The hockey stick is wrong and result of bad science.

[jbfrodsham]

This hockystick was used on the Australian climate change web site. It now has been removed as of Dec 2008. No explaination, it was just removed. I am sick, sick, sick and tired of being lied to.

[jbfrodsham]

Albertkallal: Thank you so much for the time and effort you have taken in posting your videos. You are one of the good guys. :-)

[SouthParkBear]

"I won't say they lied, they just didn't disclose this fundamental weakness of the original result."

Yeah, THAT'S LYING.

[practicepants]

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics, not a climate scientist. This video is so full of misinformation, I don't know where to begin. He evewn has his facts wrong about the meaning of the Hockey Stick graph - the correlation of CO2 and temp rise caused the Hockey stick shape in the graph. The data from the tree rings was divergent from this.

So Prof McK destroys his own argument when re:Bristlecone Pines he says, "you shouldn't use them for temperature reconstructions". Doh!

[Albertkallal]

Fortunately you have failed miserably to point out what factual evidence presented in this video is incorrect. There's virtually no one left that can with a straight face support the methodology used and mathematics used to produce that graph. In fact the algorithm used pretty much produces that graph if you put in random noise. The whole thing is a joke and is disrespectful to the science community. It is simply an amazing display of dishonesty to come here to attempt to support such garbage

[Albertkallal]

The idea that you going to attempt to support the methodologies used for this hooky stick graph is beyond laughable. No self-respecting scientist of any caliber would ever accept this type of garbage science. Why make an assumption that when the data goes the way you don't want then you dump some tree data and THEN OUT OF BLUE use instrument data? There is no way to know why the change occurred and if tree ring data cannot be trusted in the latter years then why trust them in the former years?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal You have just said precisely nothing. Give us some facts, not opinions. Demobstrate that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

[Albertkallal]

It is WIDE known fact that tree data at some arbitrary point was dropped and graph continues with instrument data. This is NOT speculation on my part but factual evidence found by anyone with Google in 2 seconds (except for you!). Hockey stick is based on poor assumptions without merit and such tree data is effected by rain or even wildlife grazing patterns. Garbage hockey stick science has failed basic review and not what's worse the science or you attempting to support such garbage science.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Yes, the tree ring data had those factors added in to it. This is 'Mike's nature trick' that the deniers love to distort so much. So you disagree with McKitrick then - very glad to hear you are not taken in by the complete misrepresentation he makes in this video.

As for the hockey stick graph, are you suggesting CO2 has not risen in correlation with global temperature rise? Google the SCIENCE(not right wing blogs and opinions) and find out the facts for yourself.

[Albertkallal]

There are many factors that can change and distort the ring data that are assumed by Mann. So no I don't disagree with McKitrick at all. As for the rising co2 and a math correlation? No such a correlation does NOT exist and you would have to explain why co2 continues to rise and yet temperature rise has stopped for 10+ years now in our hemisphere. The temperature rise due to man's co2 is very weak and is not a problem nor is it anything near as claimed by the IPCC and these socialist fraudsters.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Climate is, for obvious reasons, measured in 30 year periods to dtermine a trend. 1998 was an El NIno year so, when combined with the global temperature rise, was exceptionally hot - the hottest on record. Look at temperature rise and CO2 rise since the 1700s. The correlation is blindingly obvious as the graph you get will show a very definite hockey stick.

Your mention of 'socialists fraudsters' is a dead give away that your opinion is based on politics not science.

[Albertkallal]

We cooled from 1945 to 1975 during the huge post war industrialization with huge co2 increase. Temperatures been higher in the past with lower levels of co2 and been lower in the past with higher levels of co2. There is NOT a mathematical correlation between man's co2 and rising temperatures. Been warming for 10,000 years and WE SPECIFICALLY TALKING about this particular hockey stick graph not some other graph. No models predicted or explained the halt in rising temperatures we see today.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal "We cooled from 1945 to 1975 during the huge post war industrialization with huge co2 increase... but localised to the Northern Hemisphere, where we were filling the air with aerosols(which cause cooling)" Fixed your comment.

The amount of sulphate aerosols was curbed in order to prevent acid rain, but long term CO2 would have dominated that effect anyway. The important thing is to look at the trend, not one 30 year period. From 1800 - present, the world has warmed significantly

[Albertkallal]

So cooling period from 1885 to 1915 was also aerosols too? So now it not that we MUST use a 30 year period as you claim (too funny!) but we must pick YOUR cherry picked 30 year period then? (even more funny!). Warming 1915-45 is from man's co2 then? This so funny just like hockey stick - if it goes your way it must be man's co2 but wrong way we switch to another dataset! No math correlation here and man's co2 is NOT driving temperature as claimed by taxing governments and Mr. co2 trading Gore.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Umm....I haven't 'cherry picked' any period. You have - twice. Ask yourself, how much cooling was there 1885-1915 in relation to the TREND of the last 150 yrs? Temp has gone up in correlation with rising human generated CO2. This is VERY well documented. This IS the scientific consensus.

Once again, you give away your political motivations by wittering on about taxes and Al Gore. Look at the SCIENCE, not the politics.

