My priest? Paelrider, let me ask you a couple of honest questions and I expect you to give me some honest answers, if you are able.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. What does my reference to the small cabal who evidently believe the hypothesis of agw as priests have to do with my education. I use the term because the tactics being used are very much akin to the tactics used by the power hungry high priests of old. They had some insight into the natural world that the average joe didn't. They used those insights to convince the average joe that they had power, or access to power that the average joe couldn't even imagine and that if average joe didn't get in line and sacrifice, bad things were going to happen.
For anyone who has taken a good long look at paleohistory, the present warming cycle is not surprising in the least. My bet is that the average joe hasn't and really wouldn't even know where to begin, even in the internet age. I mean really, if you look at the graph I gave you earlier describing the climate history of the earth back as far as possible, if you were going to make a bet on what the long term temperature trend will be, would you put your money on warming or cooling? So this small group (early on climate scientists didn't extend much beyond poorly paid meterologists and a good gig was being a weatherman on TV) start claiming that CO2 (the product of evil capitalism) (religious connotation, sin) is going to cause the earth to warm and warm and warm till we all die.
Never mind that they know that CO2 has no such power, the press will help out because the press doesn't like capitalism either. They, along with their helpers, the press start telling joe blow that if he doesn't get in line and sacrifice, the earth is going to burn up. As the religion grew, the myth grew with it. All sorts of "science" has been fabricated to support the myth. Hell, you have presented a bucket load of it. Most of what you have brought here to support your claims is the result of computer simulations (fabrication) rather than hard observed data.
In the end, you are no more than an acolyte preaching the manufactured science of your high priests. You are a missionary of the high church of anthropogenic global warming witnessing to me and anyone else who will listen from the book of AGW. You are repeating the myths the best you can and presenting your manufactured "science" in an effort to trick anyone you can into believing that it represents actual observed data.
In the end your message is that I must bow and sacrifice or I, and my children unto the umteenth generation will burn.
Have you ever attended college? Was your major biochemistry? What degrees did you earn? Do you work in that field currently? If so, do your colleagues know that you refer to them as "priests"?
I will answer your meaningless, diversionary questions although they have nothing to do with the conversation as I don't expect for you to believe anything based on my say so. In large part, I have supported my postiion with peer reviewed studies baseYed on actual observed data.
Yes, I went to college. Several of them as a matter of fact. I received my BS in biochemistry from The University of Florida, Gainsville. I did my masters work at the Medical University of South Carolina.
Yes, I work in the field currently and have for nearly 4 decades.
And to what miniscule percentage of my collegues who subscribe to the hypothesis of agw and attempt to preach it to me, emhaptically yes, I call them priests.
Claims that global warming is not happening on the basis of short-term ocean temperatures are not supported by the evidence.
First, I never claimed that warming wasn't happening or that cooling wasn't happening and I didn't base the claim on ocean temperatures. I stated that the oceans are cooling and you claimed that they weren't. Now you post data that acknowledges that they are in fact cooling but claim that doesn't prove that warming has stopped which I never claimed in the first place. Once more, you are tilting at straw windmills of your own construction Don.
The only problem with yuour argument is that you actually DO think it is a big conspiracy, dude.
There is no problem with my argument. A relatively small group of scientists pushing bad science, and unsupportable claims of disaster being supported, bolstered and abetted by the press, and an abjectly corrupt world political body. What does that sound like to you. If you can prove that there is no conspiracy, by all means step on up to the plate and do it. You can end the entire thing by posting a bit of hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man's activities and the changing climate.
That has been the challenge all along and rather than post the evidence that we both know doesn't exist, or simply admit that you can't answer the challenge, you have proselytized for pages now. Here is a hint. Till you can provide some hard observed evidence that man is responsible for climate change, I am not going to convert.
Your shrugging off the idea of a cooperation between the press, the UN, politicians, and a rather small group of scientists remains a logical fallacy till such time as you can prove that the science is sound and the evidence exists.
(continued)
