State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.[W:318]

[MrT]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Can you please post the study and the exact statements to which the 97% agree along with the methodology of the survey takers?

The exact number surveyed, the exact number that responded and the exact number included to formulate the 97% are all important to this.

Not true.

Please show us which study explicitly states this as fact. Not in the author's opinion, but as shown by facts laid out in the study.

There is no explicit wording that any intelligent person can say the 97% applies to agreeing with AGW as "most" the warming. The only way to do so is to rationalize it, and be intellectually dishonest, or ignorant.

I'm not sure if it's possible to report someone for asking for information that has already been posted on this very thread, but here are the four studies that can be found on the NASA website dedicated to the 97% consensus claim. Their methodologies, numbers of individuals surveyed, and the exact statements with which they stated agreement are available through simple google searches.

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

 

[wist43]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I'm not sure if it's possible to report someone for asking for information that has already been posted on this very thread, but here are the four studies that can be found on the NASA website dedicated to the 97% consensus claim. Their methodologies, numbers of individuals surveyed, and the exact statements with which they stated agreement are available through simple google searches.

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Cook is a laughable joke, lol... the others?? Why even bother looking at them, they're cooked up numbers and frauds.

That said, I'll look at 'em if you provide the links.

Warmists are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I'm not sure if it's possible to report someone for asking for information that has already been posted on this very thread, but here are the four studies that can be found on the NASA website dedicated to the 97% consensus claim. Their methodologies, numbers of individuals surveyed, and the exact statements with which they stated agreement are available through simple google searches.

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

These are not links.

Also, you did not post the methodology or the exact thing that the 97% you claim is actually agreeing with.

Here is the actual outcome of the Cook survey to which you refer. In this particular case, everything about it is biased. The "myth-busting" site is actual a shrill AGW Alarmist web site. The actual agreement percentage is less than 33% but this is used to support the 97% figure.

Why do I ask for the exactness and the methodology? Because of this kind of shenanigans with the 97% number:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm

John Cook said: "Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.
<snip>
After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.
<snip>
The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Cook is a laughable joke, lol... the others?? Why even bother looking at them, they're cooked up numbers and frauds.

That said, I'll look at 'em if you provide the links.

Warmists are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

I don't recall any other papers in PNAS or Science being fraudulent . If they were, they were quickly withdrawn and the investigator's career was ruined.

Last I heard, both Anderegg (PNAS) and Oreskes (Science) were both active publishing respected scientists, and those papers are often cited in current literature.

I think we've shown here that deniers are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Why is that? There are dozens of ways of heating your home. Just because you can prove that one source (your heater) was not the cause of the heating at a particular moment in time does not prove that the heater is incapable of heating your home currently or in the future.

Similarly, just because you can prove that human induced CO2 pollution was not the cause of, for example the Medieval Warming Period, does not prove that CO2 pollution is incapable of heating the climate currently or in the near future.

So the absence of absolute proof that something is false is now proof that it is true?

You may need to re-examine the scientific method.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

So...we recognize that the vast majority of climatologists agree with the theory, but we don't think this point should be advocated because it tends to undermine the willingness of the public and the scientific community to engage in a debate about the points where there is uncertainty/disagreement?

Please cite the organizations that have stated AGW as a Scientific Theory.

 

[code1211]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing

By Steven Goddard Last month we discussed how NASA continues to spread worries about the Antarctic warming and melting. A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica “has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted,…

It's a little embarrassing that NASA is little more than a shill for the Obama Administration political agenda for the Green Swindle.

I can remember when NASA was the Gold Standard in the world of science.

Of course, I'm pretty old.

From your link:

UAH 25 Year Temperature Trends
Perhaps NASA should have stuck with their original 2004 map below, showing Antarctica’s interior cooling?

NASA’s 1982-2004 map showing Antarctica cooling
While there’s no dispute that there’s some sea ice loss in the Antarctic peninsula, all signs seem to point in the opposite direction of what some what have you believe about Antarctica as a continent.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I don't recall any other papers in PNAS or Science being fraudulent . If they were, they were quickly withdrawn and the investigator's career was ruined.

Last I heard, both Anderegg (PNAS) and Oreskes (Science) were both active publishing respected scientists, and those papers are often cited in current literature.

I think we've shown here that deniers are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

Retraction Watch

Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

with 42 comments
Last year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax​

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science​

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled: Read the rest of this entry »

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Retraction Watch

Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

with 42 comments
Last year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax​

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science​

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled: Read the rest of this entry »

Well, my original point was about PNAS and Science.

But I understand you're blog dwelling doesn't make distinctions between too journals and run of the mill journals.

The Lewandowsky retraction is interesting, because it turns out that it was retracted because deniers threatened to sue for libel, and the little journal didn't want to take the risk.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/2...ere-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout

So thanks for that great example of deniers threatening published scientists.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Well, my original point was about PNAS and Science.

