New Ice Age 'to begin in 2014'

[Mattshark]

I used the mail because it was the first link I came to. This was reported by all the major news agencies. (Sky news loved it)

Scientific studies have lost a lot of credence lately because of overstatement and over estimation. You know what reports I am talking about (don't make me say it on screen again) So much so that the research facility where I work has, in the last three years, set up a claims dept. This is a separate facility that independently carries out repeat experiments to verify the claims of our scientists. ( Not I should point out anything to do with meteorology, however, the principal for scientists are the same. Experiments and studies should be repeated independently).

Not really, again you are only looking at a media representation which has no value in real science and quite frankly is completely inept at reporting science.

No offence but for someone working in a research facility you don't seem to quite grasp how science actually works and you seem to be confusing media and politics with science and more over, why on earth would you have a claims dept? Science is done through scientific journals, not through the public, the only reason you should a claims department is if you perform copyright infringement or defamation.

Climatology is not the same field as meteorology.

Ever heard of peer review?

[Mattshark]

Are you not concerned that the computer models are only as good as the information inputted? That the margins for error are generally large and that they tend to air on the side of caution? That a computer model was used to predict the tens of thousands of people that were supposed to die (and didn't) of swine flu? That historically, when predictions are made by scientists, they tend to be made by Gov/health org or industrial scientists who have a vested interest in the results? I don't deny that the climate is changing. This is a natural cycle.However, I am sure that the recent volcanic activity in Iceland will alter any predictions made to date.

I do think that it is not all doom and gloom as is being reported/ modelled.

And I don't think that I will need to buy a sled or dog team to get around. Neither will I have to buy a heat protection suit so I can pop down to the shops.

Yes of course, but I trust those who work for decades to work on these models of some media hack with his media outlets political agenda to back him.

Can you tell me what vested interests that university lecturers and professors have? They are the ones producing this data, not industry, you will however find those associated with the Heartland institute are those with the industrial bias, being as that is kind of the point of the Heartland institute.

Trouble is, all data indicates that this is not natural, the rate of change certainly doesn't fit natural change.

Volcano's erupt all the time, they are factored into models.

Again though, you continue to confuse media with science.

[Guest]

Yes of course, but I trust those who work for decades to work on these models of some media hack with his media outlets political agenda to back him.

Can you tell me what vested interests that university lecturers and professors have? They are the ones producing this data, not industry, you will however find those associated with the Heartland institute are those with the industrial bias, being as that is kind of the point of the Heartland institute.

Trouble is, all data indicates that this is not natural, the rate of change certainly doesn't fit natural change.

Volcano's erupt all the time, they are factored into models.

Again though, you continue to confuse media with science.

Indeed the Icelandic Volcano is a relatively minor event and will have little effect on the climate unless it triggers its bigger neighbour.

Br Cornelius

[voiceofreason]

Yes of course, but I trust those who work for decades to work on these models of some media hack with his media outlets political agenda to back him.

Can you tell me what vested interests that university lecturers and professors have? They are the ones producing this data, not industry, you will however find those associated with the Heartland institute are those with the industrial bias, being as that is kind of the point of the Heartland institute.

Trouble is, all data indicates that this is not natural, the rate of change certainly doesn't fit natural change.

Volcano's erupt all the time, they are factored into models.

Again though, you continue to confuse media with science.

The media play a large part in presenting this information to the masses. They are, I agree, not a good reference point. Some of the more "upmarket" agencies do provide good information and are faithful to the research they report on. The problem is filtering out the sensational and unscientific. The internet is a minefield of miss-information and, unfortunately trusted scientists, lecturers and professors can be influenced, directly or indirectly, to produce results tailored to back up research that they are unsure of or even unaware of.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the PACE, a body representing 47 European nations including Russia, has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16667

[lynxster]

Lower 90`s here today, I blame Al Gore. BTW, Habibullo Abdussamatov`s paper is at this page.

[Guest]

Lower 90`s here today, I blame Al Gore. BTW, Habibullo Abdussamatov`s paper is at this page.

Thanks.

