BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming

[Greatcloud]

The Roman warm peroid and Medival warm peroid are covered in this video.

YouTube - Unstoppable Solar Cycles

 

[rambot]

The Roman warm peroid and Medival warm peroid are covered in this video.

YouTube - Unstoppable Solar Cycles

I think "covered" is a terribly obtuse word to describe what this video actually has to say about those periods.

Misinformation is a more appropriate descriptor IMHO

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is a graph showing that the MWP was global and warmer then today.

 

[rambot]

Oh! I remember this merry-go-round from the last time you brought that up. If you align that data over each other, it flattens out.

 

[mzungu]

Here is a graph showing that the MWP was global and warmer then today.

Give it a rest Greatcloud! Have patience and you will soon realise that GW is REAL!

 

[Greatcloud]

It is not GW in which I disbelieve it is AGW that I do not believe in. It is bad science and has never been proven.

 

[Belk]

It is not GW in which I disbelieve it is AGW that I do not believe in. It is bad science and has never been proven.

Name one scientific theory that has been "proven".

 

[Saving Hawaii]

I am currently wondering three things. No more, no less.

1. Why am I currently debating with myself about whether I should post in the "global warming is a fraud" thread, the "vaccines are a fraud" thread, or the "light bulbs are going to kill you" thread?
   .
2. Why does Greatcloud keep posting the same arguments again, and again, and again, and again, and again? Why does he expect me to waste my time responding to him when I've already done that multiple times and he failed to respond to any of my criticisms?
   .
3. Why do global warming skeptics make the following two arguments?
   1. The Richard Lindzen Argument: Id est, anthropogenic global warming is certainly a real phenomenon but climate sensitivity is fairly low and the majority of scientists overestimate how much warming we will experience over the next century (and millennium).
   2. The 'We Can Do It' Argument: That temperatures during events like the MWP were much higher than most scientists think they were and that humans handled these events just fine.
   The problem being that these two arguments are not coherent when put together. The 'We Can Do It' Argument rests upon the crux of a higher climate sensitivity than most scientists would argue. How else do you get the rapid historical temperature swings needed as the premise for the 'We Can Do It' Argument? You need a high climate sensitivity. You needed strong positive feedbacks and weak negative feedbacks. For the Lindzen argument though, you need weak positive feedbacks and strong negative feedbacks. You need a low climate sensitivity to make the Lindzen Argument.
   .
   Do you see the problem?