One thing that is abundantly clear is that there is no way to prove something to someone if they don't want to believe it. That is basic human nature. If all I have to say is, "your data is false", then how do you prove your data is not false? Its also interesting how much time you have on your hands to investigate, research and discredit everything under the sun. You win your debates by attrition. That is why some people suspect you are really a democratic operative getting paid for this activity. Very few people in the real world are able to monitor these forums 24/7 with an elaborate posting within an hour of an opposing viewpoint. Assuming you are not an operative, does your employer know how much time you waste in these forums?

Plus I'm not the one denying 35 years of demonstrated warming. Also I am the only one that has specified the conditions under which I would need to reevaluate my position on AGW. I have stated in this thread and similarly in other threads that I would expect that every succeeding decade would be warmer than the previous decade and that each succeeding decade would include a new warmest year ever. This is in fact a somewhat aggressive statement in that while the every decade being warmer than every previous decade is fairly secure the new warmest year on record is not quite that guaranteed within any given ten year period.

So be the first denier and step up to the plate and indicate under what conditions *you* would be forced to reevaluate *your* position.

Another point that I brought up earlier is the idea of putting your money where your mouth is and place a bet on whether or not certain criteria are met over time. I have an extra $10,000 that I wouldn't mind putting up in a reasonably defined bet. We could probably get Brad to hold the money. In fact as a skeptic he might be willing to get in on the action himself and as a public figure of substantial wealth I'm sure a few lousy grand would be safe with him. How about it, got the courage of your convictions?

One caveat however is that I've already got the Off-topic forum covered so you can't have that but I hear the Personal Computing forum is currently uncovered, that might be a good spot for you.

As you previously wrote and I responded:

Naw its not the traffic stopping LA, its the big base full of marines with guns stopping them.

See even your "required proof" to believe in AGW has holes in it and doesn't really make sense. This is why it is so hard to convince people like you of AGW because their "required proof" of AGW is shady and can always change regardless of what proof is presented to them.

Why is it that we have to prove that our climate is warmer now than it was in the last 100,000 years? Why are comparisons with the past required to understand whether or not AGW is a threat to the future? The reason why I say this is that is because if we got to the point where we showed we were warmer now than we've been in the last 100,000 years, opponents of AGW (many like you) will still find ways to just move the argument to "Ya, well so what if we are warmer now than we've been in 100,000 years. A warmer Earth is a good thing!" Or something along those lines.

What I think would be a better stance for you to take would be to find 100% proof that humans are causing temperature rises presently and that those temperature rises have proof to show that it will cause specific bad things to happen that you wish not to happen (whatever they may be, drought, animal extinctions, sea level rises, etc). That is a better stance for you (or anyone) to take is it not? It can fit in with anyone's ideals (conservative, liberal, etc) and is flexible while still providing a level of open-mindedness.

There are so many variables over the last 100,000 years regardless of what causes temperatures to rise (manmade or natural). Sea levels have risen and lowered a lot over that time period. You should ask yourself questions like, "How much sea level rise am I OK with?" If you think only a few meters (which is a lot), then we've exceeded that in the last 100,000 years.  That means that it doesn't need to get hotter than it has ever been in the last 100,000 years for us to see sea level rises in the "meters". That also means that going by your original "required proof", you could see a scenario where we'd have enough proof to show you a threat that you'd want to avoid, but you wouldn't believe it because it doesn't meet your "required proof" criteria. Is New York City or Florida underwater OK with you? No? OK, then we could have a scenario where we could have proof that it would happen, yet your original "required proof" would just shrug off those consequences like they're nothing. What then?

So do you see why that way of thinking is flawed? You ask questions of AGW proponents like "how much proof do they need to change their perspective", but I'm not so sure you've really thought about a good answer for yourself.

Refined, as defined by Mumbles.  Completely reversing the long term trend for change in temperature stateside over the last century.  From a high in the thirties well above current temperatures and below those of the late 1800's, to the thirties being moderately warm, and the late 1800's being colder than the 70's.  The dustbowl is apparently a fictitious event.

