British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

That's complete speculation MJ. Climate change is long term (thousands of years). The weather is the weather. You undermine the force of your argument by appealing to hyperbole like that.

No, it's not. Weather is day to day, year to year. Climate is usually accepted as being thirty years or more, and we've been doing stuff that has had effects on the climate since roughly just after the Civil War. A century of CO2 emissions has raised that by a third, agricultural zones are moving northward--that's climate, it's changed over the last forty years. Ecozones are moving upward on mountains. That's climate. It's changing. Icecaps and glaciers are melting worldwide. That's climate. El Nino and La Nina are weather. Thermohaline ccirculation shutdown is climate. The Dustbowl was weather. Multi-year droughts in Texas and Australia are weather. Assuming the rains come again, as they may have done. When the rains don't come again, that's climate, that's the death and depopulation of the Anasazi.

And, I might add, Wally Broeker, the guy who invented the term "global warming" back around 1975, and the widely respected climate scientist who was also the first to discover rapid climate change, suggested that the change from an ice age to a post ice age might take as little as forty years, I believe his figure was, and that's climate, sure ain;t thousands of years (which is not to say that climate change can't happen over thousands of years. It certainly can, but it doesn't need to to be climate change.

You can't simply lay claim to every bit of bad weather or natural phenomena as support for your argument any more than I can by claiming it's all a result of long term natural climate change.

I'm not. There has been climate change going on in the world for the last century that lies at the door of global warming, which the science says is largely human induced. That's glaciers melting world wide, sea level rising, agricultural zones changing, ecozones changing, arctic ice melting. That's not weather. That's insect pests moving northward out of the ecozones they formerly inhabited into areas too cold for them previously. It's a great big complicated world and we're changing it, and that IS climate change. An exceptionally cold, snowy winter like a lot of the US suffered over the past two years is weather, caused by a high pressure zone in the arctic circle, caused by warmer than normal conditions in the Arctic Ocean, which diverts circumpolar winds southward, where they meet extra moisture laden air caused by a la Nina event. That happens every few years naturally. It's weather, it varies. But when the Arctic ice cap melts, and the ocean gets warmer, and it starts happening more often, that's when it becomes climate, and Arctic weather experts last winter were starting to tip toward the opinion that it might be climate.

Fine then. I say it's not human activity that is causing all that, but just part of the natural trend, or a different natural short term trend. Before I will agree otherwise I would need to see evidence which specifies the relative contribution of human activity within the natural cycles and events. Until then, you're just speculating. Sorry.

Of course the oceans can affect the atmosphere in areas. But the ocean can't create heat out of nothing. It can only radiate solar warming back to the atmosphere.

roz,I'm not the one speculating. That's what the science says. You think it's a natural trend--so find the natural trend that's causing it. It's not long-term interglacial change.

Failure to read on your part does not mean there is no evidence in science.

I read, and the point you consistently avoid with your dogmatism is that there is not consensus in the matter. It's no sweat of my ass if you want to deny it, but do me the courtesy of sparing me your puerile sneers.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

There isn't consensus about the shape of the earth. So I would agree that there isn't consensus on anything. Put 2 people in a room and you will get 3 opinions.

You jokers love the IPCC, don't ya. This is a direct quote from their home page:



So, in fact, it's an information clearing house. Do you have any information for us on their selection methodology? Cna you assure us that there is no selection bias?

It is gratifying to see you acknowledge that you don't in fact have an unambiguous basis for your claims. The candor is refreshing.

Set, you apparently missed that I brought exactly that point forward pages and pages back, when the conspiracy theorists had their dark theories that the IPCC was engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to manipulate research projects and research results. They don't do the research. It is done independently at universities, labs, and research institutions around the world, and comes from a multitude of different sensor systems, none under the IPCC's control, using a multitude of different methodologies. The IPCC, using scientists from the different disciplinessmmarizes and synthesizes the data and the conclusions that the scientists who gathered and analyzed the data came to. If you look at the IPCC report, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed articles and studies that go into the IPCC assessment report. If you read the IPCC assessment reports you will see that they try to cover and assess EVERY possible factor that anyone has come up with that can influence climate. They really do. If someone is going to suggest selection bias, then it behooves them to find what has been left out and show that it has some credibility. So far the denialists come up short.

