Time for a celebratory glass of wine methinks.

Serves me right for not copying before posting!!

Tamas, basically my lost post was asking you to back up your statements with real data – as in links to proven, credible, sites – because otherwise they are just stories or unproven claims. Even urban myths.

I listened to Ian Plimer’s Okham’s Razor podcast today, after downloading and reading the transcripts, and note he was making the same unsubstantiated MWP claims as you. Along with a load of other wild statements about AGW, and inaccurate comments about the scientists who disagree with him.

Can you please provide something akin to proof that the MWP was warmer than today? I’ve as yet not found anything worthwhile supporting that claim.

And can you also provide valid proof that the “hockey stick” has been ‘debunked’. Again I have found nothing worthwhile supporting that position.

Please not I am asking for proof outside the usual anti-AGW sites.

Or should I write valid and scientifically sound arguments against the data.

Tamas, you said:

I find it interesting that the IPCC had graphs showing the medieval warm period was warmer than today until their 2001 summary that then used Mann et al’s Hockey stick showing the opposite. This was then quietly dropped in 2007 after it was debunked. Why?

In a nutshell, because the science progressed and more data became available.

Before the mid 1990s the only proxy data of sufficient longevity available was a single study from the UK – a very limited geographical region. That data did show considerable warming in the MWP.

Later, other data used by Mann for the 1998 analysis (which appeared in TAR 2001) covered a much broader area, far reducing the significance of the earlier data.

Many more studies have been done since, and, far from being “quietly dropped”, the “hockey stick” has been validated from many sources now, as reflected in AR4 2007 and since. See the links I provided earlier on the MWP for more details.

Changing tack a bit… earlier on, you said:

I can think for myself and analyse the data. I can look at the history of the world’s climate. I can listen to alternative and highly credible views on the matter. I therefore reach a conclusion that AGW is wrong and CO2 is not a major factor in the climate system.

The trouble is, Tamas, to be honest, the views that you find “highly credible” (based on the arguments I’ve seen you making, at least) simply fail when it comes to the overall evidence. They have generally been just repetitions of widely circulated talking points that permeate the “denialosphere” of anti-AGW websites. Many of these are just simply incorrect; many are narrowly correct but presented in isolation give a completely misleading picture; and so on. What they are emphatically not is sceptical. You need to do a lot more independent fact-checking, if I can be blunt.

I wrote a response, but the b*stard disappeared when I submitted it.

First time in yonks I haven’t copied the post before submitting – just in case this very thing happens – and guess what happened!!

I’ll get back to you at another date.

I do actually agree with you, partly, about the fervent ‘green ideology’ side of the equation as well. In that the more strident – for wont of a better word – “supporters” of AGW do go over the top in their claims of – your word – ‘apocalypse’.

I prefer to stick with the rational people on either side, who put forward coherent arguments either for or against. Such that I can read their viewpoint, examine their argument, and then either agree or disagree with the conclusion.

I disagree with you over the ‘argument from authority’ angle. I instead see the arguments – properly put – for AGW put forward by those institutions following the logic and reason of the explored and fully examined science.

I also can look at the history of the world’s climate, and agree that it has changed over time. After all I do hold a degree in geology, and thus spent 4 years (I failed one) examining the worlds history in the long term.

My disagreement with you concerns the extent, and apparent rapidity, of the current changes. In that my readings of the science, specifically the relatively short term input of mankind in digging up and then burning off fossil fuels, in the last two hundred years or so, has had a marked effect on the climate as a whole.

I also disagree with you that the alternative views are ‘highly credible’, because most of those in the anti-AGW camp are definitely not following scientific principles. To me the main AGW opponents, both the scientists and the media commentators, are desperately trying to report anything that may disprove AGW, and then fitting facts to match their beliefs.

And yes, I use the word ‘beliefs’ deliberately.

For example, your arguments for solar activity, volcanoes, plate tectonics, etc.. etc.. have all – from my scientific viewpoint – been proven to be not the main drivers of the current observable changes.

Please note I do not claim they play no part in our climate, although plate tectonics is stretching the point in the short or medium term (long term being in the 10′s of millions of years geologically), just that their role is insignificant compared to other factors.

I can’t find anything to support your statement that the “G20 conference recently announced that they would not allow the world’s temperature to rise more than 2C by controlling CO2 emissions.”

“Not allow” Tamas?

Maybe it would be more accurate to say something along the lines that the G20 pledged to try to reduce emissions such that the global temperature may not rise by more than predicted 2 degrees in the next 10, 20 or 40 years (whatever the target year was – 2020, 2030, or 2050).

So it wasn’t a claim about controlling the Earth’s climate, was it?

