can to come to the "proper" conclusion.”
https://cei.org/blog/yes-pseudoscience-writer-chris-mooney-dishonest

Yes, Chris Mooney is a great find for the flea.

Leo

You are a comedian.

When you can provide evidence that the 11 year ARM study which measured CO2 interaction with radiated infrared long waves then you may have a point. The source of CO2 can be identified. In the past I have provided a reference directed at children in relation to isotopes.

Science AAAS publishes science papers from a great number of science disciplines, it is a premier source of science papers and includes papers in relation to climate science.

You say you were a lawyer; and so, have no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.
Climate science has Physics and Chemistry as its basis.

I always look forward to your nonsense comments.

ant,

One paper might not be enough to satisfy you since you really don't want it to be true. Very scientific approach! Might I point out that you haven't offered one skerrick of evidence to justify your claim that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Not a passing attempt at even fudging a defence of that most ridiculous of assertions. Very scientific approach!

You want more proof? OK:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

1. (dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658,
2. (blue) Vostok ice core, Petit J. R et al
3. (light blue) GISP2 ice core, Alley, R. B et al
4 (green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Thompson, L. G.et al
5. (yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC,North Atlantic: Lea, D. W.et al
6. (orange) Pollen distributions, Europe: B. A. S. Davis et al
7. (red) EPICA ice core, EPICA community members (2004)
8. (dark red) Composite sediment cores, Western Tropical Pacific: L. D. Stott et al

The black line is the average of the others.

I'd call it convincing.You'd call it inconvenient and therefore you'll pretend it doesn't exist. Still it'll be fun to see what gymnastics you go through to try to convince yourself that you have adopted a scientific approach to this inconvenient data. The one thing we can be sure of is this new (for you) data won't cause you to even think twice about your religious beliefs.

I'll wait to see your counter URLs. As if....

mhaze

You need to provide peer reviewed papers to support your graph.
The graph is meant to say"Your wrong". A graph from a denier is pretty meaningless; Monckton has produced some humdingers in the past and has been caught out.

Thompson L et al is one of the references you provided, Lonnie Thompson believes firmly that anthropogenic climate change is happening. He had been interviewed for the series Denial 101x.
Lonnie Thompson's name was recognised through having done the course.

So much more information about the graph is needed, though climate science does not hang on the point you are trying to make.

Actually ant, I don't need to provide you with more peer reviewed data. So far I've provided you with the MArcott 2013 paper and now this graph which summaries 8 different raw temperature databases for the period in question. I could provide you with the peer reviewed studies for each of the databases but that'd be futile since you really aren't interested in the facts anyway.

The graph isn't mine. Its been put together by wikimedia from the data in each of the studies in question.

I appreciate that you don't want it to be true and will therefore pretend it isn't. So be it. Frankly, the fact you didn't know any of this simply shows how superficial has been your 'research' on climate matters. Childish even.

I note that you still haven't been able to provide ANY evidence that might support your initial ludicrous claims but will leave it there

mhaze

If that is what you rest your case on then it is very pathetic. Wikipedia is not a stringent peer reviewed reference; metaphorically bugs bunny could have provided the graph.

Just lately, a well known climate scientist has stated the El Nino we have experienced was not a strong one; he stated that it has been the strong greenhouse effect that has mostly caused all the damage around the planet. Without any kind of peer reviewed paper written, his comment is neither proven nor disproven, its in limbo.
The same status as your stand alone graph.

We have discussed the Marcott paper previously; I gave a quote from Science AAAS, which you stated was fraudulent, have you registered with Science AAAS to check the quote out?

You did not comment on the WUWT inverted graph of Arctic sea ice extent, mhaze.
It is complete garbage.

Something else to consider the number of Category 5 cyclones that have been experienced and when in time they impacted.
The sun is in a dimming phase at present which means the climate should have cooled; however, even Drs Spence and Christy have indicted temperature has increased. A reference has been provided earlier.

Video titled " HOW CO2 TRAPS SUN'S WARMTH "

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth