Kyoto Protocol

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

WIAF,

Quote:

No-one needs credentials in order to gain the expertise, not me, not you, not John Daly.


However, those who persue academic credentials and publish their research are de facto experts in their respective fields.

They certainly have knowledge in their field, but the expertise could be contaminated by individual bias.

Depending on the nature of the field, expertise may also entail practical experience beyond "arm-chair" learning (I don't know if I would trust an armchair civil engineer or physician).

In my work I have seen a man with grade 7 and a lifetime of practical experience have far more expertise than the engineers he worked with. Ditto on the physician.

The expertise of those without formal credentials can only be assessed by other experts. Are you an expert?

Expertise can also be determined by observation of the results produce. Daly's results have confirmed his expertise. Me, expert?
No. When confronted by two differing opinions by experts, non-experts such as I can best form an opinion by comparing the two expert opinions, since both will carry equal authority.

Moreover, I'm beginning to see an argument that runs like this, "Daly was an expert, because of his work. We should trust his work because he was an expert."

Nice circular argument, but not mine. His work has proved to be accurate, more accurate than his opponents. That is a proof of expertise. Were he still alive, any future work would be given more weight because of past performance.

Still, perhaps you should look up "fraud" in your Cassells English Dictionary and reconcile the definition to your description of Mann's research.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it fraud, but I would say that his work was heavily influenced by his a priori beliefs.

Quote:
Why would you expect me to remember his exact words from 15 or 20 years ago?


…., yet you can't remember what caused this?

Why yes I can remember what caused this. Once again, quoting myself;

I remember why. He was spreading falsehoods about our forest practices….

From the way you pursue this, I must assume that you have an infallible memory for all past events, no matter how trivial, or you keep an incredibly precise diary of all your mundane thoughts and activities. I, on the other hand, have to rely on an average memory which doesn't recall all the details from 20 yrs. ago.

Quote:
Mann et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 1999


You have, of course, read the article that accompanies Figure 3, haven't you? Perhaps you would provide a short yet enlightening excerpt?

Why would you want that?. The graph speaks for itself. Its’ purpose is to convey the authors conclusions to us. That conclusion is at odds with reality. If there were no records to compare to, then the only way to know whether the graph was correct or not would be to go through all the background work, which would require the expertise you’re talking about. Fortunately, we have recorded reality, so anyone with the ability to only read a graph can see that it is wrong.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Derry,

Yes you did. You implied that a group of scientists made a false claim to discredit him.

No I didn’t. Here’s the statement:

The global warming industry tried to tag him with the label of charlatan but were unable to make it stick.

The only implication was this; there are a lot of people, journalists, authors, political activists, environmentalist fundraisers etc. and yes, even scientists, who have a vested interest in global warming. It is a fairly common practice of many of these people (more often the others than the scientists) to try and label their detractors in order to discredit them. There’s no conspiracy that I’m aware of. It’s just a tool that’s fairly effective and so gets used quite often. Notice that I wrote that statement in response to Rev. doing just that. Not that he has a vested interest, he’s just a believer.

You are misinterpreting the data due to your own lack of knowledge and predisposition not to believe in global arming.

Actually, I'm ignoring the data and focusing on the conclusion. And I’m not disputing global warming. It has happened in the past and there’s ample reason to believe it’s happening again. After all, sun spot activity is very high, which has historically been associated with global warming. Weather patterns appear to be changing, which could be a consequence of warming. What I’m disputing is historical temperatures as demonstrated by Mann’s graph, and I’m also disputing the supposed cause.

Nope. I’m arguing that his graph that portrays his conclusion is at odds with historical records, and therefore wrong.


You are misinterpreting something out of ignorance. That ignorance can no longer be considered to be anything but purposeful.

When you look at the graph, do you see a representation of the little ice age? No? Neither do I. How could that be construed as misinterpretation? I would suggest that looking at the graph that is at odds with the records, and then saying both are true is about as blatant a misrepresentation you could make, as well as a complete abandonment of logic.

Quote:
I need no such knowledge to read a graph.


Yes you do.

Qualifications required to read a graph in your own words:

Usually a high school education will do that for you

Of course, if you want to understand where the data was collected, how and why it was used, and the statistical methods used to appraise it, then, in your own words:

…you need to be at least as knowledgable as the scientist that made the graph.