I find it intriguing that you think that “Mann, Briffa et al have been shown to be sloppy in their work”. On whose word do you concur they have been ‘sloppy’? Or is that just another anti-AGW exaggeration? After all, ‘sloppy’ would be rather an extreme critique from a scientist.

I await your MWP links in the meantime.

(No riposte to my ‘man in the pub’ comment. I am most upset… ;}} )

That’s weird about your Crikey cage match comments.

I have noticed that if you try and embed more than one hyperlink then the comment automatically goes to moderation. It seems that Crikey doesn’t moderate this particular thread anymore – they just leave us fanatics to duke it out so those comments stay suspended forever. That might explain your problem. Otherwise I see no reason why they would bar you. Give it a try without any links and see if the problem continues.

Now, to your points.

I don’t thing Global Warming is a big conspiracy. I do think it chimes nicely with a lot of anti-capitalism and green ideology so it picks up fervent support from those quarters. However, my basic point is that I just think it’s wrong.

The reason I repeat the same arguments (mostly the temperature data and also critiquing the hyperbolic doomsday stuff that gets thrown about) is because those arguments tend to show how silly Global Warming apocalypse nuttiness can be.

You mention that “The fact that all the major scientific bodies in the world, as well as most governments, and institutions, regard AGW as valid, as a real threat, as something that needs to be acted upon, and that these influential bodies repeatedly ignore the increasingly desperate claims of the anti-AGW denialists”

I must point out that this is just an argument from authority, not from logic or reason. I am completely unconvinced by those arguments no matter where they are coming from. I can think for myself and analyse the data. I can look at the history of the world’s climate. I can listen to alternative and highly credible views on the matter. I therefore reach a conclusion that AGW is wrong and CO2 is not a major factor in the climate system.

Also, you mention that “no one I know of, or have read, has ever claimed that “humans control the climate system”. That’s the typical denialist exaggeration designed purely to distort the argument.”

I disagree. The G20 conference recently announced that they would not allow the world’s temperature to rise more than 2C by controlling CO2 emissions. What is that if not a claim that we can control Earth’s climate?

Finally, on the medieval warm period. I believe Mann, Briffa et al have been shown to sloppy in their work and their claim that the MWP wasn’t that warm is shown to be false. I haven’t got any links to hand but give me a day or two and I’ll post something in this space.

I note that you again provide no sources for your claims – are you that afraid to present any proof to back up your claims? Please provide a valid, credible and scientific source for your claim that the MWP was warmer than today.

(And before you say I haven’t provided sources to support my facts, I have provided multiple credible sources to you previously, as has Matt above)

I sometimes think you are deliberately playing devil’s advocate in your comments, because you are not debating but simply using the same discredited arguments again and again with no verifying data.

My personal view is that those in the denialist camp are peddling the worst kind of conspiracy theories since the 9/11 attacks (US government conspiracy anyone) or the moon walks (US government conspiracy).

In that they “believe” that AGW is somehow some massive green global conspiracy, and that climate scientists are mis-reporting science in order to keep their revenue funding flow.

I mean, come on, have you ever heard such a ridiculous attack on mainstream science? Would the same attack be made upon biological, chemical or any other valid scientific research?

Any anti-AGW report, no matter how ridiculous, is eagerly grasped upon as somehow yet again disproving AGW. And then when valid scientific sources, yet again, disprove these false claims, the denialists’ simply ignore these inconvenient facts, until the next denialist lightning rod is located.

The fact that all the major scientific bodies in the world, as well as most governments, and institutions, regard AGW as valid, as a real threat, as something that needs to be acted upon, and that these influential bodies repeatedly ignore the increasingly desperate claims of the anti-AGW denialists, apparently makes them part of this same conspiracy.

A last couple of points – no one I know of, or have read, has ever claimed that “humans control the climate system”. That’s the typical denialist exaggeration designed purely to distort the argument.

Finally I did try to post comments into the Cage Match, but nothing got past the arbitrators. I’ve no idea why not. My comments were as valid as those expressed here, and certainly not as insulting as some of kdkd’s. Although I did once refer to your obvious source of information, in a comment that didn’t get published, as that font of all current opinion – ‘the man in the pub’.

Also – if the Met office say that today is warmer than the medieval warm period then I say they are peddling falsehoods because that period was warmer than today.

Also, what data doesn’t suit me? I am just looking at recent temperature data and I don’t see accelerating or even rapid global warming.

My question to you is this: when will we again see rapid global warming? We are not seeing it now despite rapid increases in man-made CO2. Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd?

You guys make pretty good arguments occasionally but I am not convinced that humans control the climate system. Recent temperature data supports my scepticism. Nonetheless, I don’t think debating you is a waste of time. It tests my arguments and makes me think harder about this issue. You’ve responded to me a few times… why would you do so if you thought it a waste of time?