Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

did you even look at the world graph of medievel temps before posting cale?
local as in worldwide? and you cite mann as the sorce of the rebuttal?
yup, just a group of loonies, 752 from 41 countries all fucking conspiring to get a piece of that $23 million from exxon

your side has lost all credibility, and it's not because of exxon. its self inflicted.

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

[Fusion]

Mann is also now on the editorial board of the 'Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of 'Climatic Change'. He is also a 'referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and *** grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).

He was appointed as a 'Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.

Mann lists his 'popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17].

Mann's career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences, namely the 'star' system where high-profile scientists are promoted swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system reduces a science to the level of Hollywood.

[cale]

did you even look at the world graph of medievel temps before posting cale?

I didn't need to, I chose to educate myself on the subject prior to there being any debate on it between you and myself..that's the difference between you and I. I look at the science because it interests me and I want to know more, you look at the science that you feel fortifies your beliefs and then tell the same old tale of like minded individuals pushing for the same causes or who hold the same level of scepticism as you.....hence multiple people in this thread referring to the medieval warming period as though it shatters Mann's work.

You're a broken record, playing the same few songs over and over again without bringing anything new to the table.

edit* It should go without saying that I'm giving zero response to your claims of the medieval warming period on the basis that that argument is moot in the eyes of real climatologists and simply propaganda spread by skeptics, however my failure to do so would probably be a victory in your eyes so....it's a bullshit argument with no strength.

[cale]

Mann is also now on the editorial board of the 'Journal of Climate' and was a guest editor for a special issue of 'Climatic Change'. He is also a 'referee' for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and NSF, NOAA, and *** grant programs. (In the `peer review' system of science, the role of anonymous referee confers the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the opinion of the referee, not to meet scientific standards).

He was appointed as a 'Scientific Adviser' to the U.S. Government (White House OSTP) on climate change issues.

Mann lists his 'popular media exposure' as including - "CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNN headline news, BBC, NPR, PBS (NOVA/FRONTLINE), WCBS, Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, Economist, Scientific American, Science News, Science, Rolling Stone, Popular Science, USA Today, New York Times, New York Times (Science Times), Washington Post, Boston Globe, London Times, Irish Times, AP, UPI, Reuters, and numerous other television/print media" [17].

Mann's career highlights a serious problem with the modern climate sciences, namely the 'star' system where high-profile scientists are promoted swiftly to influential positions in the industry. Such a star system reduces a science to the level of Hollywood.

Once again you bring another irrelevant argument to the table that relies heavily on nothing more than the assumption that corruption precedes success. While we're at it we should discount all the work done by Newton, Einstein, Fleming, Feynman, Darwin and Aristotle for they too were far too successful to be genuinely quality scientists.

[Fusion]

Yes, irrelevant if your head is still stuck in the sand.
And since when is anyone moderating this debate and choosing what is or isn't relevant?

Your preacher Mann is a shady figure that refuses to show scientific data.

[gwb72tii]

fusion, i'll buy you a beer if we meet someday

[Kershaw]

cale, i'll buy you 2 beers if we meet someday.

[gwb72tii]

so here we are again
Q5 seems the most sensible
cale is trolling some
i have no clue where herb comes from except the blind faith of religion

and we are where we started, no smoking gun of AGW
herb unwilling to criticize anyone that's pro AGW or even admit any doubts whatsoever. all the qualities you'd want for a pastor of your local church.
Q5 at least looking for data absent politics, which in today's world is prolly impossible
and cale is from canada, eh? :)

[cale]

Yes, irrelevant if your head is still stuck in the sand.
And since when is anyone moderating this debate and choosing what is or isn't relevant?

Your preacher Mann is a shady figure that refuses to show scientific data.

Your post was simply a list of all of his accomplishments. The only way that could be a functional argument is if you assume like I said, corruption preceded success. If you don't, you're simply strengthening his reputation in the scientific community. Your own "argument" works against you if whoever reads it doesn't already have some preconceived belief he's corrupt. See how that's a shitty argument? If not there's not much hope.

The last paragraph is absolute bullshit. Personal success in being acknowledged discredits the science? Oh that's right, he's corrupt and in it for the monies. Keep supplying personal attacks because you nor your terrible news outlets are capable of discrediting him based on his work.

Oh and old fella *gwb, you need to head over to urban dictionary and learn what trolling is. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean I'm trolling, but thinking it is is ignorance or intolerance.

[gwb72tii]

who would ever believe the AGW camp is in it for the money?

[cale]

who would ever believe the AGW camp is in it for the money?

Let's compare who has more to lose shall we? Scientists receiving grant money, book deals and scientific accolades or the financial backers of skeptics who have billions tied up in investments and potential gains in the energy business? Are you really sure you want to go down the road of who would see bigger financial gains having their side come out on top?

[herbivor]

Let's compare who has more to lose shall we? Scientists receiving grant money, book deals and scientific accolades or the financial backers of skeptics who have billions tied up in investments and potential gains in the energy business? Are you really sure you want to go down the road of who would see bigger financial gains having their side come out on top?

Also, practically speaking, who would you consider to have a higher code of ethics, research scientists, or oil executives? It's like asking if you trust your doctor or the pharmaceutical rep with your health problems. Sure, they both have money to gain for you being sick, but only one is truly interested in helping you get better.

[CorvallisBMW]

Let's compare who has more to lose shall we? Scientists receiving grant money, book deals and scientific accolades or the financial backers of skeptics who have billions tied up in investments and potential gains in the energy business? Are you really sure you want to go down the road of who would see bigger financial gains having their side come out on top?

Also, practically speaking, who would you consider to have a higher code of ethics, research scientists, or oil executives? It's like asking if you trust your doctor or the pharmaceutical rep with your health problems. Sure, they both have money to gain for you being sick, but only one is truly interested in helping you get better.

QFT.

Ever heard of a wealthy billionaire scientist? Oh, yeah... they don't exist Pretty easy to see who is financially tied to this issue and who isn't.

[Fusion]

The big oil and cigarette manf. comparison is one of Gore's biggest "arguments".
Plus, there's no reason oil companies can't get in on the circle jerk, actually they should be drooling when they see the governmental incentives http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/solar/

[Q5Quint]

This is the hardest to follow thread I think I have ever been in.

I can't attempt to convince the un-convinceable... but what I can do is further my own belief (or disbelief if I can find the info). Not wanting to be bias is one thing but all these off-topic responses/questions is more research than I can actually do. Pitchers for all if I ever see you at the bar.

You ask about mann being not a good source:

Q5

the reason i point out mann is that his research has been shown, proven, to be inaccurate, biased, intentionally fraudulent.

Really? Who proved it fraudulent? I can find some things saying the opposite....

At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[8]

The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[9] Around seven or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

I hate to stoop down to a wikipedia research level but it will give someone else a footstep into figuring it out. Perhaps he could be a fraud but from that basic research I will now have to argue that he is right although he had some 'statistical failings'. I don't even have to say it is my opinion since I can just use all these folks below:

Subsequent reconstructions
Juckes et al. 2007 "Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation".
Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 "Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods".
Huang, Pollack & Shen 2008 "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record"
Mann et al. 2008 "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia"
Kaufman et al. 2009 "Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling".
Tingley & Huybers 2010 "A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time".
Ljungqvist 2010 "A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Subsequent_reconstructions

So, I suppose, in addition to Mann you would need to deface all those folks as well.... but why bother when you can just say they are all in a evil liberal plot to try and take over the world? If you find me the anti-hockeystick publications so I can ensure my own research is not bias that would be excellent.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

John apparently died in 2004 so, unfortunately for skeptics, he never got around to refuting credible scientists work since then. Just reading through his site I wonder why you would even post that link as a credible source for skeptic science.... it just kinda makes him out to be a loon that really enjoys being anti-something.

I am all for a 'hockey stick' graph that does not show global temperature rises but I would enjoy it if it were in a published journal instead of a website from 1991 that makes my eyes bleed.

My new favorite website will be this for the sake of simplicity: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

So on the topic of the little ice age/medevial warming period:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm

The question itself is a bit complicated so it takes a while to even understand~ It is easy to derail ourselves into the economic/communist plot bias type arguments and avoid the actual topic.

That said has anybody read the review of the electric street triple? 50 mile hoon range and 120 mile normal range. I think that is about the same as my honda shadow. http://jalopnik.com/brammo-empulse/