GY

Protagoras has not defamed Fred Singer. Mr Singer has long been affiliated with Tobacco Industry lobbyists.

"Tobacco Industry Contractor

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[13]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [14] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[15] "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

Whether or not climate change can be definitively shown to be a direct result of anthropogenic origin, you cannot evade the simple fact that earth's resources are finite, we are polluting the atmosphere, oceans, rivers and over-populating the earth.

OLO

"I asked for comment on a couple of peer-reviewed studies from the southern hemisphere which show the MWP."
Can you please remind me which ones it was? There have been a lot of links here lately.

GrahamY wrote: "This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue." This can be summarised as "Don't put all your money on CO2."

This is just another denialist straw-man as no one in the climate community DOES do put all their money on CO2! Show me an IPCC report that has CO2 as 100% of the climate forcings please, or retract this comment.

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of what you think all this *proves*, even if we accept the MWP the way you read it.

EG: What did this paper conclude about the extent of the MWP and what were these multi-centennial forcings?
What percentage of today's warming do they account for? What ARE these forcings?
What is their summary statement on the physics of Co2 and methane and the Radiative Forcing Equation?
Does it RULE OUT CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) as one of many forcings?
What importance does it assign to these factors?
What are their views on future climate trends?

It seems like you're pointing your finger screaming "LOOK AT THIS WIGGLE" so we don't look at the overall 2000 year climate trend, and the basic physics of Co2 & methane as today's dominant drivers of the Radiative Forcing Equation

It's called reading EVERYTHING in the article you quote, so try this bit.

"Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself."

But maybe reading is not your thing, because this thread has repeatedly discussed the fact that even leading SCEPTICS are warning against trotting out the 1998 argument because you're all going to look like such utter idiots when the temps skyrocket past that!

So because you're having trouble remembering MAJOR points covered in this thread I'll repeat it here.

"At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that El Nino and La Nina cycles can, in the short term at least, disguise the longer term trends and concluded:

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

So I can only feel for you JF Aus. Ooops.

EclipseNow,

I read but don't take in too much in debate here so far because what is being said is mostly a waste of time to both read and consider. It's my point of view that makes it that way for me. Consider my reasoning.

I believe in AGW but I do not believe it is caused by fossil fuel emissions.

In my opinion based on empirical evidence, increased ocean warmth is being caused by increased ocean algae proliferated by unprecedented quantities of sewage nutrients.

A major problem is one sided and incomplete science and media gagging of government dumping. Look at the following example in today's news:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26196453-30417,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/12/2711618.htm?site=news

It seems it is tabu for science to mention government dumped sewage nutrient pollution from entire cities and towns. Amazing.

Eclipse Now, what would your non-scientific, YouTube-informed, layperson's reaction be to a hockey stick effect produced by a total of five specially selected trees from a larger sample that showed no such effect