Yoder, you cocksucking little shit. As you can’t provide any links to any actual science to support your crazed beliefs, you prove to us all that you wouldn’t know real science if it fucked you up the arse.

You should get out into the real world more often. My children swim in lakes that were dried up in the so-called cooler, wetter past. It would be tragic for our family’s finances to pay more attention to trends produced by computer gymnastics than to the what the climate is in the real world.

I do not project my local experience onto the whole world, and that is why I study climate records on every continent as well as the ocean. I have met very few people that have a better handle on the major databases of temperature trends, procedures to derive them, similarities, and advantages and disadvantages.

I have a good handle on what is settled and not settled in the climate science, but I approach it with an open mind, and my understanding has gotten better over the years. One key point of understanding is how much we have yet to understand.

Talking about stupidity and blogs: perhaps one of the most stupid things to do is to rely on RealClimate. I would conjecture one reason that they say the things they do there is because they are so infaturated with their data manipulations that they forget to look at real world evidence.

There are times that I believe you — and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not heard of the Gore film. That is just an illustration of how uninformed you are.

With your comments about the 1930s, you seem to be confusing ‘The United States’ with ‘The World’. Get hold of an atlas or a globe and have a good hard look at it.

“most people accept that we are now warmer, and that is not implausible given the emergence from the Little Ice Age” – what you’re saying is that global warming caused global warming. In science, we look for slightly better explanations than simple tautology.

1) you should feel stupid believing what bloggers with grudges tell you, instead of noticing that GISS, Hadcrut and the satellites all give essentially identical results.
2) you should feel stupid if you ‘accept’ any scientific result without thinking about it, whether it turns out to be right or wrong.
3) you should feel stupid not to have noticed that the greatest warming is seen in the Arctic, and the Antarctic peninsula, where urban heat islands do not exist.
4 and 5) given that you claimed to have stopped believing climate science in the 1980s, you should feel stupid to have still been believing in the late 1990s.
6) you should feel stupid if you thought that there was some particular date that humanity started affecting the climate.
7) you should feel stupid if you think that the science has been settled. If it had, there would be no climate scientists. You should feel stupid if you didn’t realise the question that was settled was ‘are we affecting the climate’, and the question still being asked is ‘how large will the effect be’.
you should feel stupid if you think ‘corporate interests’ have anything to do with climate science.

No idea what Gore film you are talking about. Did you make it up?

Do you not feel stupid now? You should, because you certainly look it.

Actually, I would feel stupid if I had written that statement and displayed such abysmal lack of understanding about the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc. Of course, these years would be hotter given the oscillations! Also, that statement suggests little under understanding of issues such as surface station bias, inconsistent SST methodologies, and other measurement problems. It is possible that the current climate is hotter now than the 1930s worldwide, but such a statement is more speculation than scientific. State and continental temperatures reach records in the 1930s rather than today, societal harm from climatic trends was much more severe in the 30s, and the methodologies to homogenize temperatures across decades are not reliable and have not been shown to be robust. Still, most people accept that we are now warmer, and that is not implausible given the emergence from the Little Ice Age. (And I would feel doubly foolish if I made a statement like “there could be no emergence from the LIA because there was no LIA.”)

Okay, here is a short AGW list when I have felt stupid: (1) when I assumed that Hansen was providing a reliable temperature record via GISS. (2) when I accepted Parker’s analysis that even when present, UHI was negligible. (3) when I believed an IPCC spokesman that the UHI effect has been rigorously removed from the temperature data sets. (4) when I accepted Mann’s hockey stick. (5) when I accepted Gore’s statement that Lonnie Thompson’s graph supports Mann’s conclusion – actually the graph was not Thompson’s work but rather a regurgitation of Mann. (6) when I had the impression that glaciers started shrinking upon the onset of AGW. (7) when I believed that the science had been settled. (8) when I did not realize that corporate interest would love to have AGW legislation. And the list could go on. One time that I did not feel stupid is when Gore did his “son of AIT” film when he claimed that the Arctic coastline was collapsing under AGW-induced ice melt and showed a house collapsing into the ocean. On this film, I did a little checking – turns out that that the house was on Newfoundland coast and collapsed due to building error. In this film, Gore stated that we needed to have the courage and will to change laws so that government will decide energy use rather than individuals. I am not so stupid as to fail to recognize what he is advocating.

Everything I have written can be found in pretty much any organic chemistry book and every spectroscopy or instrumental analysis book. Hell you can even find it ON THIS SITE! The fact that you’re too damn stupid to even know this proves you have absolutely zero science background other than maybe computers. I don’t know about you but chemists, biochemists, chemical engineers, biologists, physicists, are all taught this stuff very early on in their studies. So again, I have not said anything wrong. CO2 absorbs infrared in specific wavelengths. They DON’T absorb the entire infrared spectrum. This is accepted by EVERYONE, even your damn computer model has this built in! And once they’ve absorbed those wavelengths, they CANNOT magically start absorbing different wavelengths. This violates a few fundamental laws. Again if you had even basic organic chemistry you would know this. And if there is a certain total radiation coming off, once all of that is absorbed by the layer of CO2 there’s nothing left to absorb (i.e. there is ZERO transmittance of those wavelengths). Adding more CO2 CANNOT make it absorb more if it’s already been completely absorbed before the addition. Again basic spectroscopy can tell you this. (Do you even know what Beer’s Law is?) I’ve spent a long time studying IR. My MS thesis involved FTIR studies, my current job requires me to do a lot of FTIR analysis.

Either way, I’m done arguing with you. You know nothing and when I ask for actual proof to show me how I’m wrong, you only refer me to a FORTRAN program. If you had any science background at all, you should easily be able to explain to me how I am wrong without resorting to some program. But alas, you just turn to more or more name calling and worse and worse language.

An Inquirer – so, you felt duped in the 1980s? Please, tell us exactly what you found out at that very early stage in the debate that convinced you that it was all a lie? Given that 1988 was the warmest year in the instrumental record at the time, but that 15 of the subsequent 20 years have been hotter, don’t you think you look rather stupid?

The fact that you continually tell people to run a computer program, really shows you that you absolutely don’t have an understanding of the physics. Please tell me using PHYSICS where I am mistaken. Tell me how absorption is not path length dependent. Tell me how individual molecules that absorb IR can magically absorb more IR by simply having another of the same molecule next to it. Again don’t refer me to a stupid FORTRAN computer program. USE PHYSICS.