But then, as I said, I’m only reading the graph, not analyzing the background data.

Since you claim not to read scientific data, how did you become aware of Mann's graph in the first place?

Didn’t make such a claim. Just not using it for this discussion.

I first became aware of the graph while listening to an afternoon CBC program. The graph was described, it was said to portray global temperatures as steady until the last 100 years and then a steep rise. There was some discussion about the impending doom. The graph itself was called the hockey stick. My first impression was that there was something wrong with it, because as described, it omitted historical temperature variations. I didn’t check it out, so it was some time before I eventually actually saw it.

Medieval Climate Optimum the earth was very much warmer than today, and there’s no record that I’m aware of that mentions any problems with high sea levels at that time.


That was a different event and has nothing to do with global warming. Trying to introduce that into this discussion is like bringing sandals into a discussion on workboots.

Yes that was a different event, but it was also global warming; the globe warmed to a temperature much warmer than now. The only possible difference you could legitimately bring to this discussion would be the cause.

McItrick and MacIntosh will again have their work discredited, as has happened so many times now.

Mann frequently claims to have refuted their work on his blog, realclimate.org, but so far it has turned out not to be the case. Mc & Mc will come out on top again as has happened before. But of course, the global warming industry won't admit it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

No I didn’t. Here’s the statement:
Quote:
The global warming industry tried to tag him with the label of charlatan but were unable to make it stick.

The only implication was this; there are a lot of people, journalists, authors, political activists, environmentalist fundraisers etc. and yes, even scientists, who have a vested interest in global warming. It is a fairly common practice of many of these people (more often the others than the scientists) to try and label their detractors in order to discredit them. There’s no conspiracy that I’m aware of. It’s just a tool that’s fairly effective and so gets used quite often. Notice that I wrote that statement in response to Rev. doing just that. Not that he has a vested interest, he’s just a believer.

The implication is that a group of people conspired against the man to discredit him. What discredited him was his work.

Actually, I'm ignoring the data and focusing on the conclusion.

You cannot disprove the conclusion...that global warming is occurring...without disproving the data and/or the methodology.

And I’m not disputing global warming.

Ah, so you agree with the conclusion (that global warming is occurring) and haven't read the data, yet Mann is wrong (in spite of all of the evidence from other fields backing him up, no doubt).

After all, sun spot activity is very high, which has historically been associated with global warming.

Proponents of the sunspot theory have consistently been unable to prove their theory. Enough energy does not enter the atmosphere from sunspots to substantiate their claim.

What I’m disputing is historical temperatures as demonstrated by Mann’s graph, and I’m also disputing the supposed cause.

But you don't understand the graph. You say you agree with its conclusion and haven't read the data so what are you actually disputing?

When you look at the graph, do you see a representation of the little ice age? No? Neither do I. How could that be construed as misinterpretation? I would suggest that looking at the graph that is at odds with the records, and then saying both are true is about as blatant a misrepresentation you could make, as well as a complete abandonment of logic.

That's because you don't understand the graph or statistical analysis.

Qualifications required to read a graph in your own words:

Notice the word "usually"?

Didn’t make such a claim. Just not using it for this discussion.

You've said several times that you didn't read the scientific data.

I first became aware of the graph while listening to an afternoon CBC program.

That would Quirks and Quarks. I'm guessing it was the show where they presented all sides of the story. If you would have listened more closely you would have found that McKittrick and McIntyre were shown to be wrong during that show.

Yes that was a different event, but it was also global warming; the globe warmed to a temperature much warmer than now.

For a short period and without causing things like glaciers and permafrost melting.

Mann frequently claims to have refuted their work on his blog, realclimate.org, but so far it has turned out not to be the case. Mc & Mc will come out on top again as has happened before. But of course, the global warming industry won't admit it.

I put up several links leading to thorough debunkings of McItrick and McIntyre.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

The implication is that a group of people conspired against the man to discredit him. What discredited him was his work.

There's no conspiracy, and I didn't imply that there was. It's just a tactic thats used to some effect. His work did not discredit him, it proved him.

You cannot disprove the conclusion...that global warming is occurring...without disproving the data and/or the methodology.

The conclusion is that the earth's temperature was stable for many centuries and only started to warm in the last 100 years or so. That is at odds with historical fact, so it disproves itself.

Proponents of the sunspot theory have consistently been unable to prove their theory. Enough energy does not enter the atmosphere from sunspots to substantiate their claim.

Sunspot records go back to the little ice age, when there was practically no activity and are consistant with global temperature variations. Energy from sunspots is not the cause of variations. It is the strength of the suns magnetic field that varies according to sunspot activity, and its effect on cosmic particles and their effect on the atmosphere

Quote:
What I’m disputing is historical temperatures as demonstrated by Mann’s graph, and I’m also disputing the supposed cause.


But you don't understand the graph. You say you agree with its conclusion and haven't read the data so what are you actually disputing?

NO I don't agree with its conclusion. See above.

That's because you don't understand the graph or statistical analysis.

I very much understand the graph. Statistical analysis is unnecessary for that purpose.

Quote:
Qualifications required to read a graph in your own words:


Notice the word "usually"?

OK, I guess that means everyone but you.

That would Quirks and Quarks. I'm guessing it was the show where they presented all sides of the story. If you would have listened more closely you would have found that McKittrick and McIntyre were shown to be wrong during that show.

I try to listen to Quirks and Quarks every Saturday if I'm able. No, it wasn't that. Sometime during the week, and it would have been a CBC Vancouver show. Female host. Mc & Mc weren't mentioned and I didn't know they existed at that time.

Quote:
Yes that was a different event, but it was also global warming; the globe warmed to a temperature much warmer than now.


For a short period and without causing things like glaciers and permafrost melting.

It was a long period, 2 or 3 hundred years, if I recall, including the warming and cooling. It was 1000 years ago, so nobody noticed things like glaciers and permafrost melting, but that's when the Norse colonized Greenland, and it was a much warmer and more hospitable place than it is now.

 

[zenfisher]

Re: Kyoto

In my work I have seen a man with grade 7 and a lifetime of practical experience have far more expertise than the engineers he worked with. Ditto on the physician.

I am interested to know how a doctor with a grade 7 education got a licence. 8O

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

There's no conspiracy, and I didn't imply that there was. It's just a tactic thats used to some effect. His work did not discredit him, it proved him.

Yeah, it proved him wrong.

The conclusion is that the earth's temperature was stable for many centuries and only started to warm in the last 100 years or so. That is at odds with historical fact, so it disproves itself.

Nobody...not Mann, not anybody else...is arguing that the temperature was stable and without fluctuation until 100 years ago. You don't understand graph.

Sunspot records go back to the little ice age, when there was practically no activity and are consistant with global temperature variations.

Consistent how? They weren't able to measure the energy produced by sunspots. They weren't even able to count them properly. All they were able to do is relate anecdotal evidence.

Energy from sunspots is not the cause of variations. It is the strength of the suns magnetic field that varies according to sunspot activity, and its effect on cosmic particles and their effect on the atmosphere

First of all, magnetism is considered a form of energy in earth sciences. Second of all, the energy produced by sunspots is not enough to generate global warming. Third of all, what "cosmic particles"?

NO I don't agree with its conclusion. See above.

But you said, "And I’m not disputing global warming."

I very much understand the graph. Statistical analysis is unnecessary for that purpose.

To dispute the conclusion you have to be able to show that the data, as used in the statisical analysis, and the methodology, what data was used and why, are incorrect. This is what McItrick and McIntyre have been unable to do, and it is something you are denying is even necessary.

OK, I guess that means everyone but you.

No. It means most, but not all, of the time.

I try to listen to Quirks and Quarks every Saturday if I'm able. No, it wasn't that. Sometime during the week, and it would have been a CBC Vancouver show. Female host. Mc & Mc weren't mentioned and I didn't know they existed at that time.

Ah, the source that nobody can verify.

It was a long period, 2 or 3 hundred years, if I recall, including the warming and cooling.

Ah so there was warming and cooling...that would indicate weather and localized events.

It was 1000 years ago, so nobody noticed things like glaciers and permafrost melting, but that's when the Norse colonized Greenland, and it was a much warmer and more hospitable place than it is now.

Ice core and ground samples indicate that glaciers and permafrost did not melt during that period. That is backed up by tree ring samples.

Anyway, you are focusing on one small piece of data, claiming to be able to disprove it while doing no such thing, then further claiming that it successfully disproves all of the data (reams of it) from all of the areas of science from all of the experts. Instead you offer "cosmic rays" from "sunspots" as the only possible explanation even though the sunspot theorists (paid by Exxon btw) have been unable to show how sunspots introduce enough energy to the atmosphere to affect even long-term weather, never mind causing global climate change.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

In my work I have seen a man with grade 7 and a lifetime of practical experience have far more expertise than the engineers he worked with. Ditto on the physician.

