You ought to ask why, the likes of maas101 comes on here, writes shit, and runs away?

’cause that is what he does. Maas101 being no more than a flea about your ear. He is a denialist, true and simple. He will never be persuaded by evidence. He is hung up on a politic, rather than any sort of worry science might suggest.

Devils Kitchen, a moron of the first order, is hung up on a similar philosophy, absent sense, from a long time ago.

These folk, especially DK, are liars and reprobates, toothless morons and, probably, incredibly stupid. They assume knowledge of climate science that they, frankly do not have.

You have been warned.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

This takes it a stage further…

Perhaps one of the better scources for the arguements pro AGW is to be found here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Using that resource the answers to your second and third questions can be found:

2) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

3) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Your first question about the extent of Artic sea ice is more intractible, so, on a slightly lighter note I’ll give you this:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/chinese_navy_sails_again.php

If you look through these links and still can’t find an answer that satisfies you, Real Climate will usually go out of their way to tell you what they know.

On the Norse naming/settlement of “Greenland”, best information we have to go on at present is that it was partially Eirik the Red’s propaganda (the place was a bit more severe than Iceland, judging by Danish archaeological research, letters,etc), but also the climate there was warmer than today between C9th & C12th…only in the C14th that shipping routes had to change due to encroaching polar ice.

max population was roughly 3,000, and they even found the time to build a stone cathedral.

hope that helps…?

You shouldn’t need to ask Douglas or myself to provide the evidence for AGW, it’s out there – read the latest IPCC report if nothing else.

As for your questions –

1. It has no relevance to modern AGW, but it is worth pointing out that the MWP was largely a regional rather than a global phenomenon and even then temperatures were lower than they are now.

2. There is no real evidence to support the contention that Greenland was vastly different to how it is now. It may have been slightly warmer but such regional variations prove little.

3. There was never any widespread scientific support for the notion of a “new ice age” in the 1970s.

Just because someone does not conform to your worldview they are somehow deniers. Jeez, and you are the people who call the Pope when he says gays are bad*

* Yes I know the Pope is wrong and he is just a religious nut job.

I only started it yesterday, but it is more balanced than you think. For example, it decisively rejects the notion that the EU was originally some sort of Nazi plan, pointing out that its origins derive from idealists in the 1920s.

1. Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no. – Yes

2. Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no. – Yes

3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no. – Yes

There you are, your questions answered. Now – a couple of mine.

1. Did the artic ice retreat during the medeival warm period? – You don’t know and neither do I

2. Did the vikings call Greenland green ‘cos it was covered in snow? – Probably not

3. Were the same scientists who are crying doom and destruction over global warming predicting the next ice age during the late 70′s?

And Sunny, I took you for having a little more intelligence than this but apparently not. Just because I am on the fence about the anthropomorphic part of AGW does not mean I’m a conspiracy theorist or a ‘troofer’.

Neither of you have the slightest clue about the ‘facts’ behind the position you have taken. My initial post was about asking those who pillory others with a different viewpoint whether they had actually followed and understood the arguments.

My answer has become clear during subsequent posts; you haven’t.

I stated that I wanted to see rational debate between both sides. You have both displayed stunning arrogance coupled with ignorance that perfectly demonstrates why this won’t happen.

Oh well, no matter. I’ll continue reading research papers etc. looking for the A in GW while you can go on calling people who do not share your views ‘troofers’. I may eventually agree with your position but at least I’ll have done it armed with facts and knowledge rather than blind faith.

It’s not funny – they deserve all the abuse they get. And I will keep dishing it out. Just like the ‘troofers’.

I wonder if ‘maas101′ also goes around questioning people believing the 9/11 conspiracy theories as trying to find ‘facts’ rather than ‘having faith’.

So far you have failed to convince me, in fact if anything you have moved me further towards the sceptics corner.

Cry me a river.

You were there already.

You said:

It’s funny how those who are sceptical of AGW are reviled and pilloried with such vehemence. That only usually happens when someone is sceptical of faith rather than fact.

I have no fixed opinion either way (and I have a pretty good understanding of the science and a very good understanding of computer models) but I do have a question for those who are so actively trashing the sceptics. Do YOU understand the science? Have YOU looked into it far enough to understand the limitations and variability of computer models?

The argument is not won, there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate. I would much rather see intelligent debate leading to a consensus opinion but that doesn’t seem possible when there are people on both sides (but mostly upon the side of AGW) who prefer name calling to reasoned argument.

As far as I recall, that was your opening statement here. You were the one claiming expertise.

Demonstrate it.

Answer the simple questions:

1 – Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no.

2 – Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no.

3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no.

You are getting nothing out of me until you answer my, deliberately, simple questions.

Your the fucking expert.

As far as I can see the level of warming that has to do with CO2 resolves to the black body radiation of CO2 in the upper levels of the stratosphere that is outside of the saturation spectra of CO2 yet also outside of the absorbtion spectra of H2O.

But that’s irrelevant, I’m not the one who is arguing for a dramatic shift in the economy of the planet. As I have repeatedly (ad nauseum) stated I am not convinced.

You are convinced, you are willing to impose your new version of reality on the entire planet. You are the one who requires proof. All I need is convincing.

So far you have failed to convince me, in fact if anything you have moved me further towards the sceptics corner.

Those who are sceptics do not need to prove their position. They need to be convinced that thay are in the wrong by those who have the arguments and evidence to back up their position.

If your arguments are an example of the pro-AGW fraternity then count me in to the sceptics corner.

I’d like to see some pro AGW science from you, argued rationally and with a level of knowledge. If you can’t provide then what the hell are you doing arguing for a position that you patently do not understand.

So, perhaps you’d like to answer the questions?

They are ridiculously simple:

1 – Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no.

2 – Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no.

3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no.

Your the fucking expert.

I guess I won’t be taking the escape pattern. I stated repeatedly (yes that means I repeated myself) that I do not have a fixed opinion on AGW either way.

Good.

Let’s reverse the argument, what are your credentials? I remain to be convinced. You obviously have assumed the mantle not only of being convinced but also qualified to convince others. That requires a far higher burden of proof. How many peer reviewed papers have you written? I require links to said articles, I will check the facts of the articles and the credentials of those who reviewed them. Once I heve done that I will report back here honestly my assesment of those articles. If you cannot provide the requested information then you have no basis for the arguments you have put forward.

Uh. Uh. Don’t try to play judo with me.

Lets not reverse the arguement. You show first.

I did, after all, ask you first.

No?

That’s what you lot do. I am not calling you out on my knowledge, I am calling you out on the fact that I doubt you have any knowledge whatsoever.

Answer that.

‘Cause you can’t answer, you try to attack me. But I am not the target you have to hit. It was you that said you were the expert, the font of all knowledge.

Prove it.

Let’s reverse the argument, what are your credentials? I remain to be convinced. You obviously have assumed the mantle not only of being convinced but also qualified to convince others. That requires a far higher burden of proof. How many peer reviewed papers have you written? I require links to said articles, I will check the facts of the articles and the credentials of those who reviewed them. Once I heve done that I will report back here honestly my assesment of those articles. If you cannot provide the requested information then you have no basis for the arguments you have put forward.

I came into this debate unconvinced but willing to listen to arguments from both sides. Now I require a far higher level of argument from you as all I have seem is bluster.

I’ll even requote Bellamy that you quoted at me “However, as I have consistently said, I am prepared to change my mind should the evidence warrant it and that I may be wrong.”

Give me evidence, give me your peer reviewed papers, or are you as I suspect an idiot who repeats the views of others with no real understanding.

I can name many scientists, for one well known one let’s start with Dr David Bellamy.

Dr David Bellamy is a botanist. He was a great populiser of science, and for that I give him kudos.

His views on AGW are as likely to be right as some-one you bump into in a bus queue. They are about as likely to be right as asking an astronomer about eukaryotes. He has, largely, withdrawn from the debate, although, as you say, his signature is a bit puzzling, given what he said in 2005:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article527565.ece

Bellamy says

There is an enormous body of opinion and information which could indicate that man is having an impact on the climate, but the counter view does not get much publicity. So, rightly or wrongly, I have recently been trying to provide some balance in this debate. However, as I have consistently said, I am prepared to change my mind should the evidence warrant it and that I may be wrong.

