So you suggest his movie would be a good place to look? By pubs. to you mean his blog posts or is there other stuff?

Some of Meyer’s graphs are borrowed from other material, but others are (apparently) original, too.

Of course Meyer is a layman (which I’d argue provides greater rather than less credibility than a professional academic with all the vested interests and agendas accruing to the latter), but his work appears well documented and referenced (even if it takes a bit of work around the lack of spoon feeding some folks can’t manage without). Anyway I find them much more objective and apparently ‘honest’ than the blatently ideological stuff one encounters on Mann’s site, in Hansen’s work, and (apparently) is the standard at organizations like the CRU.

I’m sure he might ref. a graph that he borrows or something. But I can’t find any links to peer-reviewed papers that support Warren’s ideas or the like.

Please read the content of the various presentations available on this site! (I really would have thought you’d have by now…)

Warren’s references are extensive (& excellent, IMO)…much more so than those of the IPCC, to be a bit snarky….

This is especially so considering his explicit intent to use exactly the same sources cited by AGW advocates, whenever possible, to try to reduce appeals to authority directed against those sources!

You say: ‘ Not existing and not changing are COMPLETELY different things.’

Sure, so for example you would give a before-and-after shot of things, right? But practically speaking how would you do that? Cite a lit. review before and after the events that happened mere months ago? We’re gonna have to wait for that one.

The most recent synthesis of the science I can find apart from the AR4 is this:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/default.html

It would be nice if you guys just gave some evidence for the faults in the theory (none of the recent alleged mistakes even come from wg1 or do serious damage to wg2). Can you show me where the science is now deemed more doubtful than it was before? It doesn’t have to be a synthesis or anything, maybe just a few of the climate scientists expressing new doubt at the theory?

You say: ‘UH? Since when does the mass media = public perception? If you meant public perception, say public perception.’

It doesn’t seem to matter what I say you get it wrong: I said this: ‘…beyond the sway of the mass media.’
And yet right after, you still said this: ‘…the change in mass media…’

To address your point: Mass media has a very notable affect on public perception. By saying ‘beyond the sway of the mass media’ I mean beyond the things it affects, including public perception and politics.

YOu say: ‘Much of these things have been presented on this website.’

Umm. Do you have anything apart from blog science? Does Warren link to any papers or reference anything

For my evidence you can just look at the relevant parts in the IPCC. Or there is the CopDiag. link. Both have ref. to peer-reviewed papers.

“Wanna share some source material instead of repeating your claims unsubstantiated?”

Much of these things have been presented on this website.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/02/the-madness-of-prince-charles.html

Now if only you could back up your claims with any sort of fact….

You continue to display a pretty fundimental lack of reasoning abilities:

“I have to show that something doesn’t exist? Not sure how to. Should I show the absence of any new papers or data or scientist’s statements seriously against AGW? Okay I’ve found none, there you go. ”

You aren’t trying to show something doesn’t exist, you’re trying to show something hasn’t changed. Remeber? You said, “nothing has really changed beyond the sway of the mass media.” Not existing and not changing are COMPLETELY different things.

“Also, I said ‘ beyond the sway of the mass media’. Meaning, not involving public perception/reaction. What damage has been done to the theory, the science? ”

UH? Since when does the mass media = public perception? If you meant public perception, say public perception.

I think ADiff delt with the rest.