I am interested to know how a doctor with a grade 7 education got a licence. 8O

:lol: Not what I meant. When I said "Ditto on the physician" I meant I was agreeing with you. I wouldn't trust a layperson with only practical experience to be my physician either.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Nobody...not Mann, not anybody else...is arguing that the temperature was stable and without fluctuation until 100 years ago.

Yes he is:

Though expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400, our results suggest that the latter 20thcentury is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing.

Consistent how?

When there was little or no sunspot activity, the earth's climate was cool. When there was lots, it was warm. Records are available.

First of all, magnetism is considered a form of energy in earth sciences. Second of all, the energy produced by sunspots is not enough to generate global warming. Third of all, what "cosmic particles"?

Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175

Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7

Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87

E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22

Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401

Quote:
NO I don't agree with its conclusion. See above.


But you said, "And I’m not disputing global warming."

You didn't see above. I'm disputing Manns version of historical temperatures according to his graph.

To dispute the conclusion you have to be able to show that the data, as used in the statisical analysis, and the methodology, what data was used and why, are incorrect

That's what you have to do if all you have is the graph. Fortunately, this graph purports to show historical temperatures, and we just happen to have historical records of temperatures, which are in conflict with Mann's graph.

Quote:
I try to listen to Quirks and Quarks every Saturday if I'm able. No, it wasn't that. Sometime during the week, and it would have been a CBC Vancouver show. Female host. Mc & Mc weren't mentioned and I didn't know they existed at that time.



Ah, the source that nobody can verify.

The question was how did I hear about the graph in the first place. That's how I first heard about it. What do you want to verify?

Quote:
It was a long period, 2 or 3 hundred years, if I recall, including the warming and cooling.


Ah so there was warming and cooling...that would indicate weather and localized events.

You make a habit of twisting my words and arguing against a straw man. Pay close attention. The Medieval Climate Optimum was a warmer period in history. In order for there to be a warmer period, the climate first has to warm up from what it was (the norm). Then after it's been warm for 200 yrs. or so, it had to cool back down to what it was. The whole process took about 300 years. If that was weather and localized events, then the current global warming scare is over nothing more than a minor heat wave.

But we've been through this before. Your argument is similar to this: 2 + 2 = 4, but if the right experts determine that 2 + 2= 5, then they are correct. The fact that the conclusion (5) conficts with the reality (4) is irrelevant and both are correct.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

Yes he is:

No he isn't.:wink:

When there was little or no sunspot activity, the earth's climate was cool. When there was lots, it was warm. Records are available.

Yeah, ancient records kept by celibate monks who had no idea of the scientific method and no instrments to work with.

Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175

Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7

Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87

E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22

Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401

No links, no synopsis of the articles, no explanation as to what you mean by solar rays.

You didn't see above. I'm disputing Manns version of historical temperatures according to his graph.

But I did see above. I looked below too. Then I went out to the street and looked both ways before I crossed. You are disputing the fact that Mann's graph shows global warming to be happening, but you say that that you aren't disputing global warming.

That's what you have to do if all you have is the graph. Fortunately, this graph purports to show historical temperatures, and we just happen to have historical records of temperatures, which are in conflict with Mann's graph.

Ah, so you did study the data. You said you didn't. Now explain to us how mann's methodology, in which he discarded the little ice age, was flawed. You have to do that to disprove the validity of his graph. That is where McIntyre and McItrick keep failing.

The question was how did I hear about the graph in the first place. That's how I first heard about it. What do you want to verify?

Your source. I want to know the name of the show, who she was talking to, exactly what was said by who, and if it has been verified or disproven by anybody.

You make a habit of twisting my words and arguing against a straw man.

I prefer the Tin Man myself. He's a heartless bastard, but he makes a satisfying clang when he gets whacked with facts.

Pay close attention.

'kay...I'll crazy glue my nose to the monitor.

The Medieval Climate Optimum was a warmer period in history.

Hence the name.

In order for there to be a warmer period, the climate first has to warm up from what it was (the norm).

