Hasbeen and Kalin1,

You have both posed questions to me that deserve a response. I am sorry that I have had to waste a post in explaining something to spindoc that I thought did not need explaining. I was wrong.

If you don’t mind, I will engage with your questions later in the week (I am busy with more pressing matters at the moment).

I am sure other OLO'ers would have things to say with regards though.

However, let me say this:

Hasbeen
The MWP and LIA are there. There are quite a few proxy reconstructions and they all don’t just rely on pine cone data, and they all show the so called ‘hockey sticks’.

The scientists are not as stupid as you imply, they are aware of missing data and compensate for this. No, they don't make stuff up - it would destroy their careers.

Kalin1
<< Are you saying most scientists do not believe the planet is about to undergo a 'catastrophic' tipping point? >>

Yes, but I have to qualify.
Your other questions and this will have to be left till later.
Thanks

Some warmie said:
"This is about risk mitigation and spelling out scenarios based on actions taken now. It's about drawing up the possibilities, and weighing out various options. It's NOT about crystal ball gazing."

Ah "precaution" and "just in case". Now that is real science. Let's assume that after 5 billion years our world may be coming to an end because of SUV gas and plant food. How is that an exact science you goofs?
You Greenzis are terrorizing our civilized culture and sending us all back to a new Dark Age of ignorance fearing the unknown.

Please explain.
What is the problem with Global warming?
Is it that the Ice cap will melt?
Is it that the seas will rise?
What is the problem with that?
Is it that there will be more storms in the Tropics?
Won't that mean more rain, more fresh water?
Won't the extra rain extend the lush growth in the tropics?
If the ice cap retreats won't that open up more arable land in Nth. America & Siberia, etc?

On the fascinating Q&A geologist or not geologist issue, I have to confess I too misread the original post, and I believe it is an understandable mistake. I have noticed many such misunderstandings in the exchanges that happen here. Communication is easier to get wrong than right in my experience. Let me be clear: I am not accusing Q&A of any negligence or error, and agree that “acknowledge and move on” is appropriate. However, as there are obviously no stringent publication guidelines in an Op Shop like OLO, it is easy for such miscommunication to occur. A longer quote, such as that posted by Q&A would customarily be indented, and in some cases - usually more in the case of quoting dialogue - quotation marks might be used at the beginning of each paragraph. I can clearly see the closing "s, but on initial reading I confess I "read" only the first para as the quote. I don’t think anyone here always has the time to write (or to read) to academic standards.

The bigger issue is this: this understandable misreading led to the following, and I quote, from Protagoras:

"Such underhanded and unprincipled behaviour on your part Spindoc ( manipulating information and misquoting another poster to benefit your slimy agenda) will earn you a place in the hall of infamy at the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute. That’s what they thrive on - sycophantic parasites like you to spread lies and skulduggery ."

Getting the picture? It speaks so much for the broader conduct of debate on these issues. The slightest human mistake by the 'evil' side is blown into conspiratorial proportions and moral judgments, while the "good" side remain blind to their own errors and, particularly in Protag's case, hypocrisy. Thus, if I acted like Porthog (shiver!), I could accuse Q&A's citation of being grossly deceptive and draw whatever wild conclusion about him I wished, etc, etc...(I am not). I am amazed, Q&A, however, that you feel comfortable defending her response.

The shame is that people like Porthog only do more damage to the cause they are supposedly fighting for. She has just alienated mememine (whose frustration I sympathise with and commend her for having the courage to express), a person who evidently places value on the environment and conservation, but has, I believe, correctly identified the transmutation of environmental care into something altogether different – it’s dark superego antihuman underbelly. Research by an eco marketing company (?) recently arrived at the same conclusion and advised the enviro movement that its communications were off-message and driving people away. I have sensed this myself. But it's up to you guys to think about that.

More importantly, I think the issues that might be realistically and rationally addressed through careful policy get lost against the noise and hissy-steria of such rubbish. I imagine that Protag was the kind of kid who if Daddy poured too much milk on her rice bubbles, would scream at his evilness, and proceed to smear the walls with poop (and probably then deny it). I use the word "poop" advisedly as I believe her posts on the white space of OLO are little more than a sublimated form of same. Her anti-everything, and simplistic breakdown into good and evil, amounts to little more than a tyrannical judgment on all that has come before her, on the forefathers (and mothers) who gave her the world she so moralistically and hypocritically takes for granted. I'll smear my poop everywhere, but I'm innocent - I never poured too much milk on anyone's rice bubbles. End result: Daddy doesn’t hear the request for less milk, and heaps of poop on the walls! I apologise for my momentary lapse of patience and tolerance - if I was her father, I might have a little more, indeed would need volumes. But keep going Protag, you have taken over dickie’s role and are doing a better job at driving people away than we “evil” side could do ourselves.

The planet hater’s diatribe is worthy of a response if only to address the errors peddled by a phony who bears a fanatical grievance against those who object to his defilement of the environment.

Errors:

Error 1: Fungo, to perpetuate mischief, has conveniently ignored Q&A’s opening to the quotation:

“Professor Malcolm Walter, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, concludes:” (note the colon)

Error 2: Fungo states: “A longer quote, such as that posted by Q&A would customarily be indented,”

Since the advent of the computer, paragraph indentations have not been used, therefore it is no longer customary. Indents are redundant and obsolete - just like Fungo.

Error 3: “and in some cases - usually more in the case of quoting dialogue - quotation marks might be used at the beginning of each paragraph. I can clearly see the closing "s, but on initial reading I confess I "read" only the first para as the quote.”

“On initial readings?” Give us a break. It is correct about the quotation marks being used at paragraph beginnings, however, Professor Walter’s transcript was provided by Q&A to support the quote. Neither Spindoc or Fungo read it but then truth is the enemy of ammo-seeking eco-terrorists, is it not?

Fungo’s “initial reading” commenced only after Spindoc’s blunder and he now uses Q&A’s informed post to further his and Spindoc's malevolent and rancorous attack on those who post only for the common good.

And what were his closing remarks about? Some four hundred and forty five words to tell us about Daddy pouring too much milk on the rice bubbles and Protag smearing poop everywhere? Noise and hissy-steria of such rubbish? Heaps of poop on the walls?

Such psychopathic catatonics are common from our resident troll who continues to produce reams of vile, insipid, stupefying swill. A hate-filled sink of irrelevance, desperately clinging to a medieval status quo to protect the vested interests of the greed merchants and their gratuitous carnage of the Earth’s fragile ecosystems.