Mr. Fusion says:

jman,

#36

because you don’t understand? every one of them are right.

No, it is because I looked at the first six and already have seen them debunked.

Do you really think that if any of those were true there would be every reputable earth science professional, every professional organization and society, as well every national meteorological society in agreement? You must be pretty daft!

Smith says:

#41 Fusion –

You haven’t actually reviewed the “evidence,” have you? There are three, and only three, arguments that link global warming to man:

1 — a correlation between CO2 emissions and increasing global temperatures. Except the correlation doesn’t work so well over the last decade. And new evidence suggests that the entire temperature record has been . . . well, let’s just say that the official, homogenized temperature record may be a bit hard defend as more of the raw data becomes available. And forget the ice cores, they actually prove the opposite of the AGW theory.

2 — the “hockey stick” in its many forms, all generated via proxies and careful screening of the data set, making sure that the data selected shows the proper “temperature signal.” Peer-reviewed PhD Climatologists may not have a problem with the procedure, but peer-reviewed PhD Statisticians do.

3 — Computer models. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

All other data — the melting icecaps, receeding glaciers, acidification of the oceans, the poor plight of the polar bear — none of these are proof of anything, not individually and not collectively.

Now some of us take a hard look at the “evidence,” and conclude it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

But go ahead, believe what you want.

Wretched Gnu says:

Gore in ’12!

Get the current trojan wingnut outta there…

Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

#43, Smith,

#1, And new evidence suggests that the entire temperature record has been . . .

And what is this “new evidence”? Perhaps you could share it with us or link to a report.

#2, the “hockey stick” in its many forms, all generated via proxies and careful screening of the data set, making sure that the data selected shows the proper “temperature signal.” Peer-reviewed PhD Climatologists may not have a problem with the procedure, but peer-reviewed PhD Statisticians do.

Say what? Several other studies under taken by Mann et al and others have demonstrated the validity of the MBH98 report. For example, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report stating, among other information that,

The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

#3, Computer models. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Now some of us take a hard look at the “evidence,” and conclude it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

OK, let’s see here. All the evidence means nothing. Now let’s look at what you started your post with,

You haven’t actually reviewed the “evidence,” have you? There are three, and only three, arguments that link global warming to man:

So I’ve reviewed the evidence but because YOU decided that it isn’t evidence you now suggest there isn’t any evidence because well you said there wasn’t and whatever evidence I looked at was wrong because there isn’t any evidence …

In short, it won’t matter what evidence you have been shown, you won’t believe it. If your house was on fire would you ignore the firemen telling you to evacuate because you thought the heat and smoke were phony? When you drive your car do you ignore your gas gauge simply because the car is running fine thank you?

You are a denier.

Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

#43, Smith,

My last post was eaten by the Spam Filter. If it is posted later great, if not here is another article containing 10 (ten) studies graphed for all to see. The graph does not have MBH98 or Mann 2000 and some others since they did not contain all relevant data points.