I'd give it to the GP that there is no Big Oil conspiracy. After all, a conspiracy by definition includes a clandestine element. Big Oil's ties into the denial-sphere are out in the open, for all to see. No need to call simple propaganda a conspiracy - which you didn't, anyway.
Ah, the it's all cyclic - meme. That's a rather new one, isn't it? Of course, since there is no actual periodic cause to be found for the current warming trend, you gotta heap cycles upon cycles to get an arbitrary match to the data. I suspect that someone in the denialsphere lately discovered Fourier analysis without having a clue what it is actually good for. Starting from there, it got amplified by the usual blogorrhoea.
Their sudden love for tree ring reconstructions is certainly amusing. Less amusing is to continue their tendency to quote mine papers to make them look like they say something they actually don't. Well, not news - the liars are lying, who would have thunk.
"Saganic worship cult". Mate, you owe me a new keyboard. Still cleaning out the coffee I snorted all over the place. We need a logo - something like Sagan in a Pentangle surroundend by "billions and billions and billions".;)
The back issues are stacked in the library anyway. Keep those and give Elsevier the much deserved kick in the arse. I'd say we just expropriate the parasites and if they dare to say anything against it, string the fuckers up on the next lamppost. Worst bottomfeeders in the history of science.
In general, yes - but one can't help to look at the current practices in the application of GM crops. Those being vendor lock-in, massive monocultures and over-reliance on single pesticides making resistances shoot up. Can't beat evolution, guys. As soon as they stop pushing roundup-ready soy and corn and instead get nitrogen-fixating crops in a variety of cultivars on the market, I am ready to evaluate those on their own merit.
So if I make the claim that I am innocent of whatever random crime his highness deigns to accuse me with to, It is my duty to prove that claim? Right. Troll someone else.
The RSV is under copyright, but available and distributable online. It is considered to be heresy by the fundamentalists, since the more accurated translation doesn't feed their biases. That's what the GP was taking a stab at.
So, you once more offer no fact, but just anally extracted opinion. Very well. Go on, but don't bother me with it. You'll get a more positive response within your own circle jerking echo chamber.
One small addition - that downward trend on the thousand year timescale was known all along. They just think it is underestimated by now. It is also known, that orbital forcings work stronger at higher latitudes. Their tree-ring methodology appears to be an improvement, though - so the next step is to rework other tree-ring proxies by this method and look at their influence on multi-proxy reconstructions. Since it is known that throwing out tree rings from multi-proxy reconstructions doesn't change them significantly, no significant change is to be expected, though. No matter the sentence-mining of the denialist crowd.
Off to outright dumbass trolling now. Please drop your pretense of actually debating the issues at hand in the future. Saves the reasonably people some energy and allows them to just flame you.
Just for information: Solar insolation changes are more relevant at higher latitudes and basically invisible in tropical proxies. So we are talking about a localized effect.
No, you are actually straight within the spectrum of creationists, or rather ID-proponentsists - you use the same argumentative structure as their "micro/macro-evolution" goalpost-moving strategy. Models are not chosen as to fit your pessimism, models are chosen as to fit the facts. Same thing in evolution as in climatology.
Except that CO2 is no speculation, but physical fact, known for more than 150 years, reproduced a thousand times each years by students of chemistry in their physical chemistry lab sessions. When I first talked to you in the other slashdot post, I thought you were up to a somewhat honest discussion. By your spamming of the same bullshit over this thread and your basic willful ignorance of undisputed basic radiative physics here, I have to conclude that you are just an ideology driven liar with no interest in science at all. Consider this debate ended, I will not waste any more energy on you.
The recent warming can't be natural as well because we know the elementary radiative physics of CO2. Basically every student of chemistry reproduces this measurement in a lab session. If you want to put forth the thesis that the recent warming is natural, you have to propose a mechanism that counteracts the forcing of increased CO2. I have not yet heard about one.
Very well - in Germany, you definitely don't have the freedom of speech that allows you to spew Nazi propaganda (that is a generic you, not directed at you personally, just to avoid misconceptions). I can live with that. Then again, in the US you can get shut down as an artist by - to my perception - weird arse obscenity regulations. Or you could at some point, not sure how relevant this is today. Every community sets their standards - I don't think we want to globalize this.
You know, Mann has been very appreciative of their method over on RealClimate. No scientist does however see the fundamental problem you try to shoehorn into this. Those guys work very well inside the consensus - only you try as hard as you can to make it sound like they don't. Again - they do not question the amount of CO2 forcing at any bloody point. We increase CO2. That forcing is clearly and undoubtedly at work. If you want to deny that, you need to deny physical chemistry back to the 1830s. They do not say what you want them to say.
We know that the CO2 concentration increased leading the current spike. We know the CO2 concentration was largely constant during the last spikes. We know the basic radiative physics of CO2 - they are so basic, you do not even need quantum mechanics. We know this since 150 years. Whatever caused the earlier spikes - one might speculate orbital forcings - is clearly not responsible for the current one, since we have a clear mechanism at hand. Logic. Then we talk.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd give it to the GP that there is no Big Oil conspiracy. After all, a conspiracy by definition includes a clandestine element. Big Oil's ties into the denial-sphere are out in the open, for all to see. No need to call simple propaganda a conspiracy - which you didn't, anyway.
