The dill who wrote "It's as boring and disappointing as discovering New Year's Day vomit on your front doorstep" wants "a more adult post"!

" What's your source?"
In previous threads I gave you the sources for the periods of higher Holocene temperatures. you refused to even look at them. So pass.

Waaaa - they're ganging up on me and asking me to show my sources that I'M CURRENTLY banging on about. Waaaaa!

I mean, if you're going to be a sulky little baby about showing your own sources - then we know not only that your sources are BS, but that YOU know your own sources are BS.

Go away then.

WTF?

mhaze states: "Well actually it was presented as the type of science the follow-the-science crowd refuse to follow. How about you address my actual opinions rather than make them up and then ridicule the non-opinion."

My response was initially to this statement: "For 3000 of the last 12000 years temperatures have been higher than the current temperatures. Do 'followers of science' agree with that science. And if its true, what caused it and why suppose that whatever caused those previous higher temps isn't causing the current high temperatures (if indeed they are high)?

I followed up by saying that scientists do know what caused it. I even named the repository where you could go to verify this.

I am not going to do the academic heavy lifting for you but in summery it is a combination of the Earth's orbital forcing, solar activity, volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.

All of these are measurable today and therefore can be compared to other time periods.

When all factors are considered it is the increases in greenhouse gasses since 1750 that is identified as the major cause of temperature increase.

I don't understand your fascination with a 150 year time block - it seems arbitrary and therefore unscientific.

I did mention that scientist could explain changes for a specific 200 -300 year period.

If anthropological increase in greenhouse gases are contributing to this then it is unprecedented.

As for your opinions: "From that I don't accept that there is any validity in uprooting our society to fight the assumed emergency and most definitely there is no validity in denying modernisation to the still developing peoples so as to fight an unproven threat."

I do not know of anyone (apart from you) who is discussing uprooting society and denying modernisation.

"I don't understand your fascination with a 150 year time block - it seems arbitrary and therefore unscientific."

Max first raised that as a relevant period. I was merely responding to him. Tell him how unscientific it is.

"I do not know of anyone (apart from you) who is discussing uprooting society and denying modernisation."

Well you should get out more. The notion of nett zero is uprooting society.

"I am not going to do the academic heavy lifting for you "

Pretty much what I expected. Make unsupported and unsupportable claims and then refuse to provide even a skerrick of evidence.

BTW Max, check Marcott et al 2013. I checked....this is now the 4th time I've pointed you to that paper. I've pointed you to about a dozen papers on the higher-than-present Holocene papers and you've ignored them all.

BTW WTF?, that's how you do it. If someone disputes your claims you offer proof.

WTF?

mhaze just for you.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279976756_2_Climate_Change_During_the_Holocene_Past_12000_Years

This is just one of many articles on the topic.