sunsettommy

LOL, It is obvious you did not read the first 4 pages of this thread. He was overreacting to other postings.Sometimes arrogantly.

LOL, I help run a climate skeptic forum (the website is in my profile) that posts many articles showing problems with the mythical consensus claims.It is really easy to find holes in their claims. It is also easy to find the article that are written by accredited scientists who are skeptical with the CO2 is the problem game.I post at least one EVERY WEEK. I used to post some good ones at forums where a lot of AGW's are members.Their typical reactions are to attack the author with names and make slurs on the genesis of the paper.I posted a thread all about one paper and the author they savaged at my forum.Just to expose their irration behavior. Some of the respondents cliams to be scientists! It is obvious Stevoh has a narrow view of what is considered a valid paper.Of course he is not being honest because there THOUSANDS of Scientists who have stated they do not think CO2 is a major cause of the warming.Some of them publish climate research papers too. There has been NO warming trend since 1998.

It is obvious that you have no idea how science research works. Skeptics are ESSENTIAL or science research DIES!

luvacuppajoe: Then we have this: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp Peer reviewed of anything can just as bad as a paper written by little children. Case in point: The Hockey Stick paper was indeed a peer reviewed winner.However it was included into the 2001 IPCC's report by none other than Dr. Mann. A paper that was NOT validated at the time.Yet was called a key evidence of global warming propaganda. A paper that was later shown to have childish statistical errors all over it and that the regulan blood worm never releases all the data for the paper. This means that the IPCC showed their true colors as a special interest organization with a STATED task to PROVE that man's CO2 emissions is cause of the warming.They chose a paper that at the time was unproven and therefore not worthy of its lofty status it was given.It was pure politics. Correct. It was a very bad paper and it is comical that some many AGW's still defend it today. Imagine that the writer of this joke paper used a tree that grows in very small specialized high altitude regions.Therefore not a credible proxy for the entire Northern Hemisphere.It was stupid. Scientific American has slipped in quality in recent years.They tried to smear Bjorn Lomborg a few years ago and was shown to be profoundly dishonest in the debate surrounding Lomborgs book. Dr. Mann has destroyed his reputation over his stubborn intractibility in providing his source codes for that bird cage paper.He made a fool of himself in his conduct before the WEGMAN panel. His paper should be taught in colleges to show how a scientist should NOT to write such a bad paper and then stupidly defend it afterwards.

This is an illegal post. No link is posted. No excerpt of the article is used. A violation of copyright law. Please fix this.

That explains your hypersensitive reactions.

With no viable alternative to the existing power.Any revolution will fizzle due to a lack of a clear goal to attain and even die for. It is not surprising that there are restless people in China,Iran,Russia and other places where below quality government is in power.

Your non answer to my on topic question and refusal to get/stay on topic reveals a budding troll.

How did I lose credibility when I asked YOU a specific ON TOPIC question (that YOU have so far ignored)? Explained why you asking people to read an 18 page PGF filled with charts and numbers and political jargon.Without any particular direction from you to consider in reading it.You never asked us what to look for in it. You have not been on topic and resisted MY invitation in getting yourself back on topic. Go ahead and make my day and run like a little troll you are to Charles Anthony and cry about me. You are a fool.

I agree. It is obvious that he is talking out of his hat. He refuses to get back on topic. He refuses to understand my complaint about his illigitimate use of the link and not direct us to something in it that would support what ever he wanted us to think about.He still has not clarified on why he wanted us to read an 18 page report. He refused to answer my question TWICE now. Now he is whining on why I correctly called him a fool.I explained to him why I called him one and he does not even dispute it. He is an even greater fool than I thought.

Jazzer when you will start getting in the topic? Maybe by answering my question you have already passed on once.

jazzer: This fool was replying to what I wrote: my emphasisLOL, I read this a while ago.It is unimpressive stuff. What "proof" are you talking about,and what does it have to do with the threads topic? To make it real simple for you here is why I am calling you a fool. The summary report you gave us a link to is EIGHTEEN PAGES LONG! You did not specify anything in particular in the link for us to think and reply about .You did not make a "point" of anything. The report is mostly UNVERIFIED! It is full of FUTURE PROJECTIONS. Meaning this it is NOT a valid science report.

You really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a post.That ask us to read an entire report to bolster your unwritten point? Get real! We all know man has promoted some warming throught various ways.But.............. How about getting back to the posted article? Do YOU have any comments about the possible implications of a much less active next 2 solar cycles?

................. okay, How about getting back on topic? I posted this to expose a significant solar event.Something very rare and possibly with long range significant implications. Already NASA's solar cycle prediction is way off the mark. There is a growing belief that we may be entering a significal reduction in the next 2 solar cycles of sunspot numbers.Implying that a COOLING trend is on the way. Already we have known that there has been no warming trend since 1998.That is why it is worriesome when the next solar cycle is late in beginning.

Watts Up With That? All Quiet Alert “All Quiet Alert†- That sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe it is, but the sun is extremely quiet right now, so much in fact that the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium has issued an “All quiet alert†on October 5th. Since then, the sunspot number has remained at zero. Here is what the sun looks like now: Daily Sun: 15 Oct 07 (Go to the link for the photo.The insert image button here is worthless.) The sun is blank–no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI LINK

CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-m...-gore-film.html Another "denier"?

Dr. Mann or Dr. Jones?

They lose track of earlier lies.

Funny you say that since most of the challenges are coming from people like me.You know the ones who are called "deniers". We are the ones who are catching the scaremonegering that Gore and Hansen among others present by exposing the rot behind it. We are the ones that exposed the obvious bunk the "hockey stick" paper was.We are the ones who have exposed Dr.Jones and his (elusive raw data) papers of the last 25 years.We are the ones who have exposed the shoddiness of weather reporting stations here in america and now abroad. You get the drift? Do you realize how worthless this is? If there were no skeptics to save your asses.We would be in a world of SH!T! The Environmentalists would have had a field day. Scepticism saves lives and saves freedoms.

LOL You replied to this: Which was a reply to this: Your latest reply is illogical since you no longer even support your earlier quotes.I was merely noting that by your own words you made it seem that ALL wars are caused by climatic upheavels. I disputed it by showing a sampling of past wars that were not caused by climatic upheavels or similar.I hope you realize that some wars are purely caused by political or religious reasons. Noted the lack of reply to my point about many wars that have nothing to do with significant climate events. Noted the lack of reply to my minimizing your interesting if incomplete history report that you provided a link to.

You mean just the northern one.The one that is mostly thinning on the asian side of the pole. Do you know what is happening at the other one lately? <snicker>

You must have missed the scientists who also pointed out errors in his presentation.

President Bush does not deserve that award either.

Coot: What you described has been true for MILLIONS of years.The Jetstream shifts on a regular basis.Daily,weekly,monthy and yearly cycles are known.Do you have a link to the exhaustive Jetstream page? I have it and I see that Jet streams NORMALLY moves around.You seem to say they are in a fixed place. LOLOLOLOL!!! You flatly state that climate change causes civil unrest.You also make it clear to stop it is deal with climate change.You leave no room for the many wars that had nothing to do with the climate at all! That is why I asked that you reconsider your statement. From your link: Not much of a study when NO analysis of any warming periods is included. Meanwhile, Why did the Spanish Armarda of 1588 happen? Why did William of Normandy invade and defeat the newly crowned English King at the battle of Hastings in 1066 AD? Why did Adolf Hitler keep expanding his empire to the point of risking war in 1939? Why did Adolf Hitler attack USSR in June 22 1941? Why did the American independance revolution occurred in the 1770' and 1780's? Why did the French revolution develop? Why did during the long 72 year rule the king of France wage numerous wars against most of Europe? Why did the Muslim King Salaudin attack and take Jerusalem? The American Civil war? You see where I am going here?