Clippo

From Poptech’s list published in post# 18 above :

1. Discredited by serious science because they a) either have links to Exxon sourced ‘libertarian’ organisations, or parrot the propaganda of those organisations & b) they have not published their ‘research, if it is in peer-reviewed journals, c) if they have published their research in a peer-reviewed journal it has subsequently be debunked and d) They have expertise in a subject that is unrelated to Climatology. Some obviously fall into several categories :-

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China
Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish Anthony Watts, Meteorologist
Dennis T. Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Aeronautics and Astronautics, Ph.D. Instrumentation

For independent proof of their discredibility, google their names, or go to Wiki, or go to the logical science link I’ve given elsewhere.

2. Proof required ( a specific statement against AGW representative of the whole organisation)

Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Which leaves :-
3. Credible scientific sources.

NOAA
National Space Center (assuming this is the Goddard Space centre)

In the respect of these credible sources, please supply proof as in section 2. On the other hand to contradict your fraudulent assumptions, visit these links :-
NCDC: Climate of 2008 - February
- which clearly says GW is continuing
&

in respect of the Goddard Space centre, you do realise that the director is James Hansen and the likes of Gavin Schmidt ( co-founder of real Climate) and Michael Mann of the consensus believed Hockey stick work there.

So your are trying to kid us readers here that they disbelieve AGW ?
Incredible!!!!!!!!!
( the comment I wish to make about your sanity would get me banned ).

Now, I am fed up with your continued trolling of this quite fraudulent ‘evidence’ and will not respond to any further post unless you can specify the source & exact original statements.

mkpdavies

You tell em brother. Libertarian, Conservative, Business, non-Wiki, non-Guardian group newspapers simply are not credible sources. If the information comes from one of them, people can safely ignore it.

All you really need, is the Independent's guide to global warming that came free with the paper, or a copy of Nobel prize winning Al Gore's award winning DVD.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Poptech

Now you are a liar. Now please prove they have links to Exxon without using an alarmist propaganda site. Almost everyone has published real scientific research in a Peer-Review Journal and having someone at RealClimate make a statement against this does not mean it has been debunked. In relation to this topic of Global Cooling there is clear Peer-Reviewed papers supporting the position of global cooling:

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.

Your paper on the the other hand has NOT been Peer-Reviewed and thus the evidence I have presented is the same. But Peer-Review does not mean truth, perhaps you can learn more about this here:

Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics)

I have thoroughly discredited Wikipedia:

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
Wikipedia's Zealots (National Post, Canada)
- The real climate Martians (Financial Post, Canada)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (USA Today)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Wikipedia "broken beyond repair", co-founder says (The Inquirer)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Wikipedia - I have the power (Penny Arcade)

Your other site alarmist propaganda: "logical science".

This debate is about Global Cooling! Did you think people would not notice you trying to change the subject?

Again you lie. The Director of the Nasa Goddard Space Center is Dr. Edward J. Weiler.

I am quite tired of you blatant lies spoken over and over and you pathetic attempt to define an argument for proganda purposes.

Poptech

The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly Debunked:

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 4, 2005)



Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (PDF) (National Academy of Sciences, 2006)
Von Storch, Zorita and Gonzalez-Raucen statement on the NAS Panel Report (Climate Audit, June 22, 2006)
Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)

Papers:
Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (PDF)
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years." (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, March 2, 2006)
- Supplementary Presentations to the National Academy of Sciences Panel (PDF) (April 3, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 19, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 27, 2006)
Huybers’ and von Storch-Zorita Comments, and Our Replies (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 2005)
More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al (1998) (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Nov 14, 2005)
The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere "Hockey Stick" Climate Index: A Tale of Due Diligence (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, May 2, 2005)
Is Climate Really Changing Adnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 1, 2005)
Kyoto Protocol Based On Flawed Statistics - Proof That Mankind Causes Global Warming Is Refuted (PDF) (Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, The Netherlands, February 2005)
Backgrounder for McIntyre and McKitrick “Hockey Stick Project” (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, January 27 2005)
Breaking the “Hockey Stick” (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, July 12, 2004)
The IPCC, the "Hockey Stick" Curve, and the Illusion of Experience (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 18, 2003)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Willie Soon, Ph.D., April 2003)
The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly, B.Sc. Economics, November 12, 2000)

