So next time Kevin E Trenberth tells you that we are in crisis because the IPCC says so, and because 2500 000 000 000 000 scientists are of one mind and agree absolutely with the hallowed UNIPCC, and anyone who disagrees is a nincompoop, the most appropriate thing you can do is to tell him to go stick Mann’s hockey stick up his arse (the wrong way first). He wouldn’t listen to logic.

I chuckled when I read that bit as well. I think that Is how cagw proponents justify the claim that plenty of snow is due to global warming as well.

As long as the climate is changing, we are responsible… Just look at the hockey stick – 1000 years of stasis, until we started burning oil.. I can’t think of anything else that could cause that, so it must be co2

So am I correct in reading this as both “increased drying” AND “heavier rains”? Both together are not an impossibility but why shouldn’t I dismiss this as speculative imaginings of a tenuous nature attempting to come up with dire consequences of any sort? A common refrain in this debate is that mere weather is not climate, but this statement strikes me as an attempt to turn climate into bad weather. As a person involved in farming I can play this game of imagination too. What if current global warming helps guarantee our crops against fluky killer frosts of some future time when volcanic aerosols bring a temporary precipitous cooling.

To me the one good indication of global warming is sea level rise, which I do believe is happening (based on my reading). It’s another question how reliably we know the length, rate and variability of this trend, and what part is natural and what part is induced by human activity.

I was surprised that Dr. Trenberth openly referred to president George W Bush in his argument. That kind of political thought must surely introduce a bias into his scientific meditations on Climate. It’s very well understood that when scientists begin to think about the way the world ought to be it infects their perception of what the world is really like. If one appreciates the importance of double blind studies in medical research one has to appreciate how subtly bias can work. Grant availability for studies demonstrating global warming effects also has to be a large source of bias. My questions for any researcher I wish to take seriously is: What do you do to fight your personal biases? And, does the political climate of this debate inhibit you from publicly expressing doubts and reservations about the proportions of a climate crisis?

Trenberth says:
“Maybe there is not a crisis in the sense that the world’s weather is falling apart now. But there is a major crisis in the failure to act to prevent potentially catastrophic changes in the future.”

Everytime one of these alarmist starts this I think of Professor Harold Hill, the con man in the Music Man. “Yes, we’ve got trouble…Right here on Planet Earth. Yes we’ve got trouble. The starts with T and that rhymes with C and that stands for C….O2.”

The easy way to defeat an Alarmist in a debate is to talk about the actual science. It all comes down to feedback. The highly positive feedback of the alarmist should result in that hotspot in the troposphere. Where is it? Let them talk about substituting wind speed for actual temperature readings–not very convincing. Tell them about the skeptics belief that the feedback at worst is only slightly positive and at best is negative. Low level cloud reflect sunlight back into space. The ERBE satellite system has shown that when the ocean heats up (more vapor–more low level clouds) the earth does reflect more solar radiation back into space. It seems earth has a way of cooling itself off. (That’s a very powerful metaphor)

Go on to discuss the Hockey Stick and how it was used by the IPCC to support it’s notion that the global warming we are seeing is man made. Then talk about the scandal of funny data and all of it coming down to one tree in Siberia. Without that tree, the 20th Century temperature rise is nothing out of the ordinary and in the recent past (before the big increase in CO2) we had temperatures higher than today (MWP).

Talk about the fit of the AGW theory. CO2 has been increasing rapidly for the past 65 years and you have 25 years of global temperature rise. That means 62% of the time we should be seeing warming, we haven’t. This puts them on the defensive as they try to explain why although global warming should be happening it isn’t or didn’t.

Focus on why the temperature hasn’t increased in the past 10 years despite their models showing that the temperature should have increased (this is the equivalent of the skeptics saying warming was happening. It allowed the alarmist to get the upper hand.)

Sea levels are going about it a rate of about 1 foot per century. Ask how the IPCC gets as much as three feet and Al Gore talks about 20 feet? As they explain this they will show they aren’t sure and there is a range of levels that could happen.

Alarmists tend to quote authority (IPCC) and present anecdotal evidence. I would simple ask is IPCC a scientific organization or is it a political organization? It is a political organization.

The anecdotal evidence such as the minimum of ice in the Arctic in 2007 is the canary in the coal mine analogy. But the ice is coming back and there is now the biggest increase in two year ice ever seen (since 1979 when we started looking via satellite). Fight anecdotes with anecdotes.

They do have scientific evidence. If the AGW theory is correct there is a hotspot in the troposphere in the tropics.. All you have to do is to check….what’s that? It isn’t there? Nevermind.

Only one problem: I have yet to see a single shred of scientific evidnce that clearly demonstrates man made “Global Warming”. I keep an open mind and have read everything that comes my way. Universally the believers in man made global warming claim that I am stupid for not believing, and claim they are superior and the only ones who have the answer.

WHAT THEY NEVER DO IS TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SCITNTIFIC EVIDENCE!

I have waited for years, always looking for such evidence. I guess I will just have to wait some more.