Only if it is normal. In this case we do not know that. We do know that Europe was warmer, and there is some evidence that North America was warmer. There is nothing to indicate that glaciers were receding, ice caps were melting, or the permafrost was melting. In fact, there is evidence that those things were not happening. That would indicate not a global climate shift, but a localized weather trend.

Then after it's been warm for 200 yrs. or so, it had to cool back down to what it was. The whole process took about 300 years. If that was weather and localized events, then the current global warming scare is over nothing more than a minor heat wave.

Your time frame has been disputed too. Some estimates have the Optimum lasting for less than 100 years. Hypotheses for it range from volcanic action to a shelf of nitrates collapsing beneath the ocean and releasing...ready for this...green house gas. Ice core samples support the latter more than the former, although results are not definite.

A sudden burst of gas like that would be self-correcting becasue it is an isolated event. Kind of like dumping a cup of flour into hot grease will just form lumps, but slowly mixing it with cold water will allow it to mix into the grease and make gravy.

But we've been through this before. Your argument is similar to this: 2 + 2 = 4, but if the right experts determine that 2 + 2= 5, then they are correct. The fact that the conclusion (5) conficts with the reality (4) is irrelevant and both are correct.

I've never said anything of the sort.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Well, Rev, here we go again;

Quote:
When there was little or no sunspot activity, the earth's climate was cool. When there was lots, it was warm. Records are available.


Yeah, ancient records kept by celibate monks who had no idea of the scientific method and no instrments to work with.

I have a vague recollection that the scientific method was developed in the middle ages. And no, they weren’t monks. They were the earlier scientists on whose work modern science rests.

Quote:
Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175

Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7

Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87

E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22

Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401


No links, no synopsis of the articles, no explanation as to what you mean by solar rays.

Not everything is linked. Those are references to published articles that were attached to a small magazine article. And it’s cosmic rays, not solar. Here’s the synopsis:

Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) originate from supernova explosions They are mostly hydrogen nuclei (protons) but some are nuclei of heavier elements. GCRs are positively charged particles traveling at very high speed (near speed of light) within our galaxy. Some of them intersect our solar system. Our Sun generates a magnetic field extending far beyond earth’s orbit. When GCRs collide with this magnetic field they may be deflected. Moving charged particles encounter a force when they enter a magnetic field unless they are exactly aligned with the magnetic field. The stronger the magnetic field, the greater the influence of that force. The sun exhibits an 11 year cycle of sunspot activity, as well as variations over greater time periods. As sunspot activity increases, the interplanetary magnetic field becomes stronger, and thus, fewer GCRs reach the earth during solar maximums. GCRs that reach the earth must also contend with earth’s magnetic field, which also varies with location and time. Those that penetrate the earths magnetic field collide with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Secondary particles from these collisions cascade lower into the atmosphere, producing ions. These ions may influence aerosol production upon which cloud droplets condense. The physics of high altitude ice clouds differs from that of low altitude water clouds. Researchers believe that low cloud cover cools the planet by reflecting sunlight that would have warmed the earth. Conversely, they think that high cloud cover causes warming by reflecting infra red radiation back toward earths surface.
The new data support the scenario that during high solar activity (sunspots) the stronger solar interplanetary magnetic field permits fewer cosmic rays to collide with earth, causing less low cloud formation and leading to higher temperatures. The trend reversed with fewer sunspots during low solar activity. According to historical records, few, if any sunspots occurred at the time of the little ice age (1645 – 1715)
There wasn’t much more detail in the article, it was just a comment on an interesting subject. The references were provided for those who wished to research further.

Quote:
You didn't see above. I'm disputing Manns version of historical temperatures according to his graph.


But I did see above. I looked below too. Then I went out to the street and looked both ways before I crossed. You are disputing the fact that Mann's graph shows global warming to be happening, but you say that that you aren't disputing global warming.

Manns graph clearly shows global warming to be happening. I have never disputed that. What I am and have been disputing is the clearly incorrect temperature records for the past 1000 as portrayed on his graph. I also dispute that global warming is happening the way he shows it.

Ah, so you did study the data. You said you didn't.

No I didn’t, and didn’t say I didn’t. Please argue against the words I post, not what you wish I had posted. Read this again and pay close attention to the definition of the words:

…this graph purports to show historical temperatures, and we just happen to have historical records of temperatures, which are in conflict with Mann's graph.

