Comments on: No Andean Glaciers from 19 to 27S

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:38 +0000

#17 and 19,

and since volcanic activity has waned in this time period, couldn’t you also consider that this may also contribute to the so called “warming” we are experiencing? That is if I understand you right, you are saying volcanos do matter in some way to how this planet operates. Or is a volcano erupting an anomoly?

“It is clear that there were warm periods around the 11th C, but they were not globally or temporally simultaneous.” or

“that different areas of th eearth experienced those low temperatures out of unison with each other, not that the res to f the earth didnt experience colder temperatures.”

So what size land mass or number of continents do you consider the cut of point for the word “global events” to be used or not? And what time scales are allowed to form these opinions? Where does the most land reside? in the NH? or the SH? Also, just about all the ice has disappeared on this planet several times over before. Is that not supposed to happen ever again?

In other words, why don’ t you all give us a list of what you all think is important information to consider and what is not allowed so we can go from there?

I for one am tired of any topic getting interesting then you folks come bossing everyone around with that same old tone you have about what is right and wrong to talk about, and how we should conduct our own thinking and the words we use or can’t use on the road to our own discovery here. I would not call this intellectually dishonest behavior, but for a broader minded person, or at least a curious person to be satisfied, is asking alot.

Like #31 says, more please or go back to the basis of this topic in # 23. That’s what is interesting here.

By: jae

jae — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:47:40 +0000

19:

All I can say is: ignore the Idso’s. They may be the worst of the bunch as far as intellectual dishonesty goes. I’m sure I’ll get flamed by bender for this, but I have to call them as I see them.

You and Bloom keep saying this. Prove it, dammit. You are just upset, because there is no similar compendium of information for the politically correct so-called “consensus position.” Idso’s site proves conclusively that there is no frigging consensus, even if HALF of his summaries are “slanted.”

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:35:54 +0000

Re #29, you were! But I’ll leave it.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:08:46 +0000

OK, I probably asked for trouble by mentioning Wahl’s CV and publications, but please don’t use that as a pretext for the line of recent discussion. Enough.

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:53:46 +0000

#27
There are several personal observations in my comment so which “that” are you referring to?
And please do add what you have to offer to the contrary regarding my observations, if you think I should consider them. ( if that’s what you are implying with your oh so clever comment)

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:36:55 +0000

Re #25 and #26. you really believe that?

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:33:07 +0000

The climate hatchet has been hanging over our heads since time began. All the other blabber is belief, whomever or whatever you want to blame to be the cause. Can you say, sin?
It’s the constant blame ; even on those who came before us; the urgency,–the focus on who funds who or where they are from and where are they published-the proposed “devils” I guess’; then the silencing and ridicule of any one with questions or doubts, or audits AND lack of whole truths in the media; the constant reference to “the community” and the networking: all this is why I think it has become religious in nature.

What’s all that got to do with scientific data anyway?

And they are already trying to convert my kids in school!

By: Larry Huldén

Larry Huldén — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:20:04 +0000

“They” have invented hockey stick. “They” are religious because “they” have provided only semantic evidence of its existence. There are no published scientific evidence of hockey stick in Mannian meaning. A negative claim has not to be proved, it’s enough if the positive claim can be shown to be false. Still waiting for greenhouse.

As a consequence, Steve M. is justified in writing his text.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:32:31 +0000

Re #23, indeed, but he clearly couldn’t resist his last two sentences could he? The idea was planted! Read post #7.

It’s NOT religious to believe in the hockey stick in the scientific use of the word ‘believe’(I believe the world is round, I believe in gravity, I believe in plate tectonics, I believe the HS is science and is part of a body of scientific work). To worship it, to make offerings to it, now that to my mind would be both religious, and daft. You can’t be trying to suggest that’s what is going on surely?

By: Larry Huldén

Larry Huldén — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:12:41 +0000

Most comments seem to miss the basics here. Steve M. wanted to show that glacier expansion and retreat is not automatically temperature dependant. This main point has nothing to do with religion. Hockey team accuse Steve for not being climatologist and then they forget that they are not that themselves. Some of them may be theologists but that does not mean that they are religious. They are religious only if they believe in hockey stick.