Why is everyone assuming I am a global warming zealot?

Well you certainly talk like one.

There is no proof of mmgw, only a consensus based on available evidence,

Demanding proof of anthropogenic GW is pointless

translation: We don’t need no stinking proof.

We really need proof such as actual predictive success before we can reorder our entire economy due to some theories that are shot full of holes.

I said we don’t need no stinking proof and Anna thought I was referring to the Blogger Proof. Sure he probably smells real bad, but that’s his families problem.

Anna: Despite The Whistler’s many, many, MANY, many faults, failing to capitalize for a proper name is not one of them!
Therefore, my dear, the fault for misunderstanding was yours alone!
(Misunderstanding. Wonder what the talent competition would be for that title!)

Because most of the regulars here spend their time judging other people, they believe anyone disagreeing with them or expressing their views in ways they don’t agree with, are idiots (I’Q's (sic) below 25) and are beneath their contempt. Lastly, they love to jump to conclusions so they can have an opportunity to attack someone and makes themselves feel superior.

Spoken like a true regular!

And honestly, who didn’t see something like this coming. The entire concept that is te greenhouse effect (the basis of their entire argument) is completely ridiculous. If greenhouse gases are trapping solar radiation, how the hell does the radiation get here in the first place?

Furthermore, the concept that we’re outputting more greenhouse gases then ever before: also ridiculous. That time came and passed in the mid- to late-1800′s, also known as the Industrial Revolution. Guess what else happened in the mid- to late-1800′s: alarmist liberals complained that industry was decreasing global temperatures and causing another ice age. The difference is that then they were actually right. Greenhouse gasaes were blocking solar radiation.

So take your pick liberals. Does heat us up, or cool down? You can’t have it both ways.

However “proving” MMGW would be hard at all, providing it’s true.

Set up a model which explains how we got this weather and have the model predict the climate for the next several years. Every year it hits a prediction then there’s that much more proof.

Since their models can’t explain current global weather and it can’t predict next year’s global weather (nor even next months) then there is no proof.

Anna:

Does anyone have access to a record temp chart for the past 100 years?

The Wikipedia is always a good place to start

(google wiki global warming.)

Note that the warming trend for the first half of the century is nearly comparable to that of the second half. I did a statistical comparison of these two, and the slopes are consistent.

On the other hand, if you look at CO2 emissions:

What is apparent is that most of the impact of human generated CO2 must have occurred after 1950. Yet we have a nearly identical rise in temperature that predates this. That’s hard to explain if the warming trend is only anthropogenic in the 20th century.

[I]t is pointless trying to prove MMGW, because all the variables involved make proof nigh-on impossible to ascertain. Neither would it be possible to prove that MMGW is false.

The burden of proof would be on those that are saying MMGW is a “fact.”

JunkScience.com has posted a $100,000 cash prize reward for the first person who can prove humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

That’s a challenge that will never be taken because there is no proof. The assertion of human caused global warming is based on the alleged amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m still waiting for someone to show me how a gas (CO2) that is less than 1 percent of the total atmospheric gases can have that effect or any effect at all on global climate.

And thisjust popped up in my bloglines feed. I remember OU and Tulane doing studies on the effect of large areas of paving and building roof heat having an amplifying effect on thunderstorm behavior. I believe in the mid and late ’80s, I’ll see if I can trawl them up.

There is no proof of mmgw, only a consensus based on available evidence, just as there is no proof of the asteroid/meteor/comet that wiped out the dinosaurs, only a consensus supported by available evidence. Your examples of consensi/consensuses not working are not relevant, as they deal with single events and/or very particular circumstances, but most importantly were not subject to international peer review.

What an irrational pile of crap!! Consensus is more important than proof!! Not subject to peer review!! Even your statement of ‘available evidence’ is twisted!! What available evidence are you refering to?? The previous NASA temperature report which has been refuted was one of those precious pieces of evidence I suppose and now that it has been refuted I suppose you global warming fanatics will just drop it off the list of ‘available evidence’.

Your attempt to make a corollary argument by referencing the theoratical association of the dinosaur extinction by meteor/comet collision with the earth is also feeble as there are still many other alternate theories being floated around.

Your idea of consensus is pure b.s. True science does not depend on consensus but on experimental ‘proof’ and so fsr there is no proof that global warming or any other climate change is man made.

Anna: Not at all, you are terrific as are the vast majority of people posting here. Zsa Zsa is a favorite and I miss it when she’s not posting. I was not speaking of any person and perhaps at times I am thus guilty, I was just complaining about the idea that people with opposing views or that express themselves poorly are not automatically of low intellect. There are many fine, intelligent people that can be incredibly wrong about things; there are reasons we all get caught up in certain beliefs but having an IQ of 25 or less is insulting and only hurts other people without cause.

Whistler is an example of one that rarely, if ever, jumps on people with opposing views in a hurtful, personal way, he almost always offers sound reasons for his opposition without demeaning the other person in the process, and I guess I am only advocating that approach more often by more people, but certainly you were not included in my complaint. You’ll notice that in Whistler’s last post, he referred to what ManofFireandLight has been saying and explained that might be why people assume he has a certain philosophy, not because he’s an idiot!

Ok warmies, here is your chance to prove Man Made Global Warming is real. JunkScience.com has posted a $100,000 cash prize reward for the first person who can prove humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Show us what is truh. Prove us wrong. Put up or shut up.

UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

translation: We don’t need no stinking proof.

We certainly do so … what would our royal pundom do without a King of puns

As for The Whistler: Off with his head for the audacity to even speak such vile words.

ManofFireandLight:

Why is everyone assuming I am a global warming zealot?

Because most of the regulars here spend their time judging other people, they believe anyone disagreeing with them or expressing their views in ways they don’t agree with, are idiots (I’Q's below 25) and are beneath their contempt. Lastly, they love to jump to conclusions so they can have an opportunity to attack someone and makes themselves feel superior.

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

That ain’t going to happen. Enviro-Nazis have set their tactical agenda. And ain’t nothing going to alter that. All leftards are mental retards, every single one of them. No matter their level of education. They are leftards, and Democrats, therefore they are mental retards. Like all Kennedys and Rockefellars and Byrds and Clintons. Mental fucking retards.

Your comment does appear to lean that way.

Why is everyone assuming I am a global warming zealot? Get down off your high horse!

OK, relax guys! I am well aware of The Whistler’s grammatical sentence structure but, being one that seldom overlooks an opportunity to have fun … I went with it. Now, having already rolled my eyes once in thia comment, I have nothing left but, to stick my tongue out atcha’ll

Thanks, Shredder! I was AFK for a few days.

Flamer, sorry, old bean, want me to agree to stepping the human race back to a paleolithic level of technology? Then you got to present concrete, irrefutable proof that it is necessary. Consensus don’t get it. Want proof that consensus ain’t the scientific principle upon which to base such far reaching conclusions? Example A, Minneapolis I35W bridge collapse. Example B, flooding of New Orleans after Katrina. Both the result of consensus.

Neiman I had forgotten about that SNL catch phrase.

Apparently it was a Gilda Radner character. (Google is a wonderful thing sometimes).

It’s a wonder she ever gets it right.

Does anyone have access to a record temp chart for the past 100 years?
I have always understood the 1930′s as the hottest and then recent rise also. I am just curious as to how it’s believed this recent change in temps is different from the spike we had in the 30′s that was not permanent