http://svtplay.se/v/1823383/nobel_2009/snillen_spekulerar?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,1823383/sb,p117534,1,f,-1

I don’t know if this web TV service is available abroad (but I think so). The program is often exported to other TV companies, under the title “Science and Man” and may turn up on a local channel of yours. (The Swedish title “Snillen spekulerar” means “Geniuses speculate”.)

–Ahrvid

Ps. Not that while the term “climategate” isn’t mentioned, the scandal is named this in the Swedish subtitles!

Do you believe in Global warming. Yes.

is it a manmade problem? That’s what the science says ( UHI is science boys)

How big a problem? Dunno.

personally, I DO believe in AGW because I believe in radiative physics. But You can believe in AGW as well, UHI is human caused problem.

basically, I suggest that all of you include in your posts.. somewhere.. your belief in AGW.

This tactic is brilliant. I believe in AGW, but..
basically, you take away the term AGW from them by appropriating it to your own devices.

I believe in AGW, but I think we ought to look at cosmic rays. I believe in AGW but. I believe in AGW and I think there is some interesting work in sunspots..
If more of you do this it will drive them crazy. They’ll even find this post and say
its mosher the meme machine at play again hacking the fenton machine for free.

Go ahead try it. There are other huge benefits to this approach of rhetorical appropriation. You will figure them out. I can’t give you the whole playbook.

If everybody believes in AGW, then this transforms into a fight between AGW believers. some certain, others less certain. It DISMANTELS the entire denialist meme from the inside. Many of you who are into denial for pyschological reasons wont be able to don this rhetorical cloak. You should. It’s debate changing. It also unravels their tactic of “banishment” AGW becomes a big tent.

I guess you really assumed and hoped that that all of this was some kind of misunderstanding. To me, I thought your insistence on the presumption of innocence was a strategy for the appearance of neutrality, since I thought this level of naivety was unlikely.

I understood what these guys were all about from day 1, since there can be no evidence for something impossible. Climategate was not discouraging to me, it was encouraging to have the truth revealed.

To those who claim that Fox News has a bias, you forget that in order to be an example of bias, there has to be an element of falsehood. It’s altogether possible, but please support your claim with an example.

Obama: The sun shall not rise until next week
Fox: Dispite Obama’s claim, the sun will rise tomorrow morning
CNN: Science deniers dispute the facts established by the consensus

My point is that good journalism is determining objective truth and reporting it, not averaging opinions, and reporting an obvious falsehood. By this standard, FNC is less biased.

OT

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2537

My main questions revolve around the MWP and LIA. Are there peer reviewed articles other than Jones, Briffa, Mann, etc. that do not depend in any way on any ‘team’ member’s articles that also show flat temperatures trends for the past 2000 years ?

[Response: If you define 'team' as Steve McIntyre does, meaning anyone that corroborates these results, then obviously no. But the real answer is, yes, of course. Tom Crowley's paper in Science from about 10 years ago is a nice example, here. Contrary to claims that this paper depends on Mann et al.'s work, it doesn't. Nor do several other of the figures shown e.g. here, though there is some overlap in the underlying data used. There is no overlap of people or data in the work by Oerlemans, also shown in that figure (as discussed here.--eric]/

I seem to remember that all hockeystick papers depends on either Briffa – Yamal or Mann – bristlecone, am I right or am I jumping to conclusions?