But I understand you're blog dwelling doesn't make distinctions between too journals and run of the mill journals.

The Lewandowsky retraction is interesting, because it turns out that it was retracted because deniers threatened to sue for libel, and the little journal didn't want to take the risk.

Science Journal Set To Retract Paper Linking Climate Change Scepticism To Conspiracy Theorists After Sceptics Shout Libel | DeSmogBlog

So thanks for that great example of deniers threatening published scientists.

Once again striking out at Retraction Watch. Tsk tsk, the MacArthur Foundation will be so hurt.

 

[MrT]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

So the absence of absolute proof that something is false is now proof that it is true?

You may need to re-examine the scientific method.

You do understand that I made this response to someone who tried to use warming from hundreds of years ago as proof for why we should reject the theory of AGW today? I am not using this SIMPLE ANALOGY to prove that AGW is true, I am using this SIMPLE ANALOGY to show why pointing to the fact that previous warming events were not caused by AGW as proof for why we should dismiss AGW as a theory today is a really simple minded approach.

An approach that, once again, can be refuted by a SIMPLE ANALOGY.

 

[MrT]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Please cite the organizations that have stated AGW as a Scientific Theory.

I will do you one better. At the following link, please find a list of EVERY single group of national or international scientists and that group's stated position (all of which are concurring) statements regarding human-caused climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring

And just for ****s and giggles, here is a link to EVERY single group of national or international scientists and that group's stated position which is a Dissenting point of view with regard to human-caused climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Dissenting

 

[MrT]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Cook is a laughable joke, lol... the others?? Why even bother looking at them, they're cooked up numbers and frauds.

That said, I'll look at 'em if you provide the links.

Warmists are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

These are not links.

FFS - you guys are lazy. Here are your links:

Cook et al. - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Anderegg - Expert credibility in climate change

Oreskos - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Doran - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2009 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

John Cook said: "Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.
<snip>
After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.
<snip>
The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>

Yes, you can highlight sections in red. I see that.

Now, in terms of the implications that you are trying to derive, let me address the complaints. First off, the entire point of the study was to try and use abstracts (wherein the authors summarize the findings from their paper) to find examples of where climatologists offer ANY opinion on the cause of climate change. It does not make any sense to make a big deal out of the papers that offer "no opinion" when, again, the ENTIRE POINT of the study is to try and get an idea of how many of these authors have an opinion on climate change and what is that opinion.

But let us be clear on the proper conclusion to draw from this report. Cook et al. found that, after reviewing roughly 12,000 abstracts from a 10 year period that discussed climate change or global warming, of the abstracts which explicitly or implicitly mentioned a cause (or lack thereof if the paper did not accept climate change or global warming as factual). Of those abstracts which explicitly or implicitly mentioned a cause (roughly 4000), Cook found that 97% (or THREE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY PEER REVIEWED PAPERS) agreed with the theory that humans are a significant factor.

Secondly, you wish to point out the bias by noting that skepticalscience hired the 24 volunteers to grade these abstracts. And this is a valid concern, which is why you can PERSONALLY research every single abstract yourself and compare your analysis to the analysis made by these volunteers. But let's say you don't consider yourself an expert (for obvious reasons), then you can rest easy because the second phase of this study asked the AUTHORS THEMSELVES to analyze and grade their own papers. The numbers from these self-analysis were very much in line (97%) with the opinions of the volunteers.

 

[MrT]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

But please, go ahead and tell me again that the Cook study does not support the claim that 97% of climatologists agree with the theory known as AGW because it is possible the authors of the papers which did not offer an explicit or implicit opinion on the cause would be significantly different from their peers (even though many of the authors from "stated a cause" camp are the same authors as the "did not state a cause" camp).

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Once again striking out at Retraction Watch. Tsk tsk, the MacArthur Foundation will be so hurt.

Nope. Read my link and learn.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Nope. Read my link and learn.

Actually, you should read mine.

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retractedMarch 21, 2014In "australia retractions"
Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not "cave into threats"April 4, 2014In "australia retractions"

 

[ludin]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Professor Curry has been invited to address the House of Lords in the UK on the state of the climate debate in the US. IMHO her review is balanced and insightful. Your thoughts?

State of the climate debate in the U.S.

Posted on June 15, 2015 | 89 comments
by Judith Curry
I am just about to head to London, to make my presentation in the House of Lords: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.
My power point slides are here [GWPF curry seminar], and the accompany text is here [ GWPF notes]. Below are excerpts from talk, the excerpts not including technical bits that require a diagram:
Continue reading →

". . . I am very concerned that climate science is becoming biased owing to biases in federal funding priorities and the institutionalization by professional societies of a particular ideology related to climate change.