Sainthood, as defined by Mumbles.  More credible than a scientist on govt payroll that gets paid to rewrite known climate history in the United States, where it's been very well documented for more than a century.

I guess that means science is the process of falsifying data to fit your hypothesis, then forcing the populace to accept your conclusion by calling everyone a denialist while you use your phd, which is often gotten the same way in the soft sciences, to shut down opposition.

Thank you for being gracious. Here's another one you can add to the list:

Freeman Dyson

Btw, of all the AGW lapdogs posting in this thread, Mumbles is the only one with even a hint of credibility. I have to admit he puts a lot of work into this subject; as compared to the worthless rantings coming from everyone else on his side of the table.

Wow, I actually agree with you on something.

Quite a long article but definitely worth reading, thanks for the link. I also read his wiki article as a cross-check. Dyson Sphere was the first thought that came to my mind and he does seem to be the source of the term although compared to his other accomplishments it's a trivial concept.

All of these folks are complex individuals and to try and characterize them in a few sentences can only result in gross simplification but what they all have in common are credentials that cannot be discounted.

But Dyson does seem to be the best of the bunch. Unlike all of the others there isn't a whiff of association with any of the "tobbaco lobbyists" like the Heartland Institute, CEI, AFP, et. al. Also Dyson does in fact accept the two basic tenents of AGW. The article you reference doesn't happen to mention this but the global warming section of his wiki article quotes him as writing "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas".

However he also states that "However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends".

All in all this is what I consider to be a true skeptic and as such I'd say we need more like him and fewer like Watts, McIntyre and Michaels. And Inhofe.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements.

NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2. [18]

So you see even your precious satellite record gets "refined" and "adjusted" over time. Note that unlike you I did not imply malfeasence by Spencer and Christy, only a little ineptitude. 

(Follow the link. Something about switching a sign. Seems to be in the ballpark of mistaking degrees for radians.)

Not accounting for orbit decay and modifying, demonstrably without cause, surface station data made by on site physical measurements, to reverse a cooling trend and turn it into a warming trend are two entirely different things.  That 40% increase still puts them 20% shy of the needed warming level to validate the AGW theory as well.  Manipulating the station data to fit the theory has it's drawbacks, RSS and UAH just wont agree with them.

Yeah, because malfeasance and corruption is just so irrelevant when you only demonstrate it using a country that has a temperature record for the last century covering half a continent.  It's not like they manipulated it to fit a theory or something...

Oh wait, they did, and now they can't account for the lack of warming right now because, unlike the old records lost in a sea of beaurocracy, people are paying attention to the current manipulations they're having to do and calling bullshit on station after station.

You're not up with current satellite data are you?

Not only are you probably analyzing a dataset that includes stratospheric temperature data in it that drastically cools the temperature readings out compared to those of surface temperature, but also you're also probably getting your information from raw satellite readings that don't yet account for much of the more modern analysis that account for those inconsistencies.

So of all the interpretations of microwave satellite measurements out there, you decide to believe in the two outdated methods of data analysis that shows the lowest decadal temperature change (+0.090 °C/decade and +0.047 °C/decade respectively)...how convenient for you.

Let's ignore Vinnikov and Grody who's analysis concludes +0.20°C per decade.

Let's ignore simultaneous nadir overpasses (SNO) methods for producing more accurate dataset by removing satellite inconsistancies that concludes a temperature change of +0.184°C/decade.

Let's ignore the Climate Change Science Program's (CCSP) conclusion of the following:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

Even taking into account the UAH's current lower tropospheric readings of +0.128 °C/decade, they still do claim a level of warming over recent decades. While that is lower than the GISS conclusion of +0.160 °C/decade, it still shows a warming trend that you blatantly ignore.

There are overwhelming studies and evidence that now shows the satellite temperature dataset aligning now with the surface temperature dataset.

But, go ahead and continue to believe in outdated material that simply happens to align with your beliefs.