Ok, I should have seen this coming, shouldn't I?
Ah, the it's all cyclic - meme. That's a rather new one, isn't it? Of course, since there is no actual periodic cause to be found for the current warming trend, you gotta heap cycles upon cycles to get an arbitrary match to the data. I suspect that someone in the denialsphere lately discovered Fourier analysis without having a clue what it is actually good for. Starting from there, it got amplified by the usual blogorrhoea.
Their sudden love for tree ring reconstructions is certainly amusing. Less amusing is to continue their tendency to quote mine papers to make them look like they say something they actually don't. Well, not news - the liars are lying, who would have thunk.
"Saganic worship cult". Mate, you owe me a new keyboard. Still cleaning out the coffee I snorted all over the place. We need a logo - something like Sagan in a Pentangle surroundend by "billions and billions and billions". ;)
I'd rather call it "poisoning the well":
The back issues are stacked in the library anyway. Keep those and give Elsevier the much deserved kick in the arse. I'd say we just expropriate the parasites and if they dare to say anything against it, string the fuckers up on the next lamppost. Worst bottomfeeders in the history of science.
In general, yes - but one can't help to look at the current practices in the application of GM crops. Those being vendor lock-in, massive monocultures and over-reliance on single pesticides making resistances shoot up. Can't beat evolution, guys. As soon as they stop pushing roundup-ready soy and corn and instead get nitrogen-fixating crops in a variety of cultivars on the market, I am ready to evaluate those on their own merit.
We tell them that they CAN BE if they dream big and work hard.
And that is the American Dream, called so because you only can believe in it when you are asleep. Just to invoke Carlin.
By the Old Ones, you just redeemed half a year of AC trolling with that, my dear coward!
So if I make the claim that I am innocent of whatever random crime his highness deigns to accuse me with to, It is my duty to prove that claim? Right. Troll someone else.
Lol, well, I consider myself a Lutheran atheist ;)
The RSV is under copyright, but available and distributable online. It is considered to be heresy by the fundamentalists, since the more accurated translation doesn't feed their biases. That's what the GP was taking a stab at.
It's not my duty to prove no papers have been shut out. You are making the accusation. Prove the guilt.
So, you once more offer no fact, but just anally extracted opinion. Very well. Go on, but don't bother me with it. You'll get a more positive response within your own circle jerking echo chamber.
One small addition - that downward trend on the thousand year timescale was known all along. They just think it is underestimated by now. It is also known, that orbital forcings work stronger at higher latitudes. Their tree-ring methodology appears to be an improvement, though - so the next step is to rework other tree-ring proxies by this method and look at their influence on multi-proxy reconstructions. Since it is known that throwing out tree rings from multi-proxy reconstructions doesn't change them significantly, no significant change is to be expected, though. No matter the sentence-mining of the denialist crowd.
Off to outright dumbass trolling now. Please drop your pretense of actually debating the issues at hand in the future. Saves the reasonably people some energy and allows them to just flame you.
Just for information: Solar insolation changes are more relevant at higher latitudes and basically invisible in tropical proxies. So we are talking about a localized effect.
No, you are actually straight within the spectrum of creationists, or rather ID-proponentsists - you use the same argumentative structure as their "micro/macro-evolution" goalpost-moving strategy. Models are not chosen as to fit your pessimism, models are chosen as to fit the facts. Same thing in evolution as in climatology.
Except that CO2 is no speculation, but physical fact, known for more than 150 years, reproduced a thousand times each years by students of chemistry in their physical chemistry lab sessions. When I first talked to you in the other slashdot post, I thought you were up to a somewhat honest discussion. By your spamming of the same bullshit over this thread and your basic willful ignorance of undisputed basic radiative physics here, I have to conclude that you are just an ideology driven liar with no interest in science at all. Consider this debate ended, I will not waste any more energy on you.
The recent warming can't be natural as well because we know the elementary radiative physics of CO2. Basically every student of chemistry reproduces this measurement in a lab session. If you want to put forth the thesis that the recent warming is natural, you have to propose a mechanism that counteracts the forcing of increased CO2. I have not yet heard about one.
If you ignore the known physical properties of CO2.... And there the problem lies.
Very well - in Germany, you definitely don't have the freedom of speech that allows you to spew Nazi propaganda (that is a generic you, not directed at you personally, just to avoid misconceptions). I can live with that. Then again, in the US you can get shut down as an artist by - to my perception - weird arse obscenity regulations. Or you could at some point, not sure how relevant this is today. Every community sets their standards - I don't think we want to globalize this.
You know, Mann has been very appreciative of their method over on RealClimate. No scientist does however see the fundamental problem you try to shoehorn into this. Those guys work very well inside the consensus - only you try as hard as you can to make it sound like they don't. Again - they do not question the amount of CO2 forcing at any bloody point. We increase CO2. That forcing is clearly and undoubtedly at work. If you want to deny that, you need to deny physical chemistry back to the 1830s. They do not say what you want them to say.
We know that the CO2 concentration increased leading the current spike. We know the CO2 concentration was largely constant during the last spikes. We know the basic radiative physics of CO2 - they are so basic, you do not even need quantum mechanics. We know this since 150 years. Whatever caused the earlier spikes - one might speculate orbital forcings - is clearly not responsible for the current one, since we have a clear mechanism at hand. Logic. Then we talk.