Many scientists, and institutions that support science, are becoming advocates for UN climate policies, which is leading scientists into overconfidence in their assessments and public statements and into failures to respond to genuine criticisms of the scientific consensus. In short, the climate science establishment has become intolerant to disagreement and debate, and is attempting to marginalize and de-legitimized dissent as corrupt or ignorant.
Uncertainty and disagreement drive scientific progress. Stifling uncertainty and disagreement stifles scientific progress.
A majority of climate scientists seem to support the IPCC perspective, with recent surveys of scientists suggesting 52-85% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. Nevertheless, a great deal of uncertainty remains, and there is plenty of room for disagreement. So why do scientists disagree?

• Insufficient observational evidence
• Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence
• Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
• Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
• And finally, the politicization of the science can torque the science in politically desired directions.

None of the most consequential scientific uncertainties are going to be resolved any time soon; there is a great deal of work still to do to understand climate change. And there is a growing realization that unpredictable natural climate variability is important. . . ."

finally someone with a voice of reason. she should be head of the IPCC and we might get some real science for a change out of that organization but it won't happen.
the IPCC is an extremist organization that is more into politics than science.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Actually, you should read mine.

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retractedMarch 21, 2014In "australia retractions"
Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not "cave into threats"April 4, 2014In "australia retractions"

Yes. It was pulled because of 'complaints'.

And the journal will not talk about those 'complaints'. Probably because of the implicit threat of libel.

Your links are undermining your own position.

 

[ludin]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I have heard the 97% agreement being quoted for years. Can you provide a link to the poll, as I want to see when that poll occurred, 'who' was poled, what question was posed, and how the survey was conducted.

I don't dispute that warming will occur as the concentration of greenhouse gases occurs in the atmosphere, nor should anyone. However, it is a long way from there, to being certain that climate warming, if occurring, can with enough certainty be primarily attributed to greenhouse gases, particularly given the lack of linearity and historical climate fluctuations. (yes I know they regularly come up with a previously unknown "heat sink" to explain the linearity problems)

the 97% was a myth and a bogus study was done with dubious methods.

The 97 Percent Myth

lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

Yes. It was pulled because of 'complaints'.

And the journal will not talk about those 'complaints'. Probably because of the implicit threat of libel.

Your links are undermining your own position.

:mrgreen:

". . . As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.
The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.
We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all. . . ."

 

[Threegoofs]

State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

:mrgreen:

". . . As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.
The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.
We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all. . . ."

Right.

It points to the concept that there were implied threats that could not be publicly stated. The journal clearly states in your link that there is NO problem with the science (you know, the part you dishonestly cut out in your cut and paste).

I know the drill. Even though you are embarrassingly wrong, you'll drag this out for days pretending you are right.

http://www.iflscience.com/environme...et-paper-withdrawn-through-bogus-legal-threat


Let's look at the quote fromFrontiers, the journal:


"In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors. "

Pretty damn clear to me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I'm not sure if it's possible to report someone for asking for information that has already been posted on this very thread, but here are the four studies that can be found on the NASA website dedicated to the 97% consensus claim. Their methodologies, numbers of individuals surveyed, and the exact statements with which they stated agreement are available through simple google searches.

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Please show me where any of those explicitly state what I asked for.

Hint...

None of them do!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

I don't recall any other papers in PNAS or Science being fraudulent . If they were, they were quickly withdrawn and the investigator's career was ruined.

Last I heard, both Anderegg (PNAS) and Oreskes (Science) were both active publishing respected scientists, and those papers are often cited in current literature.

I think we've shown here that deniers are so dishonest, it's hard to take anything you people say seriously.

Nobody is saying the papers themselves are fraudulent. It's what they imply rather than state, and the spin the pundits put on them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

It's a little embarrassing that NASA is little more than a shill for the Obama Administration political agenda for the Green Swindle.

It's embarrassing that presidents use science for politics...

the head of NASA has little choice but to do as his president asks. Afterall, he serves at the pleasure of the president:

Administrator Charlie Bolden

Maj. Gen. Charles Frank Bolden, Jr., (USMC-Ret.) was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the 12th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He began his duties as head of the agency on July 17, 2009. As Administrator, Bolden leads a nationwide NASA team to advance the missions and goals of the U.S. space program.

Administrator Charlie Bolden | NASA

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: State of the Climate Debate in the U.S.

You do understand that I made this response to someone who tried to use warming from hundreds of years ago as proof for why we should reject the theory of AGW today? I am not using this SIMPLE ANALOGY to prove that AGW is true, I am using this SIMPLE ANALOGY to show why pointing to the fact that previous warming events were not caused by AGW as proof for why we should dismiss AGW as a theory today is a really simple minded approach.

An approach that, once again, can be refuted by a SIMPLE ANALOGY.

I think most people you disagree with here do in fact agree mankind has an impact on warming and climate. The issue we take opposed to you is the percentage that AGW is of the entire warming we have witnessed.

Significant, yes. Most... Hell no!