My take on Climate Change

[evolved yet?]

Welcome to paleoclimatology. The point is there reconstruction shows an MWP in the northern hemisphere, where there proxies were from.

Okay.

Just review here:

I suggest you read Our Stolen Future(I'm reading this right now) and Silent Spring(I'm trying to find this).

Reference
Castellano, E., Becagli, S., Hansson, M., Hutterli, M., Petit, J.R., Rampino, M.R., Severi, M., Steffensen, J.P., Traversi, R. and Udisti, R. 2005. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96) ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: Do6114, doi:10.1029/2004JD005259.
Description
The authors analyzed sulfate ice core stratigraphy from Dome C, Antarctica (75.10°S, 123.40°E) to obtain a record of Holocene volcanic eruptions, which they compared with other volcanic indices throughout Antarctica. Sulfate depositional fluxes of individual volcanic events were found to vary greatly among the different sites, which variation was attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation driven by climate forcing; and the team of ten researchers concluded that "changes in the extent and intra-Antarctic variability of volcanic depositional fluxes may have been consequences of the establishment of a Medieval Warming-like period that lasted [from about 1000] until about 1500 AD."

Reference
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.
Description
Changes in the location of the edge of the Amery Ice Shelf were inferred from measurements of biogenic opal, absolute diatom abundance and the abundance of Fragilariopsis curta found in sediments retrieved from beneath the ice shelf at a point that is currently 80 km from land's edge. The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP.

Reference
Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.
Description
General climatic features were inferred from a study of the grain size, total organic carbon content, biogenic silica content and, most importantly, magnetic susceptibility of 210Pb- and 14C-dated sediments retrieved from the eastern Bransfield Basin (61°58.9'S, 55°57.4'W) just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1050-1550) was warmer than the Current Warm Period.

And so on.

Unfortunately I was a bad person for arguing with on this point because I'm not a person who reads technical papers( being twelve), so I am not sure if I can argue with you on this points.

It could be, but you have to understand how large the margin of error in paleoclimatology can be. Look at the difference between the classic hockey-stick graph and the study you cited. Again, other studies show a warmer MWP. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to determine precise measurements like .6 degrees. For example, just using the instrumental record, not only do we have to account for so many factors besides AGW influencing the record (e.g. the UHI or land changes), but the advanced statistics in averaging out temperatures given that the globe just isn't covered with thermometers.
This becomes far more tricky when you are dealing with far less data with which to work. Hence the variability in the reconstructions. What we can see, however, is clear signs of abrupt and serious NATURAL climate fluctuations. This doesn't mean we aren't contributing to the current trend, but as the authors of the study you cite point out, it does mean we need to better account for natural climactic influences.

Yes and yours could be too high.

 

[evolved yet?]

4. The Bandwagon

Academics are not immune to following the crowd. The more experts buy into a particular view, the more likely it is others will follow, even if the research isn't conclusive. Now, certainly this effect is different with experts than with the public, and there is substantial research supporting AGW out there, but this tendency allows experts to look past research indicating AGW theory is flawed or incorrect, and increases the number of scientists supporting the theory without actually increasing supporting research. And, despite the difficulty skeptics have publishing their research, there has and continues to be studies which contradict or question important aspects of AGW theory.

Yes but there must have been enough scientists who rationally agreed with it in the first place if the wagon became big enough for people to climb on to, or in other words how come the crowd followed it in the first place?

 

[evolved yet?]

where did you go?

 

[Oberon]

where did you go?

I've been off of the forums for a while. The issue here is that it is all about the technical papers. There are plenty of books out there on both sides, and some of them are good, but just about anybody can write a book and even expert, when writing a book for the public, can say many things which wouldn't be considered scholarship. Just looking at dendroclimatology alone, a lot of it involves advanced statistics which require a background in things like statistics, linear algebra, matrices, computer programming, etc. And that's without even getting into the theory behind tree rings as proxies. I don't pretend to be an expert. But I do take the time to read the actual research, not just follow the politics.

I can cite research to support the points I make. It doesn't make me right, but if you ignore this research because you can't locate the studies or can't find them or can't understand them, then we can't get very far in a discussion.

 

[evolved yet?]

I'd like to start a one-on-one debate on the carcinogenic effect of DDT and other estrogen-mimicers. Up for it?

 

[Oberon]

I'd like to start a one-on-one debate on the carcinogenic effect of DDT and other estrogen-mimicers. Up for it?

That depends on what sources you can cite. I've read Carson's book. I have also read a lot of academic work in this subject. If you can't/don't read (for whatever reason) the actual scientific/academic papers/monograph/etc than what will you debate with to support your view?

 

[evolved yet?]

I think I can find some papers on the topic,and the "whatever reason" as I said before is I'm twelve years old.

 

[evolved yet?]

It's up.

 

[Oberon]

I think I can find some papers on the topic,and the "whatever reason" as I said before is I'm twelve years old.

I think it's great you are getting into research at that age. It's just that we're not going to get very far if you can't read most (or any) of the academic literature (and at 12, you'd have to be pretty much at genius level to do so) even if I were to make the studies available to you.