The real climate debate will be resolved in the court of science, not in magazine articles, by the media nor on the rack of heresy. Celebrity can be both a blessing and a curse and in this instance it worries me greatly that my name and the headlines it inspires have been responsible for reducing this most complex of scientific issues to soundbites. I have therefore decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.

I will carry on working to help stitch the natural history of the world back into biodiverse working order; creating the conditions to allow Mother Nature to better deal with the huge complexities of ongoing climate change.

David Bellamy
The Conservation Foundation
London SW7

So there’s your man, maybe aye, mibbee naw.

You said:

and I have a pretty good understanding of the science and a very good understanding of computer models

and you think that’s adequate? My comment:

is for someone like you to come along without a shred of evidence, either for your opinions, nor your credentials, and criticise me.

leads to this!!!

on the other hand instantly started trying ad hominem attacks at my credentials.

ad hominem has a meaning you seem to fail to appreciate. It means ‘arguement against the man’. That is certainly not what I am about. I want you to flower here with your arguements.

I want – seriously – for you to prove me wrong. As a starter for ten, what are your qualifications? How many peer reviewed articles are in your cv? How many on climate science, specifically?

Else, I will take all of this:

Let’s see, I understand the CO2 absorbtion spectra, I understand saturation and the sideband issues. I know there was a medieval warm period, I know that the glaciers have actually expanded this year. I understand the difference between El Ninio and La Nina.

to bits.

Meaning, that you don’t actually know what you think you are talking about. However, it will take some time, and as you are a very important climate change denialist you won’t be fucking hanging around, will you?

No.

Answer a few questions first.

Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty years or so, and by how much?

The escape pattern for the denialist is approximately now.

‘I can only reaffirm some of the earlier reviews which state that this is a well written, enjoyable account of the history of European integration; however it is spoiled by some rather baffling conclusions concerning hidden agendas, conspiracy theories and downright biased analysis. It’s never given a full and detailed airing, but at its heart this book attempts to argue that some clique of Europhile plotters is attempting to hijack European democracies and force European citizens into a giant superstate against their will.’

HA! A healthy scepticism is all very well, but shameless pandering to an agenda? BOR-ING.

I can name many scientists, for one well known one let’s start with Dr David Bellamy. But, I stated that I had no fixed opinions either way. You, on the other hand instantly started trying ad hominem attacks at my credentials.

Let’s see, I understand the CO2 absorbtion spectra, I understand saturation and the sideband issues. I know there was a medieval warm period, I know that the glaciers have actually expanded this year. I understand the difference between El Ninio and La Nina.

But I repeat ( as you are obviously a little hard of understanding ) I have no fixed opinions upon the subject. I do find however that the proponents of AGW tend to violently attack those who question their new found religion. You have merely reinforced that opinion.

Sorry, you don’t get your £5

I’ve pointed out many a time that I am not a scientist.

But what is intensely frustrating for a reasonably engaged layman – me – is for someone like you to come along without a shred of evidence, either for your opinions, nor your credentials, and criticise me.

It is fairly simple, but extremely time consuming, to argue the AGW case.

As I have pointed out previously, idiotic folk can take up inordinate amounts of time by pointing to what they think are flaws, and after expending huge amounts of my time and others in refuting what they have to say, they run away into the shadows of the internet, their work done.

So, let’s reverse the process.

What’s your explanation for glacial retreat, artic and antartic ice melt, and other facts?

Name some respected climate scientists that are on the anti side of the debate. (I can name two, how about you?)

Explain why your knowledge of climate science programming is adequate for anyone to take you seriously.

And, why should anyone believe a self declared expert, who as far as I can tell is just another horseman for the denialists, rather than genuine climate scientists.

See? It’s easy to do. I think you haven’t a credential to your name.

You are Devils’ Kitchen in disguise and I claim my £5.

Heh! Doesn’t sound like my sort of book, to be honest.

Although the guy does get some seriously high scoring book reviews on Amazon.

It does worry me a bit that denying anything at all seems such a popular trope, and presumeably earner, for authors these days…

Hmmm…

I’m sure you and I could come up with a counter intuitive about something.

Say, threads on the web about the I/P fiasco are fed by a global cabal who’s objective is forcing folk apart?

Needs work.

Too near true.

Sorry.