re: #260 MinisterO

Thanks for that, hadn’t heard of JAQing off, learned something new. Still don’t think I do that.

Here is how I would answer my questions, and those from alethalpunk:

The 2007 “Hockey Stick” can be found here…

Actually, there are several “Hockey Stick” plots. They cover… and differ in the following respects… You will find a layman’s discussion of them here… and a more serious treatment here… There is a very good book on the subject that you should find on Amazon by X, called Y.

The fact that Vikings are buried in permafrost on Greenland is not a valid argument because… This is discussed here…

The Little Ice Age is not a valid argument against global warming because… (local phenomena/ Our models show clearly that we can explain the cold whether in Europe…/There was no cool whether…, skating on the Thames was possible because… and is not in any way proof of colder wheather…)

You don’t see the little ice age that clearly in the 2001 IPCC publication of the “Hockey Stick” plot because… Actually, in the amended 2007 version you find…

Funding for climate research is completely unbiased with regards to the skepticism or not with regards to AGW. In the US XY panel has been set up to verify that there is no bias with regards to applications that are popular with the public, the MSM or the scientific community. We do our utmost to allow all sides of the argument a fair hearing. After all, intellectual conflict is necessary to ensure scrutiny and progress. Other countries have similar mechanisms, for example Elbonia…

alethalpunk is wrong because the effect of water vapour is discussed at great length in the articles by X, Y and Z. For the seminal work in this area, please get the book by Q.