mikeworst

Bit out of date, huh?

Sorry sceptical inquirer but the first part of that post was quoting knocker in the other thread so your response was more directed to him,lol

Deny what, exactly?

'I'm sorry but for obvious reasons nobody mentioned minds, closed or otherwise. This is again evidenced by the intriguing fact that you can seek answers without reading the science out there. Surely a Prima Facie case of a 'mind' fixated by an unsubstantiated ideology, already made up and presumed to have the answers already.' Knocker I do not consider the trot ladled out by the sites I mentioned as science. Just saying. Of course what you have just stated could equally be applied to yourself. Just saying again, nothing personal.

You not see the /sark tag? It includes my whole statement and yes, I read widely from both camps. Certainly not in the wrong thread as my leaning is most definitely sceptical.

"I find it rather amusing that the intellectuals in the other thread are doing exactly what they are accused of. When lacking any substantial science to support their ideological stance they resort to vacuous rhetoric. I await their debut with the literati in WUWT with baited breath. Assuming of course they are not already be there". I agree, far better to extract drivel from Wotts. Hotwopper and sceptical science. /sark

This piece of proxy science is as good as anything else the knotted knicker brigade has produced.

Now that really was was not called for GW. Please mind your manners.

Good on you Knocker. You should tell us about it, I am sure you must have a tale or two to tell.

People who go out there and get stuck in are by far preferable to desk-bound jockeys who make stuff up with computer models.

The not based on science part is spot-on.

His name is Suzuki not Suziki and he is more correctly a geneticist with a degree in zoology, not a biologist. Just saying.

His tomatoes must be Trifids by now, or has he stopped talking to them?

With all those expenses paid boozethon conferences they jet around too I expect all they see are pink elephants.

This has already been debunked Knocker.The most infuriating aspect of the copious amounts of climate related papers being published is the lack of verification that follows on. I can understand why students need to try and publish even if the conclusions are dubious but hey! The claim made here is well within well documented and recorded European history. Where is the evidence of such cataclysmic volcanic activity?. This would have been very obvious if it resulted in an event as marked as the little ice age. There is none.It is all very well to make claims like this but there is no way that that such a momentous event would have gone undocumented.

This entire thread has been a mishmash of believer ,non-believer unsubstantiated dog biscuits. There is evidence that solar cycles have an influence on climate. To what extent and via what mechanism has not yet been established. Can we cut the point scoring and focus on the evidence whichever way it points?

Cool it with the insults lads, It does not do your religion any favours. There see, I can do it as well.

You really need to stop this weird speculation thing GW. What if?.

Whatever your view on climate change "either way", the current, rather interesting scenario up north is purely weather related and will resolve itself sooner than later. The Arctic temperatures are not far off typical for this time of year and as soon as the polar bear tumbling high wind situation calms down, normal service will be resumed.

Yes 3 lows moving across the Arctic causing the fall. Will all settle down soon.

Well put and sensible Tamara.