Don't start that conspiracy theory bullshit with me again. I'm just pointing out that as a source, they can reasonably be suspected of having a selection bias. That doesn't mean that it is an organization which has dark, nefarious purposes, just that it is an organization which has an agenda. The AMA is made up of, for the most part, reaonably intelligent and honorable men and women--that doesn't mean they don't have an agenda.

Of course. Just as peer reviewed science journals have a selection bias.

Now you appear to be arguing that science is the same as ignorant ranting.

I said I brought up the point in response to conspiracy theorists. That was Krumple. But the point also is germane to your objections. The reports are written by scientists knowledgeable in the fields they write about, and if you read the reports you'll find they deal with and assess a wide variety of viewpoints on the subjects involved. They do, for example, include Richard Lindzen, the very voicferous denialist, and his Iris Hypothesis, which was all the rage among the skeptic community several years ago. He maintained he was right. There were two subsequent research projects that found that instead of a net large negative effect on warming, it had a small positive effect, which it shouldn't have had. That's all been in IPCC papers. That's one example. They do in look at everything.

Incidentally we've been talking about the science here. That's not the only thing the IPCC does. They are also tasked with writing reports on mitigating the possible effects of climate change. Those are done by different sets of people with different kinds of expertise, and since they involve costs, activities and effects and courses of action of countries and industries, and costs versus benefits, those inevitably do get into politics, and inescapably so. But that's a completely different question than whether or not change is happening and what's causing it.

I don't deny that it's happening. You, however, are ignoring that academics all have an agenda, and that agenda is to protect their point of view and their research conclusions. In the 1976 the mummified remains of Ramses II were sent to France for scientific examination. One of those scientist was Dr. Michelle Lescot who was expert in ancient plants and plant fibers. She examined the cerements and she found vegetable remains which she identified as tobacco. No one has been able to show that what she found was not tobacco, and she carefully examined Ramses' cerements and remains before witnesses while being filmed, and came up with tobacco once again--basically, no one has ever commented on it. The mainline Egyptologists have as an article of faith that there was no contact between the "old world" and the "new world," so they simply ignored her. She became a pariah, her career was over.

Then there's the Solutrean hypothesis. The Solutreans were a paeleolithic culture in what is now France and Spain, and they were unique because of their flint knapping technique. They developedd bi-facial pressure flake flint knapping, which allowed them to produce much lighter, thinner blades with much sharper edges. Modern researchers have duplicated their technique and are convinced that this is a superior technique, and that the spear blades they made would have been much more efficient at penetrating an animal's hide. Their technology was thousands of years ahead of their times. The Solutreans eventually were replaced by the Magdalenian culture, which did not use that technique, and whose flint knapping was older, "traditional" flint knapping. So what happened to the Solutreans?

A small body of researchers believe that they came to North America between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago--thousands of years before humans are thought to have come from Asia by the land bridge. Bi-facial, pressure flake knife blades and spear points have been found in many places on the east coast of North America, from eastern Canada to Virginia. Aunt Bee has a thread about a find with such a spear p0int which dates to 22,000 ybp. More significantly, there is ancient European MtDNA in about 3% of the Amerindian population of both North and South America. In eastern Canada, that rises to 25%.

But the traditional academic theory is the land bridge theory, and the culture is referred to as Clovis, because of bi-facial pressure flake blades found near Clovis, New Mexico. That site was dated to 11,500 ybp, and, of course, thousands of academics have based their careers on the land bridge theory of the human population of the Americas. How have they reacted to the Solutrean hypothesis? Stony silence, or elaborate denials if pressed on the issue. That evidence for the Solutrean hypothesis mounts means nothing to them--it's not consonant with the theories on which they have based their careers, so they ignore it.

All academic researchers have an agenda, and that agenda is to protect the hypotheses and theories upon which they have based their careers. That doesn't mean there's a dark, nefarious conspiracy, it is just the recognition that that's how it works.

If you can't keep the sneer out your posts, you snide son of a bitch, don't bother addressing me at all.