The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says

co2 emissions have a impact, good or bad is yet to be determined, maybe we push the next ice age off a few years, in that case good, we just do not know, but what is known is more research is needed

but to say flat out man is not having an effect on the client is wrong, we are, we just do not know the full implications of that yet

 

The warming has stopped yet greenhouse gases are still there. This means man did not cause it

 

No you are showing you believe AGW is law and nothing can disprove it. You would be wrong

 

LOL...watch out people, looks like ptif is trying to use his brain again. Don't hurt yourself with that razor sharp logic

 

Unlike you who believes all the lies of the liberal media and the democrats and the IPCC.

I look for truth I do not believe what is said if it does not have facts and proof to back it up

 

Who told you it has stopped?

 

The MWP had natural causes, like the Sun. The warming we're in now does not.

We know that for the following reasons:

1. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, then we're losing less heat at night and nighttime temps should be rising fastest. In fact, nighttime temps are rising about twice as fast as daytime temps.

2. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more energy and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy but it's being distributed differently: more heat stays on the surface and less heat escapes to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming like everything else, but if it's greenhouse the stratosphere should be cooling as the surface warms. In fact, the stratopshere has been on a long-term cooling trend since at least 1958.

3. If it's the Sun, then the Sun should be observed to be getting more energetic. In fact, the Sun's output has declined over the last 30 years.

So yes, pre-industrial changes to climate had natural causes. (duh). But this one, the climate change we're in now, is all on us.

 

When did it stop?

Even if it did stop, that isn't necessarily prove that greenhouse gases caused by human activity weren't the cause. There might be another source that has counteracts those greenhouse gases...that's if it has stopped as you claim, which is the very first claim I've ever seen anywhere from anyone that it has stopped.

Until you have solid undeniable proof that human activity didn't cause global warming trends, you can't just assume it to be true because it fits nicely into your point of view. You got to look at all possibilities. You're not some enlighten Renaissance Man searching for the truth. You're non better than those who religiously hold to the still unproven notion that human activity has nothing to do with human activity.

 

Complete statement from Dr. Zunli Lu of Syracuse University:

 

Scientists

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/best-shows-global-warming-has-stopped/

 

Nice opinion that means nothing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...arming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/

 

This is your theory now? Astrology??

Why don't we examine how Scafetta's astrological model has done in the past. And let's take it a bit longer than the 15 years in the Forbes article. Here's what the Scafetta theory looks like:



Is this the theory you want to defend?

 

So then it is as good as GW scientists models

 

...the warming effect of GHG's has been known for 200 years, at least known to anyone who stayed awake during high school science classes...did you attend complete high school?

who other than you claimed GHG's had anything to do with medieval times?


here we have a case of "I (you) don't know anything about the science so it can't possibly be true and what I(you) don't know I make up"...

 

Ha ha ha !!!

Sorry to disappoint you. David Rose of the Daily Mail is a journalist. Not a scientist.

The BEST study being misreported there said the exact opposite:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf

 

Apparently some posters think it is A-OK for "journalists" to file stories and it is expected to be treated as Holy Canon, but if the story goes against AGW, the journalist is subjected to a barrage of ad hominem.

 

anyone who supports the evidence for CC/AGW doesn't need to resort to posting evidence from denier blogs, pseudo scientists or journalists they have mountains of legitimate scientific sources to draw from...

 

In this case, it's warranted. David Rose of the Daily Mail has a history of twisting quotes to serve his own agenda, and he has been called out on it repeatedly.

"Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research".

"The DM‘s reporting in this area was also challenged by NSIDC, which managed to get the Daily Mail to change its utterly false claim that “According to the The National Snow and Ice Data Center, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.” Yet, they merely changed it to “According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.” Except, of course, those unnamed “some scientists” don’t exist, the article never identifies them, and Latif certainly isn’t one of them, as he explained right here."

From Dr. Murari Lal,

"Dear sirs, The statement attributed to me in 'Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified' By David Rose in UK Daily Mail on 24th January 2010 has been wrongly placed. I never said this story at any time and strongly condemn the writer for attributing this to me."

 

I would think that anyone who values honesty would want to discourage journalists completely misrepresenting the work of scientists. It's one thing to disagree with scientists and post a bunch of unsupported opinions, which denier outlets do every day. That amounts to your run-of-the-mill tabloid material. It's another step below that to completely misrepresent someone's work, and even fail to make corrections when the person's work they are misrepresenting calls them out. That's basic common decency that a certain crowd lacks.

Finally, DailyMail has a history of such things. Most disconcerting are the masses that keep reading and promoting them uncritically.

 

There has been periods of warming and periods of cooling. So 200 years ago man was causing warming? In the year 1000 Lief Erickson was farming on Greenland