[Albertkallal]

Every skeptic from Monckton, Glenn Beck, Dr. Christy etc all agree that man's co2 can contribute to warming. Such consensus is moot since we can't see this warming effect beyond noise in temperature data. The IPCC claims and models have ALL been wrong and ALL HAVE FAILED to predict and even explain the current stop in warming while co2 continues to increase. Climate community blew all credibility by making co2 the devil and failing accept that man's co2 is not MAJOR driver of climate as claimed

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal "Every skeptic from Monckton, Glenn Beck, Dr. Christy etc all agree that oil companies pay really good wages" Fixed your comment for you.

The climate is warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 has caused warming in the Earth's past. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The ONLY realistic explaination for the current trend is human activity. This IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Like I keep repeating to you - learn the science, not the political disinformation campaign.

[Albertkallal]

You are try to make the case that Beck, Monckton, Al Gore all accept co2 can trap heat energy ALSO means a consensus on how man's co2 is driving temperatures and this is not the case. Man's co2 output is only 3% compared to nature. Your so called consensus predicted CONTINUES warming for last 10 years and they were WRONG. Why trust these people and why are YOU moving the goal post on THEIR behalf when they did not explain nor predict the halt in rising temperatures for the last 10 years?

[Albertkallal]

You are asking me to accept some authority based on faith. There is well over 30 gross errors in Gore's movie yet your science consensus signed off on this movie and voted Gore a Nobel Prize`. Just point me to a web site run by your consensus that corrects these errors (you cannot do this). That means peer review and the self-correcting science you claim been tossed out in the name of politics. Until you show me where this consensus corrected Gore's errors you don't have a leg to stand on.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Ok go to realclimate. org. There you can find out that 99% of deniers claims are non-scientific and easily debunked, plus they give you all the links to publicly available peer reviewed science.

Also you might want to look into how many denier lines of argument originate from The George Marshall Institute or The Frasier Institute - both Exxon funded 'think tanks'.

[m1aws]

@practicepants So I've just done a whois on your site:

Name:Betsy Ensley

Organization:Environmental Media Services

This is falsely an org, it is a "for profit think tank" organ like the rest. They are all funded by the Gov't. The biggest, most biassed funding organisation of them all.

[practicepants]

@m1aws Seriously? Is that meant to be any kind of argument? What does that even mean?

Whatever you think or claim the motivations of this site to be, it still gives you the links to hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed research papers and dozens of other sites, that give you the scientific truth - including those of Nasa, the American Ocenographic Institute, the British Antarctic Survey and many many more. So I take it they're all in on the conspiracy too?

[m1aws]

@practicepants Haha! You mean peer to peer reviewed papers. Like kids marking their own work. Thats bad science.

9,000 PhD's say AGW is pants against less than 44 who work on the game. Go figure. Consensus done.

Follow the money tree. George Soros and Gov'ts are funding this for the carbon tax ponzi scam. Pachauri is a bankster and the forum contributors are making excuses in an attempt to appear anything but stupid.

[practicepants]

@m1aws So are you saying scientific research should be reviewed by non-scientists who don't understand what they're reviewing? Brainless.

As for your 9000 PhDs vs 44 who work in the game. Please tell me you're not referring to the OISM petition of 'scientists'. If you think there is no consensus on AGW, you are living in a fantasy world.

And in your final statement, you give away the motivation for your fantasies. You are concerned about politics, not science.

[m1aws]

@practicepants Hell no!! Do you think I'm in the IPCC or something?

I know the consensus. It's follow the money or lose your job, your grants and your standing. How many times has that happened now?

AGW is the fantasy driven by a political agenda. Ever since I started reading up as a believer I've now found out its not even got one ounce of basic common sense behind it.

htt p://arxiv org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/07­07.1161v4 pdf

[practicepants]

@m1aws Saying it's about grants, taxes, politics is completely irrelevant. Don't confuse political arguments with scientific ones.

Here is the consensus simplified. Has the planet warmed since the industrial revolution? Yes. Have human beings put increasing amounts of carbon in the atmosphere in the same period? Yes. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes since 1896. Is there any other explanation for the warming? No. Is there evidence for human activity causing warming? Yes. It is that simple.

[m1aws]

@practicepants It is you who is confused, sadly. If your beloved Exxon is the only source of funds for grants, you know the outcome. The Gov't funds grants, same goes.

The planet has been warming far before the industrial revolution. look at old iceshelf calving maps. The rate has not increased.

CO2 is barely a warming gas. If so, that 0.2W/m^2 has first to heat the air, then heat the oceans averaging 3.5mile deep then melt the Arctic but not the Antarctic.

All is cooling, air, land & oceans.

[m1aws]

@practicepants The paper:

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner (2009) Rev. 4

The Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics.

115 pages long and utterly destroys those IPCC lunatics.

[practicepants]

@m1aws and here's a paper htt p://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/p­df/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf that utterly destroys that paper. I'm sure I could find dozens more.

[m1aws]

@practicepants Oh! you mean that paper proves you CAN brwak the second law of thermodynamics! wow!

I want a can of it for my bedroom.

[practicepants]

@m1aws The second law of thermodynamics operates in an ISOLATED physical system. I'm getting bored of this now.

[m1aws]

@practicepants You are simply saying there is a heat pump based in some weird pseudo science dimension. you cannot win this. I've just seen your non-published paper that refutes this one. Pity it did not answer the facts.

The <3.5% of total light absorption in our thin atmosphere has to heat air then the Earth and the oceans, then the Arctic at ever increasing rates. All the while pretending the H2O absorption is not in the way?

Would you like to buy my walmart heirloom watch for $100K ?

