Ah, but I had already rebutted that rebuttal… long before you made it. Haven’t you been reading the posts?”

I can see no rebuttal from you Lonny. What I can see is your ignorance that weathering causes CO2 to enter the atmosphere after a covering of ice has gone from the ground.

Like I stated: keep on going, all you like. It’s not me you are making look bad.

“you are aware of the fact that Briffa’s work on more than one occasion has been shown to contain egregiously cherry-picked data, right? Briffa uses, among other things, the Yamal tree ring series to make his point–to show his hockey stick, as it were. close examination of the data (which took Briffa about 10 years to finally–and reluctantly–give up) has shown the Yamal-based series to be the only one (out of five) with anomalous 20th century measurements. interestingly, an update made to the Polar Ural series used in other earlier papers (Briffa’s included) collected in 1999 (a year after the paper you mention was published and a year before Briffa’s most widely publicized paper was published) shows no damning uptick, no indication of a widespread, sudden warming trend. hence the move to the nearby Yamal region, which DID happen to show–at least in some samples–a dramatic upswing.
but there is every indication that, overall, the Yamal data was largely within a normal range. how do we know this? the two Russian scientists, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, who collected the data for the Yamal series used for Briffa 2000 were also published in 2002 using the same data set, only they didn’t cherry-pick certain anomalous tree data nor did they use unmentioned additional data or quietly merge datasets from disparate regions as Briffa apparently did, and their findings indicate nothing more than a stable temperature trend. Briffa claims the methods he used on the Yamal data differs from those of the Russians’, but can’t adequately explain why he selectively chose to use samples that, using his own methods, show an uptick, but left out samples that didn’t.
to his credit, Briffa himself in September of this year grudgingly admitted the possibility that an updated, revised version of his study using more sensible, logical sample selection may be a more appropriate indication of what trends exist(ed) in the region, if any. this revised study shows no dramatic temperature change.
i might mention that Briffa’s papers based on these data have been used as the basis for several other peer-reviewed, “conclusive” papers commonly cited by the alarmist community.”

Lets have an update on this to debunk the mush that adam comes out with:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

and for the technically minded amongst you:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

From where I’m stood Lonny you look like a right fool. You’re so blinkered that you deny when you’ve been shown to be ignorant of the basic facts of carbon dioxide. Not only that but you go on to post more conspiracy BS. Epic fail on your part! All you deniers have is mud to sling and your ignorance of any real science.

” Imagine you’ve dedicated your life to some scientific pursuit. You do it because you love it, because you want to make the world a better place, and because you can see the physics beneath the surface, weaving the tapestry of reality, guiding the ebb and flow of forces both subtle and gross. Then you find that people start attacking you with flimsy evidence, politically motivated vitriol, and even elected officials say that what you are doing is a “hoax”. How do you react?”

It is absurd to expect any AGW promoting scientist to allow any contradictory evidence to surface, it places their entire belief set and their very careers which put their food on the table at risk. “Politically motivated vitriol”? Like what, please, leftists voting green?

Let me ask you, HOW MANY ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE ATHEISTS?

Would you expect said clergy to provide an objective viewpoint on whether God exists or not? Openly present data which contradicts their very belief set and all they live for?

you yourself say they devote their life to it, it’s no different. at all.

you’ll possibly claim it’s okay if the data is flawed out of the ideology that man’s been harming the planet anyway so riding the coattails of AGW legislation is good for the environment. Well YOUR ideology driven flawed logic so far has brought Kyoto, which served only to allow corporations to exploit massive third world populations Kyoto exempted from binding emissions controls. The per capita and overall output of GG emissions from China and India soared, the former eclipsing that of America- whose service economy has stagnated because you convinced us all we’re harming the planet by driving our cars. Using energy to cook food and LIVE.

Which indulges the primary ideology that drives most of you: Self loathing and guilt for being born a “have”.

I wouldn’t mind but EXCUSE ME YOU’RE RUINING THE PLANET TO DO IT.

There actually was very little news about it, but the opinions were copious and fairly evenly split. Stolen v. leaked v. hacked pretty much became the watch words to the opinions.

I decided the only way to get to the bottom of it was to read the emails themselves and form my own opinion. I spent the better part of one day reading and then more hours through two weeks.

Before any more comment, my educational background is in math and physics. I do understand the scientific method and human nature. (If possible, to some reasonable level.)

I am 68 years old and have been through many huge media hypes, (Global Cooling, Y2K, ZPG, pitted windshields, Global Warming, Flu (bird, swine, Asian, West Africa) epidemics, etc. etc. etc.)

One important lesson. The more something you cannot personally observe is hyped, the more likely it is to be false or overkill. A simple example is airport security. Really, I can’t take my fingernail clippers behind security. Ok, I’ll buy them at the magazine store behind security. You really think it is necessary for that grandma with the walker to be stripped searched but not 18 year old Mohawk Been Laden behind her?

To my point.

After reading more than sufficient emails, there is only one set of conclusions that an honest person would reach.

1. These people are unethical. An ethical person with truth on their side need only demonstrate it. An unethical person must shut off skeptics.

2. The emails clearly demonstrate a manipulation of times to come to certain results. i.e. select dates (eras) wherein they get favorable result.

3. They destroyed data. A first year science major knows that data is never destroyed and is, in fact, backed up by multiple copies. One who looses or destroys data is not to be trusted.

4. They attempted to avoid the release of data. Release of data is the best way to substantiate conclusions and thwart criticism. If one is confident in the conclusions, data requests are welcome.

5. These people tried to shut down skeptics. In the science world, one who demonstrates another’s errors SHOULD be thanked by the one who made them. I believe it was Nels Boar who got a thank you from Einstein when Boar corrected him. (Memory of the incident is vague at this point.)

The conclusion. If GM is so absolute and “so widely know by all scientists,” then those involved would have no reason to do what they did. I do note however, that slowly but surely the skeptics are becoming more willing to speak out. Until the emails were stolen, hacked or leaked, enough careers were destroyed that skeptics were fearful of pointing out errors over fear of their jobs.

“On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

You can keep your head in the sand to avoid the reality of the situation, or you can
step up, show some courage and confront the issue head on. Even a vehement pro AGW’er can’t rationally conclude that the science is settled in light of the evidence.

As an AGW skeptic (I used to be an AGW proponent until I made the effort to understand the science for myself), all I want to see from this is open debate, which in climate science circles has been absent for over a decade. Here are a few links which talk about the real science.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html

http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

Regards,

George

Ah, but I had already rebutted that rebuttal… long before you made it. Haven’t you been reading the posts?

Like I stated: keep on going, all you like. It’s not me you are making look bad.

Funny how you don’t go into detail about that. Merely assert it. Whereas I point out your fallacies and you either deny or actively misconstrue that I have done so. I’ve no doubt that you will do so again, to try to distract everyone from the fact that you are ignorant of over a hundred years of empirical science concerning CO2. I sprayed my tea all over my computer laughing at your ignorance of science.

As well as quoting religious cranks like Tipler, who thinks that Chris Monckton’s word is a good source of information. Or the Daily Telegraph, or denier Anthony Watts. My sides still hurt from laughing at that.

I wrote
“We’ve known about this mechanism for more than a century. Claiming that CO2-induced warming is an extraordinary claim is, effectively, claiming that if I insulate my house and don’t turn down the heating, it’s extraordinary to claim that my house will get warmer!”

Lonny you suck at anthropogenic climate change denialism. You can either continue to be foolish, or you can learn more about the real science behind AGW. The choice is yours. Now I’m going to have to explain to my wife why I’ve been laughing so much.

Well, now you are just reinforcing the impression that you and Jacqueline and those others are all the same person.

You took my comment about projection, turned around and projected it on me; thus demonstrating my point. In fact you have been helping many of my points throughout your comments.

I don’t mind. Keep going. Your insults mean nothing to me. They aren’t making ME look bad.

“Obviously you did not understand my statement. There is no equivocation present.”

Yes I did you numbskull. You are using extraordinary to mean two different things. Which is equivocation. Denying it doesn’t magically change the fact.

” You are also incorrect in your assessment of adam’s statement. He was not using a false dichotomy, he was pointing out that others had.”

Here is what adam said

“or is it just that you want a stated position in brief? ok, here it is: the science isn’t settled.”

This is where he is stating his position on the matter. If you don’t believe me me he states before the quote above

” feel free to go back and read my posts–MY position on the matter is stated pretty clearly throughout”

So you are wrong on that matter as you are on most of the things you post.

“In fact, you have repeatedly monkeyed the statements and logic that I and others have used here… in every case incorrectly.”

This is a case of projection, where you project your actions onto me.
You appear to post on this thread and the other AGW thread, in order to conduct a smear campaign and cast doubt on AGW science. You also post links to Anthony Watts, a known denier, and the Daily Telegraphs distortions and lies. I have no doubt that you’re a denier trying to push your propaganda.

“You are just being ridiculous and everybody is tired of putting up with you.”

So you claim to speak for everyone eh? Jacqueline’s accusation of arrogance is backed up by your smug tone.

No Lonny, you’re the one who is being ridiculed, especially when you post quotes from Frank Tipler the physicist for Jesus, which reports the propaganda of such a pseudoscientific AGW denier as Chris “not a climate scientist” Monckton.

Lonny, you need to engage your brain before spouting off like that. If you make a habit of it, you could end up looking pretty foolish. Just sayin’.

“What you seem to be missing here is that all of our data of the historical PAST shows no cause-effect between temperature and CO2 concentrations. Actually, that is not true either… there is a strong correlation, but it is the other way around. In the past, temperature variations were followed about 800 years later by CO2 concentrations. All the evidence we had showed that temperature drove CO2, not the other way around.
So it is the idea that CO2 can cause temperature shifts that is actually the extraordinary claim, and the claim that goes against all PAST evidence.”

Lonny, you need to do your homework before spouting off like that. If you make a habit of it, you could end up looking pretty foolish. Just sayin’.
Anyway, six minutes into this video it starts to explain the CO2 lags, and comes to the point eight minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

“Did you get that? The CO2 warming theory is the extraordinary claim. The claim that has to prove itself. Not the other way around.”

“(Technically, of course, it is never possible to prove a theory completely… but they can be proven to be useful theories, if they are successful at predicting the future. That is the whole value of a theory: how well it predicts the outcome of events. So far, “CO2-driven global warming” has not predicted anything. Anything at all. Not..one..single..thing.”

There aren’t really any peer-reviewed papers as such countering the “CO2-lags warming” meme, because it is precisely what you’d predict given the consensus theory of climate.
The CO2 has to come from somewhere, right? Well, if you have warming after an ice age (google Milankovitch cycles, Lonny), eventually the permafrost starts to thaw and outgasses the CO2 that was trapped there. The released CO2 intensifies and prolongs the warming. In this case, the cause of the initial warming is increased insolation due to small changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and CO2 is a feedback that causes more warming.
Like most denialist arguments, this one winds up being a bit of an own goal. Eventually, we will warm the planet sufficiently to release the CO2 and methane now frozen in the tundra, and that will further intensify the warming, probably making it irremediable.

“Did you get that? The CO2 warming theory is the extraordinary claim. The claim that has to prove itself. Not the other way around.”

You need to learn more about CO2 too, Lonny. The situation is really quite simple. Earth is warmed by the light from the Sun, mostly in the visible spectrum. Earth cools by infra-red radiation. CO2 is transparent to visible light but absorbs infra-red light. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere reduces heat loss from the earth; so we get warmer. This is about as difficult or controversial as the proposition that if I drop a teacup off a roof, it will break when it hits the ground. Historically, I’ve never dropped a cup before- but so what?
We’ve known about this mechanism for more than a century. Claiming that CO2-induced warming is an extraordinary claim is, effectively, claiming that if I insulate my house and don’t turn down the heating, it’s extraordinary to claim that my house will get warmer!
Feeling foolish yet Lonny?

“There is no arrow” – Lope de Aguirre

If you want to assume emotions then that is your business. But if you make a habit of it, you could end up looking pretty foolish. Just sayin’.

But it was the similarity between your writing and certain others that got my attention. Maybe it was coincidence, maybe not. I will keep an open mind.

For the record, I have never posted in this thread on the Bad Astronomy blog using other than my full real name. I’m using the DHCP server in a public library for Internet access, so it could well be that others using the same library at different times might have the same IP address. That would be purely coincidental.

Regarding my use of the term “fumed”: If someone writes that a scientist who has not been charged with anything must be guilty of fraud and deserves a decades-long sentence in a federal penitentiary — when he is not even a U.S. citizen — then I submit that saying the writer is fuming is a fair call. Perhaps a snarky or sarcastic tone will induce the target of such messages to think a little. Straightforward argument works too seldom.

“Equivocation. Extraordinary applies not to the amount, but to the content.”

Obviously you did not understand my statement. There is no equivocation present. You are also incorrect in your assessment of adam’s statement. He was not using a false dichotomy, he was pointing out that others had.

In fact, you have repeatedly monkeyed the statements and logic that I and others have used here… in every case incorrectly.

You are just being ridiculous and everybody is tired of putting up with you.

370. adam, or whatever your name is, Said:

“ok, here it is: the science isn’t settled.”

False dichotomy. Science isn’t binary, either settled or not but ongoing.

127. Lonny Eachus, or whatever your name is, Said:

“Well, it’s not true. Extraordinary claims need just as much or as little evidence as any other claim… but what matters is the evidence.”

Equivocation. Extraordinary applies not to the amount, but to the content.

You might want to look them up Lonny/adam:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

When you send your scientific paper for peer review please make sure you tell me, otherwise you are still nothing but timewasting whining cranks.

Keep flying the banner of the true skeptic, Lonny.

I think it is pretty obvious to most people that I am not going to post from one IP address in Portland, and then a few minutes later from one in Dallas, or wherever he is. But once again, I suspect that if your accounts are not posting from the same IP address, they are at the very least in the same general neighborhood.

But I think most people would bother anyway; as I stated before, I think most people can look at your posts and see what is really going on.

The rest of your remarks are not worth answering. All you are doing is wasting everybody’s time. Please stop bothering decent people who are simply trying to hold an intelligent discussion.