BR Cornelius

[Mattshark]

The media play a large part in presenting this information to the masses. They are, I agree, not a good reference point. Some of the more "upmarket" agencies do provide good information and are faithful to the research they report on. The problem is filtering out the sensational and unscientific. The internet is a minefield of miss-information and, unfortunately trusted scientists, lecturers and professors can be influenced, directly or indirectly, to produce results tailored to back up research that they are unsure of or even unaware of.

Oh believe me, they are not at all good at reporting them, none of the agencies are because science correspondents don't actually understand science.

Yes the internet is, but there are reliable scientific sources out there and you can always read at least the abstract from a paper.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the PACE, a body representing 47 European nations including Russia, has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16667

Mmmmm, that reads a little differently to:

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=5193

[Mattshark]

Lower 90`s here today, I blame Al Gore. BTW, Habibullo Abdussamatov`s paper is at this page.

Thanks.

I am guessing that this is not actually published since I would have slaughtered for writing like this in the first year of university, because he is using a hell of a lot of fallacious and short term arguments there, very little referencing (which makes you wonder about confirmation bias) and claiming trends over 1 year.

It should also be pointed out that Abdussamatov's work on this is totally different to everyone else's.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full.pdf+html

I don't think that does much for Abdussamatov's credibility quite frankly.

[Astute One]

There are a lot of misconceptions there, there was a small fringe of scientists who predicted and ice age would hit us in the 70's. This was more popular amongst the media, it had no scientific acceptance.

Questions Matt. Were you in college in the 70s?

I was at two different universities in th 70s. I took standard science, oceanography, geology, astrophysics, and chemistry at the first and transferred into a geology/geophyics program later. It was the consensus of all professors at that time and including NASA that the Earth was cooling and heading for an iceage IN THE FUTURE. Not that an iceage would hit in the 70s. These profs are not fringe scientists and neither is NASA.

In the 70s, not one of my professors agreed with your statement above, although most that are still alive have changed their tune now so their funding will remain. They have learned to play the game. Some BELIEVE and some do not. Go against AGW and the school loses money and the profs don't get tenure and are asked to leave. The next guy comes in and gives it a try. He steers his research so that he supports AGW, he gets funding for more research, and he is asked to stay for another year. The anti-AGW supporters are cast out, because of the lost revenue, and the root cause is their AGW position. That's what happens here now in many cases, not all. Some are asked to leave for other reasons. So, many profs are trapped now. They must keep on with the AGW hype and research steering eventhough some do not agree, or they are fired and they starve.

So, who is teaching you these misconceptions of misconceptions? If your school books told you this, they are wrong, and it appears you are being mislead on purpose; You are being steered by the same people who steer research, and it appears you are learning their bad habits.

Of course the media sensationalized it like they do everything, but where do you think they got it? Do you think they made it up? No. I went to grad school on the other side of the US in the 80s and I heard the same consensus as in the 70s, so I totally disagree with you, as usual.

Matt, let me quote mine you. You said this: "I don't think that does much for Abdussamatov's credibility quite frankly" referring to his work as different.

Can't have change without different work. This indicates he is a thinker. He understands science to the point he finds new ways to do things better, easier, more efficiently, where others just keep spinning their wheels and do not advance science except for a vary narrow minded predictable way. Many scientists are intellecually incapable of out of the box thinking, or just don't have the nerve to step out of the box for fear of ridicule. Hawking just stepped out of the box by saying ET exists. James Watson stepped out of the box and said, people from Africa are genetically less intelligent based on his 50 years of DNA research and he was smacked down and forced to retract his statement to appease.

I applaud the guys. We need more of these scientists. Most famous scientists through history were like this, Tesla, Albert, Hawking, Watson, etc. Their credibility was slammed by those that were driven by ego and incapable of thoroughly understanding science through new ideas.

[Astute One]

Indicating the same thing as predicted in the early 70's? When the scientific consensus was that increasing CO2 would lead to warming and that is what we are seeing now with the climate altering as models have predicted and continue to predict?

Interesting?

The research I have read says when the models from the beginning of the AGW crusade are calibrated with actual data that was obtained after the models were created, the models produce impossible results indicating the models are extremely flawed.

[danielost]

i am not sure you can draw a line in the sand and say when this erea or that one started.