[practicepants]

@m1aws Can't get a link to come up, but google Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner. the arrogance of physicists, for a site made by physicists, explaining why this paper is flawed. It is not considered credible by most in their own field.

[m1aws]

@practicepants I've read it! 115 pages. They say they have an answer to it. I've read those and they do not.

CO2 absorption of light at 5250K is negligible due to H2O in the way and the re-transmitted light around +250K covers 0.2W/m^2 has first got to heat all the atmosphere (where no clouds). Then the land. Then all the oceans averaging around 3.5miles deep. Before it can melt the Arctic but not the Antarctic.

You cannot get away from this fact. Merry Xmas!

[practicepants]

@m1aws If you say so. Many physicists disagree, Using Physics, it's also possible prove that Bumblebees can't fly.

Merry Christmas!

[m1aws]

@practicepants That is so true! The 1930's zubzub bee was official: 600mph!

They can't get their heads over the fact prions appear to move faster than light. CERN proves there's no higs bogus particle. Light has mass but can travel through a perfect vacuum adding no mass. It's endless.

The Earths magnetosphere is well over 500M miles across which harvests up to 10W/m^2 of electrical energy from the Sun. That is more power than received light and heat. No wonder the Earth is still molten!

[practicepants]

@m1aws So has your debunked physicist won a Nobel Prize yet? I mean if he submitted a paper that over-turned 29,000 peer reviwed scientific papers and over a hundred years of accepted science, one would expect that he'd win one. He hasn't. Hmmm....funny that.

[m1aws]

@practicepants Who is that you are on about. Einstein?

Don't you mean peer to peer reviewed papers?

A hundred years of accepted science? There are maps of Canada going back to the mid 1700's showing where the glaciers were calving. They have been updated through the decades how far back they have melted.

1700's. Get it?

[practicepants]

@m1aws It seems you don't understand the peer review process, you don't understand the facts about ice sheets and glaciers in recorded history, you don't understand how long standing greenhouse effect theory is and you don't understand that your claim that one debunked contrarian paper, does not 'utterly destroy' climate science.

Are you really that wilfully ignorant? Do you work for Exxon too, like your friends McKitrick and Monckton?

[m1aws]

@practicepants What do you know? You cannot even understand me!

I don't give a monkey's about your lying politics. There are plenty of blogs out there continuously taking the p1ss out of the warmists by simply digging out the warmists graphs and data. I'm amazed people like you can even imagine GW never mind AGW!

Woodfortrees org Shows global cooling (air) for the past 11 yrs. except for GISS crap. Sea's are cooling and dropping. Ice is nominal. Nome in Greenland is cut off from fuel supplies!

[practicepants]

@m1aws Blogs cherry picking data are not science. You confuse politics with science not me. The 'facts' you've just stated are quite simply wrong. The oil companies have openly stated they are trying to discredit AGW science that harms their profits. Sadly they are succeeding in their aims.You are being fooled, or you're working for them.

I suggest you learn what is accepted science and what is under debate, what is politics and what is science and wake up to reality.

[m1aws]

@practicepants 44 PhD's work for AGW and 9,000 PhD's said it was a crock. That's consensus!

Don't talk to me about cherry picking! Your lot are reduced to cold is the new ho agenda! AGW theory is floundering. Even Hansens aerosol theory has fell on its face this past three years on the trot! He couldn't even get Venus right.

AGW theory is specifically funded by Gov'ts to the tune of billions! Therefore its political. My personal profits are harmed in taxation paying for science whores.

[practicepants]

@m1aws "44 PhD's work for AGW and 9,000 PhD's said it was a crock." - completely untrue. 9000 PhDs in what? Maths? Economics? Medicine? If you want to know what the real dissent is about AGW, it is that Gov'ts are playing down the seriousness of it. You will find a lot more scientists saying we are not considering secondary factors such as methane release.

"AGW theory is specifically funded by Gov'ts to the tune of billions!" Lying is like breathing to you lot isn't it?

[m1aws]

@practicepants So you say it's big money that drives the "deniers"? Oh hum, not read Pachauri's bio yet? That fukker is a bankster! He appeared at Copenhagen and said everyone will be happy if they turned off the heating in the building because of CO2.

THAT ASSWIPE FLEW OVER THERE IN A PRIVATE JET!!!!

[Albertkallal]

Apparently you not read the climate gate emails to see what kind of science community you are asking us to accept. Even THEY questioned hockey stick science. You not done this science and thus accept the witness and testimony of others. Why do I find 30 gross errors in Gore's movie from Monckton? This video with Dr. Ross shows huge flaws and the poor science in the hockey stick? Your supposed peer science community is not source of these corrections and thus why accept them?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Well that again is simply not true. Do you know what "Mike's Nature trick" actually is? I do and it's got absolutely nothing to do with fraud, poor science or gross errors.

Do you understand that tree growth is affected by factors other than temperature? Like how much water they get? This is such a simple concept, I find it beyond belief that you Exxon shills are still using this argument.

[Albertkallal]

The quote of the trick is understood to be a math shortcut, but the text that follows says "hide the decline". Why have to hide a decline then? No problem with the term "trick" the issue is with the statement of hiding the decline is the issue! Why hide a decline then? Since as you say other factors effect tree growth then on what basis can you make assumptions that the trend before hiding the decline represents temperature when you just agreed it could be other factors!

