Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

So what’s your point, Methuselah? It doesn’t make a big difference if you pick a random point and graph a deviation from that point, or graph the temperature. The basic shape of the graph remains the same.

My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)

Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.

Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

<snip>

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statements

Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

While I am reasonably familiar with advance of technology everyone with a working knowledge of European history should be aware of the spread of Europeans who took that technology with them. While it is not exact those could also be charts of the spread of temperature measuring Europeans.

WTF?

But if it is the increase in burning fossil fuels one would expect these graphs to be the same as charts of the increased burning of fossil fuels.

Ahem:

Even before noting all temperatures must be related to absolute zero

And that means what, exactly?

and cannot be arbitrary or relative even a cursory examination of the rate of increase of fossil fuels shows this rate of increase is far too low for such fuels to be a significant contributor.

See my graph above.

I will give one example of the many problems with older temperature measurements here. A huge contribution to the data would come from the El Nino and La Nina effects. They are unpredictable, vaguely cyclic and govern the temperatures of much of the Pacific and the Americas. These were discovered some forty years ago invalidating all prior measurements of temperature in those regions. I would like to see these same charts with and without the invalidated data.

As I have already pointed out, climate models do, in fact, compensate for regional variations such as El Nino and La Nina, and many others, such as solar output, and other forcings. Climate scientists have been doing this for far longer than you have.

I will stick my foot into another pothole with that by noting the first time there was an attempt to observe the antarctic ozone layer in winter there was a hole. This lead to the world ban on CFC production. Considering ozone is produced by sunlight and winter means no sunlight and since there was NO evidence there were ever any hole-free winters this all sounds familiar.

That you are apparently trying to equate the ozone hole with arguments for (or against) AGW is laughable. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

Since these charts are now down to only rate of change not amount of change I raise the question of why the 1860 world temperatures are assumed to be the best of all possible world temperatures.

No one is claiming that 1860 world temperatures are the best of all possible worlds. That date is used because that is the first date when direct global temperature measurements are available. You have to have a starting point, dude.

The world has been warmer and colder since humans left Africa.

No one is claiming otherwise.

It has also been warmer and colder since the end of the last ice age some 17-15,000 years ago.

The ice age ended 11,500 years ago. Marcott has shown that the trend from around 5,000 years ago until about 1860 has been a cooler Earth, and that since 1860, the trend has been abruptly warmer, and in fact, since 1860, the rate and the actual temperatures have been higher and faster than at any time in the last 11,500 years.

It has been warmer and colder since agriculture became the basis of civilization some 6000 years ago.

But never as warm nor warmed as fast as it has in the past 100 years.

Once the political melters had to address the warmer and colder, i.e. those raising the issue ignored the ridicule and forced them to address it, they decided it was rate of change not absolute change just as they changed higher temperatures to greater variability. Why does the rate matter? Because it is faster than local ecologies can adapt.

Again, the only one claiming this is you. Climate scientists have been talking about the rate and the absolute rise in global temperatures all along. Perhaps your selective memory is the problem.

Is that credible? The method of adaptation in any case cannot be evolution as even the post ice age max of 17,000 years is not long enough for that to be a factor. But if it is then how fast is too fast is still an open question noting of course too fast is undefined.

There is more.

Yes it is credible, since biologists are showing measurable changes occurring in ecosystems across the globe.