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)

Poptech

Editorials:
The decay of the hockey stick (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Climate Feedback, Nature, May 03, 2007)
Congressional Hearings Break 'Hockey Stick' (H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, October 1, 2006)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)
Hockey sticks and hatchets (Financial Post, August 23, 2006)
Hockey Stick Hokum (The Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2006)
See the Truth on climate history (Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Misled again: The Hockey Stick climate (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Does the hockey stick "matter"? (Stephen McIntyre, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Why Does the Hockey Stick Debate Matter? (Ross McKitrick, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Re-visiting the Stick (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, June 17th, 2005)
Bring the Proxies Up to Date!! (Stephen McIntyre, February 20th, 2005)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal, February 20th, 2005)
Hockey Stick on Ice (The Wall Street Journal, February 18th, 2005)
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, Canada, February 15th, 2005)
Global Warming Bombshell (MIT Technology Review, October 15, 2004)
Nature Admits Widely Cited Global Warming Graph Was Erroneous (The Hearland Institute, September 1, 2004)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada, July 13, 2004)
High-sticking the Senate (Patrick J. Michaels, The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2000)

mkpdavies

Is is legal to blaspheme against the holy stick of hockey?

Look how much warmer it is now than it was in January, Febuary or March. A new hockey stick has formed, proving once and for all, that global warming (man made) is a clear and present danger.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Akria

Sorry, but very few of those support the claim of global cooling. Most of them are merely commenting on particular cool events rather than global cooling, and of those commenting on global cooling - in particular I found the World Climate Report link very interesting, backed as it was by a scientific paper (even if said paper offers support for the theory of anthropogenic global warming - CO2 responsible for 40% of temperature variation (a figure that I would find rather high, to be honest), even if it then does seem to confuse CO2 with all GHGs).

Also, though the long list of links looks very intimidating, there is actually very little evidence there; rather, many of the links cover the same thing.

And if you would care to try and refute the fact that three datasets still show a warming since 1998?

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

Poptech

Most of them directly mention Global Cooling the handful of others all talk about significant cooling events such as the oceans cooling. Thus supporting the claim of global cooling.

Their argument is clear, that the CO2 greenhouse effect would only cause a partial warming that would be unable to override natural climatic forces and thus the current global cooling. Hardly a conclusion to fuel your hysteria and clearly backs Global Cooling.

There is a wealth of evidence for those who wishes to read it.

g hall

The problem is that like most hysterical fervent fundamentalists Akria and his fellow travellers like Cr@ppo choose to ignore or scorn it - closed minds

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Clippo

Poptech wrote:-
It’s considered very bad practice here to call somebody a liar. Moderators please note.
If you read what I wrote very carefully, I said their credibility could be due to one or several of four factors. Publish the Exact papers where they make the claim of global cooling and then I will try to search for specific papers which rebut those claims.
&
My reference wasn’t a paper – it was to a report from Nasa’ satellite data collecting organisation.
Then, you have the cheek to spam us again with cr@p from the Independent Institute.
BTW, in my first extract above you claim So you are claiming at as virtue for your references but flawed for everybody else.
Like you attitude to wiki-
You’re are deluding yourself if you believe your quote :-

&
An honest mistake but you are being picky! I was referring to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies which is a laboratory of the National space center. The director of research there is James Hansen – but do you deny that that organisation’s belief is the world isn’t cooling and that the current warming phase is due to mankind’s activities ?
(Actually, to make this clear I inadvertently put National Space center into your list - surprised you missed that)