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal You do realise that the hockey stick graph has been independently re-examined at least six times that I know of(I'm sure a quick Google will bring up more). And you know what? They all said the graph still stands and that Mann et al were 'completely vindicated' of any misrepresentation of the science.

So why are you on this crusade against the truth?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Why are you on a crusade to support bad science and curruption by the IPCC?

[Albertkallal]

There was no independence on those inquires and Mann was given the choice as to what material to submit for review. In other words I am on trial for a crime but I get to choose what evidence is to be examined? (are you that silly?). Any independent inquiry such as Dr. Ross in this video shows that hockey stick fails under any REASONED scrutiny (council on statists was scathing of methodology used). Looking at climate gate emails we see same gang being used for those inquires.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Once again, this is quite simply, not true. What you mean is, the data that caused controversy, was not used, to see if the graph still stood. Guess what? It did! Those silly scientists eh, using logic and common sense.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants The data is crap and is not even world wide data but only from about 12 trees from a small area (as if that is global data). The methodology when used when filed even random data produces a hockey stick. Garbage can science at best. Beyond dishonesty to stand here and attempt to support dead horse like this hokey stick and it fails basic scientific scrutiny. Most damming is those silly scientists admit in their OWN emails from climate gate 2 this is weak science!

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Again, did you not read what I wrote?

[Albertkallal]

Actually it is funny you mention the science community that voted to give Gore the Nobel prize. Why can't I find any corrections from that science community that endorsed and signed off on this movie? I had to go to Monkton to find the 30+ gross errors. This means that peer review and self connecting science does not exist and therefore why are you asking us to accept the witness and testimony of these people on an act of faith when they refuse to correct their errors?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, as I'm sure you have spouted to people dozens of times. It's really simple, LOOK AT THE SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS. Clearly the motivation of most deniers is that AGW does not sit comfortably with their political leanings. This is beyond dumb, when this is such a serious matter. Seriously, wake up, or stop intentionally misleading people - whichever it is..

[Albertkallal]

Correct we not talking about Gore but science community that was used for the making of his film. That science community used in that film has FAILED to correct their gross errors. Why then accept on faith testimony of that science community? I would gladly go to s site that corrects Gore's film in place of Monckton who pointed out the gross errors if you could direct me to such a site. You cannot do this and such your community does not care about truth and good science anymore.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Give me some of those 'gross errors' then. If they came from Monckton, I've no doubt they've already been resoundingly debunked. A professional liar if ever there was one.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants This is all about honesty and integrity. It is clear you support science claims that are unfounded and without merit but WORSE is you look the other way for these errors. In effect you don't care about truth anymore but only your political socialist agenda all the while Gore rides around in private Jets telling you to cut back while he fills his pockets based on you being a sucker to go around and push his silly agenda for his benefit. Here are some errors:

[Albertkallal]

Which long list of errors do you want? Imminent rise Sea levels rise 20 feet by Greenland or West Antarctica ice melts is not true. Shutdown of the Thermohaline circulation due to man's co2 (NO proof that global warming will shut down this circulation). Graph claims co2 is driving temperature when the graph shows temperature increased first and then co2 followed. Snows of Kilimanjaro melting. Lake Chad drying up. Hurricane Katrina is man made. (at a 30 year low for hurricanes).

[Albertkallal]

Polar bears dying when in fact we see reports of mothers eating young due to if anything over population. Glaciers melts are unprecedented (they are not and ice volumes of the last 4 Ice ages were in fact lower than today). Mosquitoes climbing to higher altitudes. And there a longer list of wild speculative claims such as millions of climate refugees (IPCC predicted 50 million by 2012 which is in fact this year!).

[Albertkallal]

Errors are well known and in fact Gore's film had to be taken a UK court to correct their errors. The REAL issue here is your science community is so dishonest that you HAVE to take them to court to find their errors? Exactly how stupid is it to trust people who refuse to correct their errors? Why support such lying and miss information and as noted gate emails simply VINDICATES the kind of behavior we been accusing these fraudsters of in the science community.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal The science community is dishonest? We're talking A LOT of scientists here. Like I said, I've not seen Al Gore's film and a politician or a fim, is not relevant to scientific debate. The utterly over-whelming science and evidence for AGW is what matters.

May I ask you a question about your theory for a change? Do you accept that the planet has warmed since this century? And that this was when human beings started putting industrial quantities of CO2 in the air?

[Albertkallal]

It not Gore but the science community he USED to create that movie (you know, the IPCC etc.). They are the ones that voted and gave him the Nobel prize. The film uses all this science from YOUR community that you are asking me to accept. If you cannot direct me to them correcting their errors then why trust them? Why are you standing here supporting a group that refuses to correct their errors and thus prove as climate gate shows this is "pal" review and not real peer review.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants There is not overwhelming evidence at all that man's co2 is driving temperatures as claimed. The new BEST data shows no warming for 10 years now, perhaps as long as 13 years. Are you saying that co2 made a phone call to the physics community and ask that the laws of physics all of a sudden be stopped? You simply do not have the science or proof that man's co2 is driving temperatures as claimed.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal That should have read: Do you accept that global temp has risen since the beginning of the 20th Century? Do you accept that this was when human beings started putting industrial quantities of CO2 in the air? What do you think is causing global warming?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Phil Jones the head of CRU was forced to admit that the last 3 warming periods all have the same rate. Why would that be with different levels of co2? Worse you cannot even show a significant mathematical correlation between co2 and warming rates. Worse yet is it was warmer in the medieval warm period and then cooled a lot until about 1800. How stupid and cherry picking to use 1800 here and start measuring warming at the bottom of a small ice age.

[Albertkallal]

So what caused the medieval warming period? How come they had the 150 warming?

[Albertkallal]

We had higher temperatures in the past with less co2 and also the reverse (lower with more co2). Co2 is not even 1% and is logarithmic in nature. CO2 is like black paint on a window and first coat of paint does most blocking. Additional coats not significant. CO2 contribution to warming has already occurred at lower levels and co2 not driving temperatures anywhere remote close to the claims of Gore and the money grabbing IPCC/UN who receive our tax dollars for this fear mongering.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal I'll ask you again. Do you agree that the planet has warmed in the last hunded years? Yes or No. Why won't you answer this simple question? Do you agree that industry has been emitting carbon in this same period? What do you think is causing global warming?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal "cooled a lot" ??? What we're talking about is the significant rise that has happened in the last 100 years. Previous fluctuations pale into insignificance. For a start, the medieaval warming period was localised to Europe, not global and it was not as warm as the recent warming anyway. Another common mistruth perpetrated by deniers.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants No, that warming was not. Greenland, and MANY other parts of the world show they had this warming. The vikings grew food on Greenland, but eventaully could not. Plant and fossel reocrds MOST certanly show that the warming was global and NOT only localised to europe.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 years old. This is unequivocal fact - it may have been 'greener', but as I said, the medieaval warming period was local to that part of the Northern Hemisphere - also supported by all the data. Your statement that this warming was global, is sadly, yet another outright fabrication.

So you accept the planet has warmed in the last century. Great! Now we're getting somewhere. So how do YOU explain that warming?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Sorry the medieval warming was not limited to Europe. Greenland isotope ice core data is WELL correlated with glacier advance and retreat in Finland, Russia, North America Rockies, Chile, New Zealand, Sierra Nevada, Argentina etc. There is vast literature that documents these globally synchronous climate changes. There is TONS of supporting evidence that these events were global in nature. Why would Europe only warm?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Just plain false, this was not global - the Pacific sub-tropics are proven to have cooled at this time. . Plus the global temp in this period was lower than the 1960-1990 mean. As for global temps since 1980 - completely beyond question.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Easterbrook 2011, Evidence for synchronous global climatic events. Globally synchronous Little Ice Age glacial advances and retreats are also well documented in the geologic literature, as well as the Medieval Warm Period. Well-defined glacial moraines lie downvalley from almost every glacier in the world.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants All you have to do is look at the BUCKET LOADS of papers that confirm that the little ice age was global. If the LIA is global then it MUST have been globally warmer prior to the LIA! If MWP was only Europe then now you failed geography and Greenland is Europe? And you now toss out HUGE evidence that the LIA was global. If LIA was global then how could it not been globally warmer BEFORE the LIA then?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal It is unequivocal that the global temperature now, is warmer than anytime in the previous 1000 years. What caused the LIA? And in what way is it relevant? How does this explain the current warming?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants LIA is very relevant since we all agree that it was global then logic dictates that it must have been globally warmer before LIA. This logical reasoning means one cannot state that MWP was not global. As for evidence that it is currently warmer than any time in last 1000 years is not a known fact. Looking at farms in Greenland some now remain in permafrost and estimates are that those farms when in production during MWP were as much as 4 degrees warmer than today

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal We don't all agree LIA was global, we simply do not know - this is science that is under debate. There are however multiple studies showing we are warmer now than anytime in the previous 1000 years. This is accepted science and you need to learn the difference.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Evidence for LIA being global is overwhelming. Geological inspection of ANY glacier EASY shows the points where ice progressed and receded during cold and warming. No solid evidence that today is warmest in 1000 years. Recent archeological digs in Greenland shows active farms from the MWP remain today under perma frost most of the time. Paper points out that for such farms to be productive during MWP required temperatures warmer than today by up to 4 degrees

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants As for what caused the warming this century is likely same that caused the great warming for the medieval period allowed growing of crops in Greenland. Worse there is no mathematical correlation for man's co2 and this temperature rise. So no proof that this warming is due to man's co2 and BEST data shows warming has halted for more than 10 years while co2 has increased. So you will have to explain what caused these well documented global warming events in the past

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal We'll get to Co2 later. What I want to know is, what do you think has caused the current warming? Or if that one's too hard, what do you think caused the medieval warming?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Don't know what caused these warming's. No no mathematical correlation exists between these warming's and co2. More important is no correlation in these warming events and man's output of co2. Current theory and trends are now pointing to change in suns output. That change in output is not even close to warming changes that history records. It looks now that the change is in cosmic rays and the effect on cloud cover which is in fact a huge driver of temperature.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Like I said, we'll get to Co2 later. Your theory so far: we've established that the earth is warming currently and you think it might be to do with solar output. I presume your referring to the theory put forward by Henrik Svensmark? This is unsupported by any long term trend in solar output and falls apart when you consider that more warming occurs at night - i.e. from trapped heat, not the Sun. Any other possible causes? If none, then do you accept Co2 absorbs heat?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Not only Svensmark but tons of papers. Just watch the video I have called "How suns output is causing temperature changes". They don't mention Svensmark at all (so independent). The LIA is easy shown to be global and therefore it MUST have been global warmer BEFORE the LIA. These changes in temperature ARE NOT driven by co2 and were not those past warm periods. Effect of co2 is not the smoking gun for these past climate changes and it's effect is overblown.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal For the last 35 years global temp and solar activity have been going in opposite directions. As I said, it is unequivocal that global temp now is warmer than anytime in the previous 1000 years - i.e. before the LIA too.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants If you view the video on sun you will find that suns increase in output causes cooling according to this cloud formation theory. It is not the sun's output of energy that this theory is based on but in fact an increase in Sun's energy overwhelms the cosmic radiation which is responsible for that cloud cover. In other words a decrease in sun's output causes warming.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Well this is just plain nonsense that does not correlate temps with solar trends.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants For what reason would more or less warming at night make any difference here? Increased cloud cover is shown to be a net overall cooling and there always half the earth that is daytime. I fail to see any logical reasoning here as to why or how night or day going to effect a claim of cloud cover warming or cooling the earth?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Are you suggesting that clouds don't exist in the daytime? Or, that scientists measuring temperature don't take into account the weather conditions?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants I am not suggesting clouds don't exist in the day time. I am pointing out how stupid it is for you to comment that somehow night or day has meaning here. The fact is increased cloud cover causes a net cooling and thus night or day has ZERO relevance to this discussion. I pointed out this cloud cover issue and you attempted to debunk this point with a stupid comment about night or day which makes no difference in the fact that more clouds = net cooling overall.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal But greater warming is measured at night. This is fact and demonstrates it cannot be down to the sun. It is extremely relevant.

But, oh yes. I forgot, you've decided solar output causes cooling now, as opposed to your statement several posts back that it has caused the recent warming.

So, back to your theory. You've agreed the planet has warmed in the last century. So is the sun the cause or not?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants I did not say the solar output was increasing or decreasing either way you lying scumbag. I said the term solar output and never suggested an increase or decrease. You asked for one theory and I gave one. However it is important to note that the theory I quoted it is in fact an inverse relationship. So an increase in sun's output can cause cooling according to this mechanism outlined. It also means that a decrease in suns output can case warming.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Yes I do think the evidence points to the sun and the "inverse" relationship to cloud cover and formation. You provided zero math evidence that shows a relationship between man's co2 and that co2 driving temperature trends. These warm periods occurred in the past and did so without co2 driving such temperatures. Without such math and science supporting co2 driving temperatures as claimed, then why assume co2?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal As I said before, we'll get to Co2 later. I'm trying to demonstrate a genuine skeptical approach with your theory, but you keep trying to confuse the issue. So you agree the planet has warmed in the last century. You say increased solar activity causes cooling. How does this fit in with the long term trend of rising global temp? Bearing in mind solar cycles do not correlate with those temperature increases, are you still saying the cause is the sun?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants I said sun is a factor based on many science papers and I never claimed or suggested sun is only factor and only mentally challenged would think as such. Problem here is not the sun but people pushing their socialism of more co2 taxes to redistribute worlds wealth. Thus co2 is their only focus since that gets money. They cherry pick data and ignore MWP. Just read climate gate emails to see the scum these people are. This is not about science anymore but politics.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal So you are saying the sun plays a part in temp rise by causing warming when there is less solar output? Haha that's a new one I've not heard from you lot! And what has caused the rest of the warming?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Studies that found inverse relation to sun's output is research from Government of British Columbia, McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS), Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and several more. It would seem your only sources are spoon fed propaganda from the IPCC and Al Gore. .

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Been trying to find research on this from any of these institutions and can't. However, regardless of that, how do you explain(as I asked earlier) that solar activity bears no correlation to temp rise?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants As I pointed out the study does I fact find a relation to solar activity, but it is an inverse one. In fact you confirmed the results of that study when you opened your mouth and pointed out to me that solar activity been declining during a period in which temperature been rising. So the words coming out of your mouth in fact agree with this study don't they?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Again, how do you explain that solar activity does not correlate with temp rise over the last hundred years?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants In that study, it does.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants As for the rest of warming the big question now is why has warming halted for 10+ years and not gone anywhere while co2 increases? Worse since you since you cannot provide any math correlation between Man's co2 output and temperature trends then why are you assuming temperatures are being driven by man's co2?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Ermm....global warming has halted for one year, not 10+. Even if that were the case, it pales into insignificance when you look at the long term trend.

Now can you answer my question without mentioning Al Gore, taxes or Co2 and maths - what do you think is the cause of warming in the last hundred years?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants If it not co2 then who cares what the reason is? You are trying to tell everyone it is man's co2 when you don't have that evidence or science. I don't care about other reasons since co2 is the only thing being used for public policy. CO2 is what Al Gore is trying to trade by sitting on the board of a carbon trading company and the IPCC and governments are trying to tax. This debate is about man's co2 driving temperature else why do we care about this debate then?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal No, you have no understanding of the huge body of science that supports AGW theory - and that is made obvious by the fact that you cannot offer any alternative solutions to the question of "why".

