Replies

"The 1930s were a particularly warm decade. There was a cooling trend from that decade through the 1970s and early 1980s. Then things have been warming up."

You are right. I expect the cycle to continue with things to start cooling down again within a decade IMHO.

"There hasn't been a significant increase in sunspot activity since then. We've had the basic "11-year" cycle."

Yes, but we are also reaching the end of a more significant 60 year cycle that may be the highest level in the last 1000 years. However, I don't consider this to be incontestable fact.

"The central Antarctic has exhibited a fairly strong decoupling from global climate trends. But note that warmer oceans put more moisture into the atmosphere, which will convert to snow over cold regions."

So you agree. Most GW propagandists only refer to the peninsula or the western part, while ignoring the majority of the continent. As a whole it looks like the continent is gaining more ice than it's losing.

"Why do you trust him so much?"

I've known him my whole life and he's the rare breed of modern person/scientist that has integrity, always tries to be honest and cannot be bribed on any scientific issue. His life is dedicated to exposing the scientific truths others hide, ignore, obscure or just don't have the brain power to see. He's also a one-in-a-million genius. I was rated in the lower end of the genius scale on IQ tests, but compared to him, I'm an idiot and so is everyone else I know. He's spent most of his scientific life exposing errors in scientific reasoning. His biggest beef right now is that there is an epidemic of science using faulty premises that are assumed fact. When a scientist presents a paper where the first 'fact' is wrong, the paper is a joke. I just talked to him the other night and he was exposing a fraudulent paper that was based another 'peer reviewed' paper that has since been proven to be wrong. He deals with this all the time and says this error is increasing dramatically in the science community. Peer review in the GW community means other like-minded scientists sign off on a paper when they agree with the conclusion without testing or analyzing the 'facts' to obtain that conclusion. To review a paper one must look to disprove it. The GW scientists do not do this. Ergo FRAUD!

"My motivation is to try to improve the basic knowledge of FReepers who have gotten erroneous information from many other sources, so that some of them might possible be able to have an informed opinion. That's why I try to concentrate on the scientific issues."

Then you should present all the facts, not just what fits your beliefs. You also might want to double check your sources for erroneous info. My friend would suggest you quintuple check. You seem more knowledgeable, reasonable and well read that most all others pushing the GW caused by man theory, so you should be able to double check your sources.

What do you think about CO2 from volcanoes versus the level of man's output?

What do you think about the period 700-1000 years ago that was warmer than today, yet man was not putting industrialized CO2 into the atmosphere? This alone makes me a major skeptic. There are many other reasons to doubt also.

The worst thing of all in my mind is not the faulty/selective science, but the ulterior motive of using it to install a socialist society in the USA where our freedoms are eroded, the economy is damaged and the government gains more and more power over our lives. You know a nanny state. GW is the socialist/communist dream come true. You should be absolutely sure of what you present when you are helping these a-holes. "Just the facts ma'am" as Joe Friday would say. You should also look into some of the bios of those that started a lot of the environmental organizations. Many have direct ties to the Communist Party USA. The ACLU (#1 on my evil list) was also started by communists. Read 'The Naked Communist' from the early 60's. It has a list of communist goals. One being using environmental groups to harm America's economy. When you are siding with anti-Americans you'd better check your sources VERY seriously.

You are right. I expect the cycle to continue with things to start cooling down again within a decade IMHO.

It'd be great if you were right. I don't expect you to be.

Yes, but we are also reaching the end of a more significant 60 year cycle that may be the highest level in the last 1000 years. However, I don't consider this to be incontestable fact.

Good, considering that the observed warming isn't correlated with increasing numbers of sunspots.

As a whole it looks like the continent is gaining more ice than it's losing.

And that's not inconsistent with a trend in warmer sea surface temperatures around Antarctica.

(your next part was read without comment)

What do you think about CO2 from volcanoes versus the level of man's output?

Gases: Man versus the Volcanoes

Volcanic Gases (just to show I double check)

What do you think about the period 700-1000 years ago that was warmer than today, yet man was not putting industrialized CO2 into the atmosphere? This alone makes me a major skeptic.

Solar activity then was about the same as today, and it was lower in between (Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age). The jury is out -- and of course you don't like the Hockey Stick -- as to whether it was actually warmer or about the same as the 20th century, up to the last 15-20 years.

You should be absolutely sure of what you present when you are helping these a-holes.

Reducing ignorance and addressing bad science should help anyone that wants the truth.