[voiceofreason]

Oh believe me, they are not at all good at reporting them, none of the agencies are because science correspondents don't actually understand science.

Yes the internet is, but there are reliable scientific sources out there and you can always read at least the abstract from a paper.

Mmmmm, that reads a little differently to:

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=5193

It does indeed read differently. Which raises the question, which information do we take as "gospel"?

I stand by my statement. Scientists can be influenced, assays can be manipulated and models designed to back up claims. A very small number of scientists will even claim to have produced fantastic results, when in reality thier experiments were a failure.(hence our claims dept, yes it happened to us)

Until the work carried out by Habibullo Abdussamatov is repeated and verified I won't be investing in any cold weather gear.

[Guest]

It does indeed read differently. Which raises the question, which information do we take as "gospel"?

I stand by my statement. Scientists can be influenced, assays can be manipulated and models designed to back up claims. A very small number of scientists will even claim to have produced fantastic results, when in reality thier experiments were a failure.(hence our claims dept, yes it happened to us)

Until the work carried out by Habibullo Abdussamatov is repeated and verified I won't be investing in any cold weather gear.

As Matts says thats not a scientific paper, it looks like an essay to accompany his speech and as such it looks like a political piece as much as anything. Interesting though. Unfortunately it doesn't contain enough information to refute it. As a prediction though it stands or falls on how well it predicts.

He is obviously an expert on solar effects and I can see thats where he's coming from. However his credibility as a climate predictor is undermined by his total refusal to accept any roll for a greenhouse effect in the global climate system, when the physics is well understood.

And here is another overview of the science of solar variability - which demonstrates that it has far from been ignored in mainstream scientific circles;

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

What is heretical is to give it center stage.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 25, 2010 by Guest

[Astute One]

He is obviously an expert on solar effects and I can see thats where he's coming from. However his credibility as a climate predictor is undermined by his total refusal to accept any roll for a greenhouse effect in the global climate system, when the physics is well understood.

And here is another overview of the science of solar variability - which demonstrates that it has far from been ignored in mainstream scientific circles;

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

What is heretical is to give it center stage.

Br Cornelius

So, explain the well understood physics.

It has been far ignored as the driving cause; which it is.

What is heretical is to give a trace gas that has negligible effect center stage.

[TehGrant]

I would put my take on this but I'm from and live in Texas

[Mattshark]

So, explain the well understood physics.

It has been far ignored as the driving cause; which it is.

What is heretical is to give a trace gas that has negligible effect center stage.

The well understood physics of the green house effect?

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Here you go, UCSD have a easy to understand one for you.

It hasn't, it has been studied properly and analysed by people willing to use the scientific method (which that piece by Abdussamatov avoids) and I even put up two links from those studies by someone who is a genuine leader in that field, Mike Lockwood. There is absolutely no evidence, and you most certainly have not presented any evidence to show that it is the driving force.

Heretical to who? Problem is, is that there is a hell of a lot evidence for CO2 to drive climate change, it is well established as a green house gas, it is known to affect atmosphere, it doesn't need to have concentrations like nitrogen does to have an affect.

And to answer your previous post, no, I wasn't born in the 70's however, I can search scientific databases and look at papers from that period and the work from them, especially in the major journals, Science and Nature, show that evidence is suggesting warming. If your lecturers thought otherwise, then they were not doing a good job of keeping up with research and should have been reading up on their journals more. It is not reading school books, it just happens that I understand what the scientific forum is, you don't appear to.

You don't actually know what quote mining is do you? Nice to see you racism being brought in too, shame neither you or Watson actually have data to back you bigotry and despite what you think, it is not something Watson ever studied, it made it as a blind claim, it says a lot about you that you believe him and claim he has evidence to back it up, he doesn't and he mentioned in reference to the scientifically unaccepted IQ tests, which are not considered accurate measures of intelligence but rather how good you are at IQ tests and that affected by education standard and are created with bias to certain groups.

It is also ironic that you are criticising scientists when you have demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method and your have promoted so much agenda driven pseudo-science across this forum, especially as you think you know more about climate than climatologists, more about the pyramids that Egyptologists and don't understand the difference between a claim and 50 years of research (which it appears lacks papers and is based on something we can't accurately measure or look at genetically).

Edited May 26, 2010 by Mattshark

[Guest]

Just to labour the point about concentration effects, would you willingly consume 0.04% of your body mass in plutonium or fluoride. I thought not.

Its potency that matters not quantity.

If memory serves me correctly, CO2 has unique absorbtion bands at 2,6 and 10 microns's (wavelength) which means that any variation in CO2 levels will have an effect outside of the other greenhouse gases.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 26, 2010 by Guest

[Mattshark]

Just to labour the point about concentration effects, would you willingly consume 0.04% of your body mass in plutonium or fluoride. I thought not.

Its potency that matters not quantity.

If memory serves me correctly, CO2 has unique absorbtion bands at 2,6 and 10 microns's (wavelength) which means that any variation in CO2 levels will have an effect outside of the other greenhouse gases.

Br Cornelius

Yep 1g of Polonium for example is about enough to give a lethal does to about 10 million people.

[Astute One]

The well understood physics of the green house effect?

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Here you go, UCSD have a easy to understand one for you.

It hasn't, it has been studied properly and analysed by people willing to use the scientific method (which that piece by Abdussamatov avoids) and I even put up two links from those studies by someone who is a genuine leader in that field, Mike Lockwood. There is absolutely no evidence, and you most certainly have not presented any evidence to show that it is the driving force.

Heretical to who? Problem is, is that there is a hell of a lot evidence for CO2 to drive climate change, it is well established as a green house gas, it is known to affect atmosphere, it doesn't need to have concentrations like nitrogen does to have an affect.

And to answer your previous post, no, I wasn't born in the 70's however, I can search scientific databases and look at papers from that period and the work from them, especially in the major journals, Science and Nature, show that evidence is suggesting warming. If your lecturers thought otherwise, then they were not doing a good job of keeping up with research and should have been reading up on their journals more. It is not reading school books, it just happens that I understand what the scientific forum is, you don't appear to.

You don't actually know what quote mining is do you? Nice to see you racism being brought in too, shame neither you or Watson actually have data to back you bigotry and despite what you think, it is not something Watson ever studied, it made it as a blind claim, it says a lot about you that you believe him and claim he has evidence to back it up, he doesn't and he mentioned in reference to the scientifically unaccepted IQ tests, which are not considered accurate measures of intelligence but rather how good you are at IQ tests and that affected by education standard and are created with bias to certain groups.

It is also ironic that you are criticising scientists when you have demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method and your have promoted so much agenda driven pseudo-science across this forum, especially as you think you know more about climate than climatologists, more about the pyramids that Egyptologists and don't understand the difference between a claim and 50 years of research (which it appears lacks papers and is based on something we can't accurately measure or look at genetically).

What a childish link? Matt, are you clueless, or was that an attempt at an insult? You don't understand the numbers at all.

We have gone over this before to no avail, but here we go again with a reference that you can verify if you like. That is, if you believe the Journal of Geophysical Research is a reputable journal. I do.

Matt, there is little evidence that CO2 drives climate change. Climate change drives CO2. We have discussed this. Do you understand geophysics? Does Corne? CO2 doesn't trap heat, it negligibly slows the escape of heat to space. I have tried to explain to you how this works but you ignore me. So, look up the referenced article below and see for yourself.

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Clouds reflect about 30% of the total solar radiation back to space. Wow, that's big.

Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (up 0.01% since pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

As we have discussed MATT and from another reputable source, "the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Maybe 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect" (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

LOOK IT UP!! Go ahead STM!!!

Remember, we discussed the M-cycle and the change in axis tilt as the cause. This in combination with the sun cycle are the drivers. CO2 is the symptom and negligible as feedback.

The remaining portion comes from nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous others. ALL OF WHICH ARE TRACE GASES WITH MINOR/NEGLIGIBLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

LINK TO WOODSHOLE ABOUT CARBON CYCLE.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

Notice the negligible effects of man listed on the Woodshole link. Notice total in first diagram. It's about 211. Second fig shows mans contribution at 5.4. That's 2.56%. That's a trace. So how does man cause AGW when there is clearing many other things going on.

Go ahead STM!!

Here is another one MATT. I have read Harper's work for years. What about you? Are you going to discredit him also even though he has 200 papers under his belt. How many have you pubished?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/2518925/posts

AGW crusaders are CULT MEMBERS and they don't have scientific brains or they would realize their errors.

You mention people you think are credible but you rarely discuss the science itself. Why is that? Could it be, you don't understand it?

Regarding Watson. You speak like a true uninformed STM liberal. If Watson's comments are based on evidence presented in his research, then it's not racist. You can try to bring race into it if you want just like all liberals do in their defense when they are backed in the corner.

I have read Watsons work, and although he doesn't come right out and say it, his research indicates what he said is true, as politically incorrect as it may be. Science becomes of no value if we can NOT draw correct conclusions from the research without being accused of racism.

[Leah G.]

Even I understood that. Thanks Astute One!

[Mattshark]

What a childish link? Matt, are you clueless, or was that an attempt at an insult? You don't understand the numbers at all.

Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link

We have gone over this before to no avail, but here we go again with a reference that you can verify if you like. That is, if you believe the Journal of Geophysical Research is a reputable journal. I do.

Actually, all you previously posted was a unpublished and academically fraudulent "paper"

But yes the Journal of Geophysical Research is reputable, here are some papers from their associated journals from the AGU.

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/rg/RG025i004p00760.xml

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/2000GL012015.xml

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/JD090iD07p12971.xml

There are lots more

Matt, there is little evidence that CO2 drives climate change. Climate change drives CO2. We have discussed this. Do you understand geophysics? Does Corne? CO2 doesn't trap heat, it negligibly slows the escape of heat to space. I have tried to explain to you how this works but you ignore me. So, look up the referenced article below and see for yourself.

Well actually, there is a shed load of evidence, but never mind. You ignoring that doesn't change it. The vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you.

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Clouds reflect about 30% of the total solar radiation back to space. Wow, that's big.

No one is arguing that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, but that is totally irrelevant.

Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (up 0.01% since pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

Irrelevant again.

As we have discussed MATT and from another reputable source, "the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Maybe 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect" (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

LOOK IT UP!! Go ahead STM!!!

Still irrlevant and not what is being argued.

Remember, we discussed the M-cycle and the change in axis tilt as the cause. This in combination with the sun cycle are the drivers. CO2 is the symptom and negligible as feedback.

Really, because the studies involved never came to the conlcusion, only a you and those who don't understand Milankovitch cycles.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Unless of course you think the two most prestigious journals in science aren't up to your standard.

The remaining portion comes from nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous others. ALL OF WHICH ARE TRACE GASES WITH MINOR/NEGLIGIBLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Do you have a point here?

LINK TO WOODSHOLE ABOUT CARBON CYCLE.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

Notice the negligible effects of man listed on the Woodshole link. Notice total in first diagram. It's about 211. Second fig shows mans contribution at 5.4. That's 2.56%. That's a trace. So how does man cause AGW when there is clearing many other things going on.

Go ahead STM!!

Erm that is the IPCC Third Assessment Report and not Woods Hole, but that is irrelevant as is your point. You can't serious think that claiming that a small percent means small effect, that is ridiculous.

Here is what Woods Hole actually say:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

Here is another one MATT. I have read Harper's work for years. What about you? Are you going to discredit him also even though he has 200 papers under his belt. How many have you pubished?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/2518925/posts

His and mine publication records are irrelevant, much more data and many more of his peers completely disagree with him.

Happer, it should be pointed out is also chair for the George C. Marshall Institute, which is a think tank funded by Exxon-Mobile and the American Petroleum Institute and it also denies that smoking is harmful (so yes, I can discredit his comments). But clearly there is no conflict of interests there is there .

Here is what R-AZ senator McCain said about the Marshall Institute:

"General Marshall was a great American. I think he might be very embarrassed to know that his name was being used in this disgraceful fashion."

AGW crusaders are CULT MEMBERS and they don't have scientific brains or they would realize their errors.

So you think over 90% of science is a cult then. Okay

You mention people you think are credible but you rarely discuss the science itself. Why is that? Could it be, you don't understand it?

That is an outright lie, I have posted plenty of papers and spend next to know time talking about people.

Regarding Watson. You speak like a true uninformed STM liberal. If Watson's comments are based on evidence presented in his research, then it's not racist. You can try to bring race into it if you want just like all liberals do in their defense when they are backed in the corner.

I fail to see what politics have to with this. There is no evidence and his comments where unjustifiable and bigoted.

I have read Watsons work, and although he doesn't come right out and say it, his research indicates what he said is true, as politically incorrect as it may be. Science becomes of no value if we can NOT draw correct conclusions from the research without being accused of racism.

Yes and so have I, but please feel free what papers he has showing such things (aside from IQ tests, which are of not good indicators) rather than silly political ramblings.

[Astute One]

Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link

Sorry you didn't like it, but it is from a perfectly good source and is a perfectly valid link

Actually, all you previously posted was a unpublished and academically fraudulent "paper"

But yes the Journal of Geophysical Research is reputable, here are some papers from their associated journals from the AGU.

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/rg/RG025i004p00760.xml

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/2000GL012015.xml

http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/JD090iD07p12971.xml

There are lots more

I read the first one. It clearly says,

"The earliest GCM simulations of CO2‐induced climate change were performed without the annual insolation cycle. These “annual mean” simulations gave for a CO2 doubling a global mean surface air temperature warming of 1.3° to 3.9°C, an increase in the global mean precipitation rate of 2.7 to 7.8%, and an indication of a soil moisture drying in the middle latitudes."

This indicates the previous models were crap. They can't be calibrated because the temperature didn't rise as predicted. So, the previous models are useless. I suspect the new ones will suffer a similar fate because they won't be able to be calibrated either because M-cycle and the sun are not taken into account.

Well actually, there is a shed load of evidence, but never mind. You ignoring that doesn't change it. The vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you.

I don't ignore the evidence. I ignore to pseudo-science steered interpretation.

No one is arguing that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, but that is totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant again.

Still irrlevant and not what is being argued.

Saying the thing, water vapor, that causes 90-95% of the effect is irrelvant is PLAIN STUPID.

Saying all the other trace gases that provide less than 5% of the effect are the driving cause is PLAIN STUPID.

CO2 as the cause is the arugment and showing that it can't be the cause is what is being argued, so how is that irrlevant? Explain?

Well actually, there is a shed load of evidence, but never mind. You ignoring that doesn't change it. The vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you.

I don't ignore the evidence. I ignore to pseudo-science steered interpretation.

No one is arguing that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, but that is totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant again.

Still irrlevant and not what is being argued.

Saying the thing, water vapor, that causes 90-95% of the effect is irrelvant is PLAIN STUPID.

Saying all the other trace gases that provide less than 5% of the effect are the driving cause is PLAIN STUPID.

CO2 as the cause is the arugment and showing that it can't be the cause is what is being argued, so how is that irrlevant? Explain?

Really, because the studies involved never came to the conlcusion, only a you and those who don't understand Milankovitch cycles.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

You said in our other argument last month that the M-cycle was the cause for the iceages and interglacial periods. Now you are changing your story.

[Astute One]

His and mine publication records are irrelevant, much more data and many more of his peers completely disagree with him.

Happer, it should be pointed out is also chair for the George C. Marshall Institute, which is a think tank funded by Exxon-Mobile and the American Petroleum Institute and it also denies that smoking is harmful (so yes, I can discredit his comments). But clearly there is no conflict of interests there is there .

Here is what R-AZ senator McCain said about the Marshall Institute:

First, McCain is a loser.

Second, how come now, all of a sudden when I call you out, you say publications are irrelevant. He has 200 publications in prestigious journals.

So you think over 90% of science is a cult then. Okay

90% rolleyes right back at you. Your UK court ruled it so. Take up the arugment with them. The court is the ones who said AGW is akin to a religious belief.

That is an outright lie, I have posted plenty of papers and spend next to know time talking about people.

I didn't say you didn't post stuff. I am saying you fail to discuss it to the point you win the argument.

I fail to see what politics have to with this. There is no evidence and his comments where unjustifiable and bigoted.

Absolutely hilarious. What a hipocrite. You STM and discredit because on ones political affiliation and then you make a statement like this. Did you get this out of the liberal handbook also? LMAO twice! It's going to take me an hour to wipe all the soda off my desk that just shot out of my nose.

Yes and so have I, but please feel free what papers he has showing such things (aside from IQ tests, which are of not good indicators) rather than silly political ramblings.

IQ tests are good indicators of the ability to reason. This is intelligence. Look at his papers on West African genetics. I'm not going to do it for you. Your education is your problem. The data is there.

[Mattshark]

I read the first one. It clearly says,

"The earliest GCM simulations of CO2‐induced climate change were performed without the annual insolation cycle. These “annual mean” simulations gave for a CO2 doubling a global mean surface air temperature warming of 1.3° to 3.9°C, an increase in the global mean precipitation rate of 2.7 to 7.8%, and an indication of a soil moisture drying in the middle latitudes."

This indicates the previous models were crap. They can't be calibrated because the temperature didn't rise as predicted. So, the previous models are useless. I suspect the new ones will suffer a similar fate because they won't be able to be calibrated either because M-cycle and the sun are not taken into account.

Not really, you wouldn't expect early models to be as good as modern ones, which btw, do take the sun and Milankovitch cycles into account/

I don't ignore the evidence. I ignore to pseudo-science steered interpretation.

So you are saying the vast majority of science is pseudo-science?

Saying the thing, water vapor, that causes 90-95% of the effect is irrelvant is PLAIN STUPID.

Saying all the other trace gases that provide less than 5% of the effect are the driving cause is PLAIN STUPID.

CO2 as the cause is the arugment and showing that it can't be the cause is what is being argued, so how is that irrlevant? Explain?

No one is arguing that water vapour has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2, which you suggested, the fact that it is stronger is not the point, the point is that it has not seen a 38% rise in concentration and there is nothing to suggest that it is a driving force behind climate change and believe me, if it was, we'd be in far more trouble.

I don't ignore the evidence. I ignore to pseudo-science steered interpretation.

No, you ignore it.

Please don't mention pseudo-science when you open accept quote mining.

Saying the thing, water vapor, that causes 90-95% of the effect is irrelvant is PLAIN STUPID.

Saying all the other trace gases that provide less than 5% of the effect are the driving cause is PLAIN STUPID.

CO2 as the cause is the arugment and showing that it can't be the cause is what is being argued, so how is that irrlevant? Explain?

See above

You said in our other argument last month that the M-cycle was the cause for the iceages and interglacial periods. Now you are changing your story.

No I am not at all, Milankovitch cycles start and end ice ages, but they cannot alone account for all the climatological changes the occur, these papers clearly show that CO2 positive feedback plays a role.

[Mattshark]

First, McCain is a loser.

Second, how come now, all of a sudden when I call you out, you say publications are irrelevant. He has 200 publications in prestigious journals.

I am not saying his publications are irrelevant, I am saying his volume of publications is irrelevant. His links to the Marshall Institute however are not irrelevant

90% rolleyes right back at you. Your UK court ruled it so. Take up the arugment with them. The court is the ones who said AGW is akin to a religious belief.

Yes, there is a majority consensus with in science that anthropogenic effects are driving climate change and yes that level is around 90%.

Not true at all, they said dismissing someone for supporting the scientific consensus on climate change is akin to firing someone because of their religion. You have done enough deliberate misrepresentation and in science that is considered a blacklisting offence (just like quote mining).

I didn't say you didn't post stuff. I am saying you fail to discuss it to the point you win the argument.

No actually you said

You mention people you think are credible but you rarely discuss the science itself.

. Can you tell me which people I have said think are credible?

Absolutely hilarious. What a hipocrite. You STM and discredit because on ones political affiliation and then you make a statement like this. Did you get this out of the liberal handbook also? LMAO twice! It's going to take me an hour to wipe all the soda off my desk that just shot out of my nose.

Sorry, do you know my political affiliation? No you don't, so don't dare to be so presumptuous and ignorant.

IQ tests are good indicators of the ability to reason. This is intelligence. Look at his papers on West African genetics. I'm not going to do it for you. Your education is your problem. The data is there.

No, IQ tests are good indicators of how good you are at IQ tests, they have no scientific value.

Actually, your claims mean it is no one but yours to post evidence.