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants As for avoiding what I think is driving temperatures? I already stated several times as to what I think some factors are and you have 30+ videos of mine to view on this matter. I also stated what I think does not really matter since I am not the one running around stating that man's co2 is driving temperatures as these scammers claim when they don't have the math or science to back up their positions and worse they don't care about correcting their errors anyway.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal You haven't said anything except "it might be the sun". I'm not watching 30 propaganda videos, when there is an enormous body of science freely available. You demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of scientific approach.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Why can't you offer any reason as to why in the MWP farms in Greenland were productive back then and today spend most of their year in permafrost and in unproductive state? You now going to claim Greenland is Europe? As noted recent archeological studies of farms from the MWP in Greenland state for those farms to be productive today would require a climate as much as 4 degrees warmer than today! It could not be man's co2, so what made it so warm back then?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants A recent quote from IPCC co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer of Working Group III tells the whole issue. "Cimate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar

Edenhofer" I mean wow right from the horse's mouth that is your IPPC talking!

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Again you take an out of context quote, that is as likely to be talking aboput the US right stalling of takling real action on AGW, as it is to be about carbon taxes. This has nothing to do with scientific realities.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants What are earth you talking about the US stalling action? That IPCC statement is as clear as mud as to the Cancun agenda. Most amazing is his open honesty! He simply states that the goals of the IPCC conference is to get money from western nations and redistribute that money. I see no other way of interpreting that statement and it simply confirms that this is all about the money and not the science and this exactly what we been saying all along.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Like I said, this diversion of yours, has nothing to do with science.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants What science? I quoted IPCC in regards to their stated mandate to redistribute the world's wealth. Just read climate gate emails to see even themselves question the hockey stick. You not pointed me to corrections by those scientists and studies used in Gore's film. Just simply point me to their own corrections (you cannot do this). This scam is done! Why are you asking me to accept witness and testimony of these people who refuse to correct their own errors?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal In what way does any of this disprove the science on AGW? And more importantly, why do you keep avoiding telling me what exactly your theory on warming is???

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants The reason why these trust issues are important is because you not done the experiments and are not a witness to these experiments. You are thus asking based on your act of faith for me to accept the witness and testimony of others. Why accept YOUR act of faith of those who bear witness to these things when they been shown not be trusted and they refuse to correct their errors? Why should I accept your act of faith on this matter?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Because if you had any real understanding of the science about this whole subject, you would realise how ridiculous your stance is.

You've made it clear your views are based on politics, not science. Ask yourself, what if you're wrong??

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants How is my stance ridiculous when you are the one making an act of faith here? You not have done this science so you must accept on faith the witness and others who bear this testimony for you. As for being wrong about what? Farms in the MWP experienced warmer temps than today. In past history every time it's been warmer it been much better for man and I see no reason to think that such warming is not positive again today like it was back in the MWP.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants For what logical reason why would more warming at night eliminate the idea that increasing the suns output of energy could not warm the planet is 100% stupid on your part. Big deal if some warming measured at night (we measure at day too!) Keep in mind that I AM NOT making a claim that sun's increasing output is causing warming but your comments about night and day is sheer stupid and does not negate this "possibility" if the sun was in fact increasing its output.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Polar bear population has risen since the 60s - because that's when widescale hunting of them was banned. Since then, habitat has decreased, average weight has reduced, cub survival has dropped. Melting glaciers is about speed at which it is happening, not ice volume. Mosquitoes? Would have to look that up. Refugees: 6.5 million people displaced so far in Bangladesh alone. Not 50 million, but only one country and still significant.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Ok, I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth, so don't know what claims were made exactly and can only reply to the specific claims you've made.

As ice ages end, CO2 is released when the sea is warmed. As external warming stops after about 800 years, CO2 drives warming for the following 4200 years. Fact.

Hurricanes have got more intense. Fact. Snow on Kilimanjaro is melting. Fact.

[Albertkallal]

Melting snow on Kilimanjaro is not due to warming but due to dryness and sublimation so claims that melting is due to temperature rise is flat out wrong. The co2 ice core graph shows co2 rising AFTER temp rose and therefore the graph does NOT show co2 driving temperatures as claimed and again is 100% false claim. This list goes on and why would you not care about good science and the truth? What is next you accept 2 + 2 = 5 then? So the truth does not matter to you anymore?

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Did you read what I wrote? 800 years of CO2 rise following warming, does not account for 4200 years of warming following CO2 rise. This is established fact.

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Yes I did. Ice core graph used NEVER shows temperature rising after co2, but ONLY the other way around. You cannot use that graph to make ANY claim or show of cause + effect that man's co2 is driving the tempature. You have to bark up a different tree and try another and different set of data in this regards. I don't know what graph you talking about, but the ice core graph is Gore's movie does not show or prove that co2 is driving tempature - it shows the reverse

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal I find it interesting that you won't answer a very simple question. The obvious conclusion to reach is that you know AGW denial arguments, but lack any real scientific basis for your point of view. Answer me, has the planet warmed in the last hundred years?

[Albertkallal]

@practicepants Sure it warmed in past 100 years. Phil Jones head of CRU when asked what the RATE of warming was for the last warming 3 periods he had to admit that they were all the same. So how then could the rate of warming be the same and yet the levels of co2 different in those 3 warming periods? Furthermore as noted it was warmer in the medival warming period today and it cooled much to about 1800. So what caused the warming back then and why was it warmer with less co2?

[Albertkallal]

As noted, using 1800 which is a VERY cool period to start measuring and telling me we have warming to now means really nothing and it certainly does not show or prove anything in regards to man's output of co2 which as noted is only 3% compared to nature.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal "political socialist agenda" That pretty much sums up everything I've been saying about your reasoning. You deny climate change because the Republican oil party told you to.