Now explain to us how mann's methodology, in which he discarded the little ice age, was flawed. You have to do that to disprove the validity of his graph.

NO you don’t. All you have to do is compare the graph with the reality of the records. There is a conflict between the two. One of them must be wrong.

The question was how did I hear about the graph in the first place. That's how I first heard about it. What do you want to verify?


Your source. I want to know the name of the show, who she was talking to, exactly what was said by who, and if it has been verified or disproven by anybody.

I can’t imagine why it’s so important to verify how I first heard of the graph. The name of the show? Probably the Afternoon Show, out of Vancouver at 4:00 pm. That’s the only one with a female host. Or maybe Almanac, it sometimes has a female host. Of course, I can’t swear that I heard it in the afternoon, there’s a chance it was in the morning, which also has female hosts. Exactly what was said? Hell, I can’t remember that kind of detail. And just what is it that you want to know if it has been verified or disproven? They were talking about a hockey stick graph and global warming. Is there a CBC program that HASN’T talked about global warming at one time or another?

We do know that Europe was warmer, and there is some evidence that North America was warmer. There is nothing to indicate that glaciers were receding, ice caps were melting, or the permafrost was melting. In fact, there is evidence that those things were not happening. That would indicate not a global climate shift, but a localized weather trend.

The norm being the mean temps over the last millennium. And there is lots of evidence from all over the world of this event, not just Europe and North America. Historians have for decades, talked about the effect on the medieval climate optimum on civilizations around the globe. As far as glaciers, ice caps and permafrost melting, I haven’t heard of any evidence one way or the other, but since the whole globe was warmer, it stands to reason that melting happened.

Your time frame has been disputed too. Some estimates have the Optimum lasting for less than 100 years. Hypotheses for it range from volcanic action to a shelf of nitrates collapsing beneath the ocean and releasing...ready for this...green house gas. Ice core samples support the latter more than the former, although results are not definite.

Well, I haven't tried to do a lot of research into the event, but in every mention of it that I heard, timewise, the warmest part of the period lasted about 100 years, and then the cooling continued till it became the little ice age. No-one knew about sunspots 900 yrs. ago so there’s no way to correlate.

But we've been through this before. Your argument is similar to this: 2 + 2 = 4, but if the right experts determine that 2 + 2= 5, then they are correct. The fact that the conclusion (5) conficts with the reality (4) is irrelevant and both are correct.

I've never said anything of the sort.

When it comes to this topic, your arguments are almost all of that sort. That’s why I stopped arguing with you earlier on this thread. There’s no debate against dogma.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

No, I guess there isn't. That's why it would be futile for me to argue against your dogmatic and erroneous statements anymore, Extrafire.

For anybody who is interested in the truth, just go back through this thread and check out the links. I've provided ample evidence, based on peer-reviewed work by real scientists working in the area of climate change.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

I've provided ample evidence, based on peer-reviewed work by real scientists working in the area of climate change.

Yes, you’ve posted links to such sites, and totally ignored evidence to the contrary. You’ve also denied repeatedly, the glaring discrepancy between Mann’s graph and historical records. You believe in the infallibility of your heros to the extent that you deny reality in order to hold on to your dogma. Once again, for the same reason, this conversation is ended.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

You've offered no real evidence, Extrafire. If you really want to know about glabal warming though, take a trip up to Churchill this fall. Talk to the people there. Ask them when the ice comes in so the bears can go out and hunt.

 

[I think not]

Re: Kyoto

I don't see what the big leap is here, we're destroying the environment. We have to do something about it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

There is no big leap, ITN. There exists a dogmatic denial of the damage we are doing in some quarters though.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Kyoto

There is no big leap, ITN. There exists a dogmatic denial of the damage we are doing in some quarters though.

I know that, I also know about ExxonMobil having scientists on their payrolls in an attempt to debunk the science in global warming. I don;t think anyone really denies the science.

I think Kyoto was the issue.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Kyoto is the best deal that could be gotten at the time. I was actually weaked quite a bit by concessions given to bring the US onside. When Bush backed out, shirking US responsibility, it was too late and too difficult to change it though. It is flawed, and nobody denies that, but it is meant to be a first step, not a final solution.

You cannot discuss Kyoto without discussing global warming though because the global warming deniers, with their trumped up data from Exxon employees, continue to spread the myth that global warming isn't real or, if it is, that there are anthropogenic causes to it.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto