Of this much I am sure
One side of this debate is wrong, totally so
My side includes science [the ones within climate not the other kind who work in other fields]
And too, bank on it, more are coming to believe in and fear man made climate change
Our mate MHaze will not run out of ammo, him and others get it fed by FoxSky by drip feed
But it remains true, right now the evidence is firm the symptoms there to be seen
Man made climate change is real it threatens us and a day is coming few will not clearly see that truth

Belly,

AGW and it's consequential climate change are not just technical issues. They are also and I think more importantly social and environmental issues. They are issues that require an interdisciplinary approach.

To address the great issues being wrought by AGW we need historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and sociologists just as much as we need climatologists, oceanographers, hydrologists, ecologists, etc. We need the big picture. Scholars and scientists are now working together closely to understand how humans have and are affecting the world.

What we don't want is a bunch of climate witches running around telling everybody they don't have to act on climate change just because the climate witches don't want to spend any money fixing the problem simply because they are acting out of greed and self-interest.

Greta Thunberg is so important to saving the human race from extinction by AGW. Unfortunately I see climate witches gathering in dark corners, intent on doing harm to what she represents.

MR OPINION,
I hear you! Also, because they've just grabbed a few paragraphs from here and there and made nutty assertions about the papers they're misrepresenting, I do wonder what lurkers might make of such a debate. People are so busy today, who has the time to read everything? I know I don't! So their 'headlines' probably do damage with some.

But any time, I mean any time you dig below the surface, they get found out by absolute amateurs like you and I. Every time. Then they're backed into corners and start ranting about how wonderful they are for reading the other side of the 'debate'. There's no debate. There's science, then there's anti science nutters.

Take this Marcot paper he's been making such a fuss over. The study itself concludes that even though they had warm proxies early in the Holocene, we're leaving warm and heading into 'hot' temperatures now.

Then there's the fact that the Marcot data is increasingly being questioned. The proxies may have been summer biased proxies, not relying on information that might have been trapped in winter. Newer studies that incorporate winter proxies seem to suggest a milder post-ice-age climate more in line with the computer models.
http://skepticalscience.com/research-resolve-holocene-conundrum.html

But MHAZE isn't interested in what the papers really say, just cheap sound-byte quotes from his cheap tinfoil hat sources and taking the occasional strawman shot at us. What. A. Troll.

Max Green,

We need to include a discussion of the psychology behind the actions and thoughts of the AGW denialists. I've summed this up as them being climate witches. I must admit I'm quite proud of myself for coming up with the term 'climate witch' to define them. A real feather in my cap so to speak.

As I just said to Belly, we need the big picture stuff to understand how the human, natural and physical worlds play out over time. That's why I suggested to you earlier about reading some of the books by Brian Fagan.

Forget arguing with the climate witches. Their only usefulness is that of giving us something to make fun of. We just need to make sure they don't try to work their evil magic on little Greta Thunberg. We can't let anything bad happen to her, she's like a Madonna. We must be vigilant against the climate witches who lurk in dark corners.

"I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't.."

and you claim to be taking it in context.

IN CONTEXT....

read your posts for a few days prior to the link I sent. IN CONTEXT, you were running around telling all and sundry to "do the maths", that McKibben wrote about. You ridiculed others for not knowing about or accepting the 'math' and time and again asserted that the number McKibben had derived was the only answer. 'do the math' over and over, belittling all in your path.
So I did the math knowing full well that if McKibben was involved it was BS. And it was BS. And I could prove it was BS and I did prove it was BS. And when I did so you folded like a cheap suit.

That's the CONTEXT that you want so hard to hide.

" But you still haven’t proved your assertions about the MWP or Roman period etc. "

How can I when you refuse to look at the data. Or is that too logical for you?

"On Marcot(sic): blah blah ...McIntyre...blah blah...WUWT...blah blah...copy paste....blah blah...tin foil-hat... blah blah."

"Whatever your source, it’s just more tinfoil hat land cherry-picking. "

This is really funny....my source was...wait for it....RealClimate...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Have you ever considered stopping and thinking as you swap the foot in your mouth over?

This is my fourth for the day and my last for this thread. Between Max not being able to make a coherent statement without putting his foot in it, O not knowing what a coherent statement is, and Belly constantly hoping that next year his fact-free views will be vindicated...enough.

mhaze aka Context Boy currently serving as 2IC of a local coven of climate witches has just declared '............ and my last [comment] for this thread.' Yeah sure, promises, promises!