[practicepants]

@Albertkallal Give me some of those 'gross errors' then. If they came from Monckton, I've no doubt they've already been resoundingly debunked. A professional liar if ever there was one.

[m1aws]

@practicepants Everything you say is wrong.

A statistician is perfect for working on statistics.

Bristle cone pines will grow differently depending on many other factors regardless than mere temperature changes.

Bad science.

[practicepants]

@m1aws If I want my teeth fixed I go to a dentist, not the accountant at a sugar factory.

If I want info on climate, I go to a climate scientist, not an economist working for a non-scientific institution funded by Exxon(as is the case with McKitrick).

[m1aws]

@practicepants Dentists do not find out cause and effect. All drugs are monitored by statisticians. Data is collated from space by statisticians. Nasa is nearly all statisticians. It's "scientists" like Hansen that make statements:

That GIS and tropo data are the last holdouts of the denialists and hints the numbers should be altered to end the argument. (wiki)

[practicepants]

@m1aws Mckitrick is one of the voices of the Frasier Institute - funded by Exxon and amongst other things, it apparently does 'research into climate change'. Hmmmm? Funny that it's funded by an oil company and all the 'research' that it produces, is arguing that it's not a problem to keep burning oil?

[m1aws]

@practicepants Everyone is funded by something, somehow. I've just been reading wiki on James Hansen. He's a real fruitcake for AGW. All this early findings have been deleted because empirical data came in. Yet he has awards and recognition always for that side of the fence.

read about him on wiki. He's scary!

[AcePilot2009]

Climate change is primarily driven by the wobble of the earth's axis not greenhouse gases (Carbon Dioxide is just .039 percent of the atmosphere) over a 26,000 year cycle. Known in ancient times as the Precession of the Equinoxes, the rate is 1 degree per 72 years. Just as the tilt of the axis gives us summer and winter, the wobble (axial rotation) allows CO2 levels to rise for about 21,000 years and then it drops again as the earth cools.

[Kelash00]

Many of the temperature stations that NOAA used have been shut down and most of those have been in cooler climates around the world. The data itself is a lie. Gore has made 100 million dollars from these lies and it's a way for the government to take a huge power grab. People need to wake up.

[digitalfilmvillage]

It seems AGW is slowing falling apart as more science data regarding climate change is published in peer-reviewed papers.

[Skydancer365]

The "Hockey Stick" is irrelevant to the AGW debate!

[Albertkallal]

The hockey sticks not relevant? We now see this graph is full of crap and it been thoroughly been destroyed as fraud. We see same fraud and behavior from the CRU emails . Every government and news agency used this graph to push global warming. Now you're standing here and going oh, gee sorry it was a lie? So lets just sweep this under the carpet like the now famous hide the decline from the CRU emails? So, now That the hockey sticks been destroyed it's not important anymore, how convenient!

[ptangboy]

"thats a nice hockey stick" said the ref to the player, "but I think it has an illegal curve on it"

[HeavyMechanics]

With the recent IPCC emails made public by hackers, we see the UN again trying to force their climate change agenda down the throat of the world.

[arthroscope]

Its good to see that someone is not scared to tell the truth in public.

[YouMakeMeFeelSeaSick]

this wasn't anything about hockey.............

[elflacoblanco]

Nice. He mentions the Vikings (i.e. Norse) on Greenland. Archaelogical evidence suggests that their society collapsed because they failed to adapt to climate change. Just like ours probably will.

[Rockyspoon09]

The reason the Vikings left Greenland is because the weather got colder and their crops failed.  Got that? They colonized Greenland because it got WARMER and they were forced out or died off several hundred years later because it got COLDER! Man generally has fewer problems adapting to a warmer climate than he does to a colder climate--certainly we're better at it than plants because if it freezes every month of the year, don't plan on harvesting anything that's edible!

[AriesLudzik]

McIntyre and McKitrick are the Eliot Ness of our time.

I admire their courage and heroic drive to discredit the lie of man-made global warming and exposing Gore as a total cretin.

[blogologist]

al Gore isn't even a scientist. He has a bachelors in journalism (or how to make a piece of corporate propaganda).

[Henry610]

well i guess its better then a degree in blogology

[MTGandP]

Al Gore did not think up global warming. Qualified scientists did.

[KDAY24]

yes but I think that scientists should have made the presentation about their findings, with Al Gore supporting them, not the other way around.

[arthroscope]

You missed the point of the explanation in this video: Al Gore did not have scientists supporting him. The supporters were all bureaucrats, spin doctors and those out to make a buck .

[4TIMESAYEAR]

MTGandP

Tell me, if you know only (and I do mean only) the average temperature for any given day, can it tell you what the actual temps of that day were?

[arthroscope]

I'm a qualified scientist and nobody said that Al Gore thought it up. However, if I was going to sell something, I'd get him as my frontman.

[Rockyspoon09]

What are you a "qualified scientist" in? I'm a geologist (those scientists that the "climate scientists" really hate), and I can tell you from my perspective (MS and MS) that Al Gore is one of the worst frontmen you can ever find. He's not a scientist, he's not a lawyer (never finished law school), and he's not honest. Have you read his book--especially the chapter "Environmentalism of the Spirit"? He's basically making AGW a religious cult and uses the fear of God to push AGW!