Mumbles, you are wrong. The UK, as I posted on the first page, is not 6% of the worlds surface area. it is less than 0.1% HAHAHAH

Yet, it is only a total of about 1C from the coldest to the warmest over a 160 year span. Do you have a graph that shows it a bit further back? Perhaps a thousand years or so? Or ten thousand?

There are other graphs from ice cores that show even higher temp periods (and much lower), which have nothing to do with AGW. And they are regular enough to suggest long term cycles, into which our current warming trend fits.

From the baseline, the current warming trend is barely .6C. And from the ups and downs of even that graph, no long term estimate can be made. You can't simply take the current trend and project it forward by a hundred or more years to come to a conclusion.

Everything aside, how do we explain away climategate?  Mumble, do you beleive climategate is 100% lies against the scientists?  Could at least some of the emails where they try to cover up the data be true?  What is your take on climategate?

Also, why are the elites of the world such hypocrits?  The loudest defenders of global warming are some of the most hypocritical.  The elites are the ultimate example of do as I say and not as I do.  Who made these folks like Al Gore God?  Why are they allowed to pollute a thousand times more than us?

This isn't even funny anymore.  Now it's socialist when someone wants to know how government funded research actually arrived at the incompetent results they're paying to accomodate.  If anything is, it would be funding the research that's socialist.  They sure as hell don't own it after the tax base pays their salaries.  Those tax payers should have open access to work they fund.

You could at least rant in a marginally sane manner.  How many hours did you sit around trying to come up with a reason not to divulge that information before you fell back on such an absurdity?  You were already aiming low with this childish tobacco nonsense, but you've outdone yourself big time playing the socialist card in the worst way I've seen.  Considering the number of political arguments I've torched, that's saying something.

When you've finished foaming at the mouth with this severe case of stupidity, let me know and I'll find another subject for you to go bonkers over.

The number of incompetent idiots in the blogosphere approaches infinity. The number of scientists is far less than that. Name me one other branch of science that has to deal with the shit that climatologists have to deal with, physicists, no, chemists, hardly. Perhaps the closest branch of science that has a similar issue is economics and for similar reasons because their pronouncements have political ramifications. However even economists are not subject to the amount of shit on the internet that climatologists have directed at them. (As an aside are economists required to make their economic models public?)

Certainly I agree that scientists of any field need to be able to defend their work, however no scientist in any field is required to respond to every nut case on the internet. Climatologists do in fact respond to every *legitimate* criticism as contained in AFAIK about 6500 respected peer reviewed journals. Also in fact pretty much every attack on the internet has been answered as well however the problem is that when folks simply deny the response because they have no real scientific basis themselves then there is no thing that constitutes "proof" to such idiots.

Just because Gavin Schmidt hasn't personally spoken to you and answered every one of your picayune and pedantic questions does not mean that the science is no good. The fact that there is not ONE SINGLE reputably published peer reviewed article that disproves any essential basis of AGW PROVES that the science is sound. The fact that there is an uncounted amount of undocumented BULLSHIT spread all over the INTERNET means NOTHING.

Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

It seems that global warming skeptics have an ally in creationists. Denialists of a feather should stick together.

If you can't win an argument, insult people and blame religion eh?  Nice to see you two trolling away.

Btw, I do find it hilarious that the only people mentioning religion in this topic is Mumbles and his like minded fools.  Perhaps if you spent less time in the church of Al Gore you'd have a decent argument?

Seriously, if you two can't figure it out yet, nobody is coming into this topic and praising God, or Alah, or whatever the hell people have as religions.  People are having arguments with you, and you keep making this into a religious discussion that nobody else is having.  If you can't even argue properly, then quit.

Fortunately, 'reasonable limits' are not yours to define.

Furthermore, peer-reviewed crap is still crap.  There is nothing about peer review which confers validity or truth on conclusions - if the reviewers know already, we don't need the article do we?  The purpose of peer review is to assure that minimum standards and acceptable methods have been used by the authors, not to confer some sort of official approval of content & conclusions.  Jones & Mann had no business passing judgment on papers they hadn't even seen (certainly shouldn't have seen pre-publication) or attempting to influence the peer review process in any way.  And they should have recused themselves if asked to review articles on subjects in which they had a vested interest.  Acceptable methods & standards produce conflicting results in published studies on a given subject all the time, for a long list of perfectly understandable & acceptable reasons.  The results of any given study, no matter how well-done & how well-peer-reviewed, can be disputed - just look at the editorials (not to mention letters to the editor) in any peer-reviewed publication.

I'd have no problem with either Jones or Mann if they'd fully disclosed their data & let the chips fall where they may, but they didn't.  Furthermore, the paucity of challenge to their conclusions in peer-reviewed journals is hardly a defense - not when their data was unavailable for critique, whether by accident or design.

This is no different in climatology than in any other scientific field. No better, no worse. If you wish to believe that a handful of scientists have a stranglehold over 6500 different publications then that's your prerogative however nothing short of a global conspiracy theory is required for your assertions to be true. Also if you wish to believe that all other scientific fields are free of the kind of "in-fighting" that has been so over exposed in the case of climatology then let me not be the one to burst your bubble.

Finally you can take the entire works of Mann, Jones and Schmidt and throw them out and you would still have overwhelming evidence that supports AGW and zero credible evidence that denies the basis of AGW.

I figure this is a lost cause, which is why I've not bothered to shred it before, but what the hell.  Now that you're completely rabid it's not like you'll respond to it anyway.

Libertarians and other free market proponents siding with the tobacco industry make perfect sense.  Being the liberal idiot that you are, you can grasp the whole "right to privacy" argument right?  After all, it gets applied to murdering viable babies left and right.  If you haven't got a right to pollute your own body, you haven't got any rights at all.  They went severely overboard when they went to lynch the producers of the product.  The risks were overblown by a bunch of blowhard politicians and grieving relatives, niether of which are rational.  Any lying done by the opposition was well matched.

For those of us who haven't written sucker on our forehead in permanent ink, this AGW nonsense reeks of a power grab.  Adding CO2 to the list of pollutants gives massive control over every aspect of life.  Breathing itself becomes a potentially dangerous activity.  You can bitch about denial all you want, but the defense of the free market goes hand in hand with both cases.  You can argue the morality of lying for the cause if you want, but you're going to have to get a bigger brush if you want to cover both sides with the stroke.

Aside from their own models, you mean?  Oh, right, I forgot.  We're pretending they haven't been 100% wrong for every year after the models were built, and couldn't predict past events as well...

The theory only looks bulletproof because there's nothing there to shoot down.

I wonder praytell how our good doctor friend would respond to this?

If you've ever known anyone that died from Emphysema then I doubt you could say this. It's an insidious slow death I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Apparently you haven't paid enough attention to your wonderful friends in congress.

They played up the addiction of nicotine in a major way(psychological addiction has been found to be the primary influence after all), inflated the dangers well beyond what should have been the terrifying reality of smoking, and flat out fabricated the high risk from second hand smoke, claiming it was more dangerous than first hand because it didn't travel through the filter, a lie as most of the second hand smoke does indeed travel through the filter, and the carcinogenic properties themselves are secondary to the effect of charring your lungs with hot ash repeatedly.  That's not to say you should aspire to being a server in a smoke filled pool hall, but it's no where near the death sentence it's been claimed to be either.  Basically, they were a bunch of lying assholes, for no concievable reason, the merits were more than sufficient to the task of educating and punishing where needed.

Personally, I'd be overjoyed to never have to walk through a cloud of smoke for the rest of my life, but it's horrifying that we're telling private citizens what they can and can't do on their own property.

As an aside, do you really think I'm such a compassionate person that I'd alter my views over such an event?  I know you're trying to stick the heartless bastard label on me, but it's sort of a given isn't it?  Hell, I'm even against feeding the starving in countries that can't support themselves and public about it whenever the occasion arises.

I forget.

What was the OP about?