Max, for over 30 years, the public in every western country have been absolutely bombarded with a supposedly "scientific" argument in the media, that rising CO2 levels would, in only a very short period of time, cause temperatures to rise, which would cause sea levels to rise, which would drown the polar bears, cause the arctic to disappear, flood entire lowland coastal cities, and completely drown entire island nations. And you claim that climate scientists can not be blamed for any of these laughably wrong media statements? That bird won't fly, Max. If climate scientists did not agree with the media advocacy on behalf of their "science", and opposed these supposedly misleading media statements, why did they not correct them?

There are many reasons why the climate changes. But most of them like Malankovich cycles and continental drift apply only in terms of tens of thousands or millions of years. The regular, repeating 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling can only be caused by another factor, and the only possible factor that could conform is the differing intensities of solar radiation.

The reason why climate scientists believed in the 70's that the earth was headed for a new ice age was because the historical record of warming and cooling indicated that these periods had a ten cycle life span between ice ages. And they counted the previous 9 since our last ice age, noted that global temperatures were falling from 1940-1970, and wrongly concluded that we were headed for an ice age.

Quite simple really and easily verifiable. But there is no way to convince a flat earther who needs to believe that white, western civilisation is destroying the planet, and who is so insecure in his own opinions that he stubbornly refuses to even look at any evidence to the contrary. That is why the HIGW argument is losing ground, the sceptics are no longer being regarded as kooks, and their logical arguments are becoming more mainstream.

Lego, hear, hear, again another direct hit which unfortunately will be answered with tonnes of well worn response to the contrary.
I think it is inevitable that there will always be an opposing force in any debate or discussion.
What I am finding increasingly frustrating, is the language adopted by the alarmists.
That is; that they have concluded that they are right and that everyone out there agree's with them.
I truly hope the truth will out, and soon, although I doubt it, there are some very wealthy people behind such huge and daring scams.
It's a pity we won't be able to rub their faces in it when the time comes, I doubt they will show their faces anyway.

LEGO:
>“And you claim that climate scientists can not be blamed for any of these laughably wrong media statements?”
Which ones? Most media reports I see accurately reflect the science. Your Denialist echo-chambers put on their tinfoil hats and trudge up the 1% of media reports that are exaggerations or taken out of context. Prove me wrong! Go ahead and quote the particular media report that’s bugging you the most? Which one of your copy and paste ‘failed climate predictions’ many pages back actually quotes a scientific report or actual scientist I can trace back, rather than just “European scientists.” I thought I answered most of them for you? Unless you just didn't read my answers. What a surprise!

>”why did they not correct them?”
THEY DID! And I showed you them correcting some of the media releases! But hey, you really read those links didn’t you? (You’re starting to look like a “Rotater” LEGO.)

1000 year cycles: sorry, but I don’t buy that you’re qualified to make pronouncements of anything on this subject. There are peer reviewed papers as to the cause of the RWP and MWP, and REAL climatologists have studied and are studying various climate proxies for these periods to determine what happened.

You have UTTERLY failed to understand the “Ice Age cometh” scares, and it makes me wonder if you really watched the video you said you watched.

Before I waste any more of my life interviewing you about your own subjective impressions about why you-thought-they-thought an ice age was coming, how about we look at what HISTORY says happened in 1970’s climate science?
Please answer these 2 questions from this source: http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

1. What were the names of the main climatologists that proposed an ice age coming?
2. Why did they think that?

Then these 2 from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider#Early_work
3. What date did he RETRACT his paper? Answer on his wiki here
4. How many years was his paper live before it was recanted?

Well Max, you've finally jumped the shark...

But first:
"you just a summary of the climate work of every National Academy of Science on this planet "Rubbish". Good job! Way to respect science! ;-)"

Well no. The none of the various NAS have made a statement about the values of the climate budget rubbish. You, as usual, are confused.

"Don't misquote me. Originally I said I wished we wouldn't burn any more coal, that 2 degrees was too much, and Bill McKibben said it was "worse odds than Russian roulette."

Well tnat's an out and out lie. Indeed if you look up the original thread where you introduced this rubbish, you never mention this 'roulette' stuff. That was later after you'd come to realise that you had made a fool of yourself and was trying to find a way to salvage some self-respect. In the first thread you were talking about the number being exact and calculated. For example, and this is just one of many possible examples.... "565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees".

"Now the IPCC has moved it to 1.5 degrees. "

They went to 1.5c because they realised that, even under business as usual predictions, we were unlikely to get to 2c and therefore the great scare was a myth. So they had to go to 1.5c to maintain the scare. There is no conclusive science about 1.5c

"No matter how much you bitch that they 'haven't done the math', they have and the message is clear."

Well they didn't and even your own sources show that. That you don't even understand your own sources is telling.

"denying there was any 'probability' in the Climate Sensitivity models"

I never denied there were probabilities. That's just something you made...again. What I said was that there was no such thing as a calculated highest probability which was something else you just made up....again.

Jumped the shark? well...." I've published magazine articles on peak oil and lead groups that have briefed politicians."

Max, we've already got one fantasist who makes up credentials because he can't link to logical thoughts together and has to support his dotty ideas with fake degrees (how ya doing Mr O?).
Now we have Max making up credentials because he made claims about peak oil and he simply doesn't have the wherewithal to argue his case.

I'm just amazed that people think these fantasies carry any weight.

I just don't respond to anything the moronic O says because he offers nothing other than his false expertise.

I guess you're in the same boat. What a shame!

MHAZE,

>>Well no. The none of the various NAS have made a statement about the values of the climate budget rubbish. You, as usual, are confused.

Dude, every NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET endorses the IPCC's findings as well as adding their own words of caution about how urgent it is that we wean off fossil fuels ASAP.

"Climate budget rubbish"... Now I'm guessing you're going to play super-specific semantic games around what numbers each NAS has submitted you predictable little troll.

But it is OBVIOUS that every NAS takes climate change seriously and wants the world to stop it!

"Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_(general_science)

What was that? "Urging nations to reduce emissions"

ROYAL SOCIETY NZ! "Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[64]"

EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION
"On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."

INTERACADEMY COUNCIL
" Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[75]"

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
"...most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible."

That's right MHAZE, every academy above said we should dilly dally and fart around until we get the numbers EXACTLY RIGHT! ;-)