Put a capital D in for the D in a circle

''Fulham why say Little Ice Age never happened?''

I say it did. I also say that the Mediaval Warm Period did. Do you see them on the Hockey stick Graph as presented by Mann/Gore? Probably not. Why might this be? Could they have been smoothed out of the data to make current warming more significant???

You do realize this essay was written by a guy affiliated with the "Systematic Musicology"?

Hardly a good representation of the scientists researching global warming. But even if it were, their social insensitivity has generally nothing to do with whether their argument is real or not.

*Systematic Musicology of the University of Graz, to be exact. I mean, nothing against musicians but you cannot take this too seriously.

"If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death".

I mean he flat out suggests that 95% probability of committing a "crime" should be enough to convict someone, leaving 1 out of 20 to die innocently. There are crazy people in both camps, I will admit, but this is really not what the debate should be about.

I think any debate should be about a comparison of ideas, and getting to know each other's viewpoints, trying to understand them, and discuss them critically. Trying to convince the other is a secondary goal.

So are you saying that scientists try to downplay the effect of sunspots by pretending the Little Ice Age never happened? Because based on the mass of information one can collect about the LIA they're either doing a terrible job, or this is not really the case.

@ Fulhamish: I asked:

"Please provide fact-based evidence of a single reputable scientific institution, or individual climate scientist, proposing that anyone who disagrees with them should be killed."

Your citation does not go anywhere near providing that.

First off, as boylee says, the author of that internet article is a musicologist - not a scientist at all.

Secondly, nor was he speaking on behalf of a reputable scientific institution, nor were his weird comments supported by any such institution. Indeed, the University of Graz, where he was employed as a music researcher, stated it was appalled by his comments. Indeed it, took disciplinary action against him.

If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

Your absurd claim, that there is an "alarmist" scientific movement which proposes that anyone who disagrees with it should be imprisoned and/or killed, is entirely without foundation.

@bog: "Have every national academy of science on planet Earth explain what caused the last ice age, and why the last ice age went away. And how man caused or ended it."

because you seem to sweep over a lot when many questions are asked, i'll keep it to just the one: who - besides you - claims that the last ice age was caused by man?

kas "who - besides you - claims that the last ice age was caused by man?"

FINALLY! An intelligent response. Let us see if you can continue with intelligence.

An ice age came and went -climate change - without man around. Why do you now believe that man is causing climate change now? Climate change happened without man around. So two questions:
1. What caused the last Ice Age?
2. Why is man now the cause of climate change?

Jamie "What is the relevance of the Maunder Minimum, and what does it prove?"

It proves that 'climate change' on the earth is caused by sunspots.

So basically your argument assumes that climate change can only have one, single, well-defined cause?

boy "So basically your argument assumes that climate change can only have one, single, well-defined cause?" Climate changes because of energy. All energy comes from the sun. So yes, there is a singular cause.

Let me ask you this question - How long would life on the earth last without the sun? How could man warm the earth?

so you're saying that we could still survive without ghgs?

kas "so you're saying that we could still survive without ghgs?" Duh. Man evolved without man-made green house gases.

BOG the sun's energy can be stored. Energy the sun radiated to the earth through millions and millions of years is now stored beneath the ground in fossil fuels.

When we burn those fossil fuels, we release that energy. Energy we use to heat our homes, power our laptops.

When you say "energy comes from the sun" you're not wrong, but your not grasping the complexity of the matter. The fuels that took eons to collect we're buring them in decades. Not only do we gain energy from the sun that is currently shining above us: we introduce more energy from the sun from millions of years ago.

I'm sad that fulhamish, a distinguished member of this forum, is taking such a ridiculous position.

Physicists will also tell you the difference between energy and heat, but do you see now, why your singular cause argument is wrong?

Also Boylee your answer above is completely wrong. We release probably a millionth of energy that the sun provides.

That doesn't change the fact that you're introducing energy into the system.

Without the sun the Earth would freeze over in a trillionth of a second. It take only a millionth of that to raise temperature gradually.

That would not account for any measurable temperature rise. Please stop pulling facts out of your arse like BOG.

uhmmm.... what are you basing your assertions on?

@ Jamiet. I can do no better than to repeat a comment which I have already made:

Not sure that this entirely answers your question. It does, however, go a considerable distance to. Unfortunately, a certain hyperbole exists on both sides of the debate and I was being a little bit of what you describe as a troll in attempt to stir the pot a little. I think that, with respect, those on your side of the argument need to differentiate between ''scepticism'' and ‘’denial’’. Personally, as you know, I feel that there are increasing grounds for scepticism without classifying myself as a denialist. Such a position would be as anti-science as those who unreservedly follow the cult of anthropocentric climate change nee global warming.

Now, along these lines, as to imprisonment and trial there is this: http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888 and this http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange?feed=science&gusrc=rss. You will note that the latter is from James Hansen.

@bog: "Duh. Man evolved without man-made green house gases."

i don't want to think you're reading deficient. so read my question again and answer it. i did not mention man made ghgs. i asked if we could survive without ghgs.

BTW Gobble, based on a quick search, the ratio of what the sun provides to what we consume is more in the thousands than in the millions. I'd say that's more than enough to make a difference to a system that is otherwise in balance.

@ boylee So are you saying that scientists try to downplay the effect of sunspots by pretending the Little Ice Age never happened? Because based on the mass of information one can collect about the LIA they're either doing a terrible job, or this is not really the case.

What I am saying (in fact repeating) is that if you look at the Mann/Gore hockey stick graph you wiil find scant if any evidence of the Luittle Ice age or Mediaval Warm Period. You used the words ''terrible job'' and I think that they are apt in this case. Moving on, why do you think that these ommisions might have been made?

Can you show me the graph you're referring to?

kas " i asked if we could survive without ghgs."

Of course not.

But understand that Green House gasses do not produce energy. Energy comes from the sun

BOG can you please confirm you understand the point that the sun's energy can be stored and then reintroduced to temporarily heat up a system? (like your home when it's cold out... then not all energy comes from the sun, right?)

@bog: "Of course not."

to quote you: FINALLY! an intelligent response.

that means (and correct me if i'm misinterpreting your words) that you think that it would be too cold on earth if there were no greenhouse gases, correct?
that also means that if there are too many greenhouse gases, the earth will become hotter, correct?

@ boylee

Can you show me the graph you're referring to?

Fig. 4 here.