The eco-wackos along with AL GORE and a CHURCH OF GAIA are radicals fanatics who are beging their own inqusition of conservative christians who reject global warming and the gaia earth mother poppycock

It just keeps getting nuttier all the time!
And where is the "Informed and Balanced" background to be found?? Aside from a few articles in the MSM which seem to question some the motivations behind the zealots and hucksters precious little!

IMO - the main reason the MSM has taken ANY informed stance against these people is simply for the benefit of the Controversy!

Meanwhile the Self Righteous crusaders and pseudo- scientists like Hulme are running amok while being sustained in their socialist gulag of Politically Correct and research with the "Approved" results and interpretations! Sustained at the expense of taxpayers who are forced to fund their existence!
Fork em all!

Oh yes! And this explains a lot about what the IPCC report actually is!

Jaeger

Great find. I was as gob smacked as you were by Hulme's admissions.

Did I read this correctly? Is the overiding premise of post normal science philisophical rather than empirical? Subjective rather than objective? Emotional rather than cognitive?

Is this an admission that "climate change science" has officially morphed into the "religion" that many of us unwashed suspected it is?

Or did I miss something?

Yikes.

Syncro

Did anyone else notice his complete dismissal of Singer and Avery?

"Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong."

What a breathtaking arrogance, and a revelation. Even Hulme can't follow his nuttiness on "post-normal science" and has to resort to unfounded assertion to dismiss his critics.

If it has morphed into a religion then I demand separation of church and state!

Incredible. Specious sophistry. Garbage. Notice that the guy is NOT a scientist; he's a SOCIAL scientist, working within models. Models not reality.

Post-normal science? What's that? Abnormal? Non-science? Nonsense?

How about such assertions as 'the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases warms the planet' - a reductionist claim because it ignores the solar cycle.

And his astonishing rejection of science, when he insists that science is 'modified through interaction with society'. No it isn't; science rests on objective data gathering, repeatable tests, objective causality and correlations, and a rejection of 'social interpretations'.

The author says almost nothing about their actual work and tries to denigrate it by claiming that they have written 'apparently scientific arguments' (how about that 'apparently'?) only 'to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs". WOW. The arrogance of the postmodern Reader, who rejects the words of the Author, informs us that the Author has 'values and beliefs' which the Author hasn't expressed - and that these are the cause of the Author's opinions. Not science, not facts, not data. WOW.

Oh - and what does 'collective action over private enterprise' have to do with science? Nothing.

Yes, science CAN find the truth, even if this author rejects such a reality. How dare he - "in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage".
What does this mean?

It means that the Kyoto cultists have declared that they refuse to recognize any science that rebuts their cult's beliefs. Their beliefs, according to them, are not subject to falsification by the findings of science. No way. Their beliefs are 'outside of science'.

Incredible - but - that's the postmodern mode. There's no such thing as truth or facts or data. Only political agendas.

Things are going to get very hot, but not in surface temperature, but between "believers" and skeptics. So hot in fact, I think (to be slightly alarmist) that the violence will not be caused by the weather, but by the earth worshippers.

Look for mass hippie animal/earth worhsipper rallies in the so-called "civilized" world DEMANDING that the others hand over their livelihood, goods, and their wealth as a sacrifice for their cause.

Is Al Gore the anti-Christ?

That's the real question at hand.

The task at hand is to resist the imposition of a faith-based authoritarianism: eco-sharia.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

The biggest admission yet that climate "science" is about the world of the Occult.

It will take strong people, like Tim Ball, to take on this Suzuki, Gore, Mo cult. That is, if one of the five recent death threats doen't get to him first.

" .. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.: UK Telegraph.

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

And ya thought burning Witches at the stake was scary ?? Or holistic "medicine" ? Or sacrificial lambs ??

And the BBC and other media will continue to report this man's words when he frankly admits to deliberate dishonesty. He should be fired.

Could be an indication of growing fear in "the movement" about how shaky the science is. Instad of abandoning their cause, they'll just set about trying to demolish objective judgement.

Mike Lysenko Hume

Like all you posters here, I have never , since Mr. Bob Mills (M.P. for Red Deer, Alta)outlined the whole Koyota 'plan' for us in parliament, just before the Liberanos signed that egregious socialist agreement; belived anything spewed out about the weather being dependant on the activities of people!

Mother nature is master of the fate of weather. Koyota/glob all warming is a 'cult/groupie thingie' to enrich billionaire socialists elitists with money and power and to reduce the rest of us to state slaves living in little cells in bleak cities (see Mo tse Strongs' Habitats for Humanity). POLUTION is the human problem and I am glad to see out new government addressing that problem aggressively.
I think that some Astronomy scientists should be asked so they could explain this 1,500 year changes in weather - it is called Progression of the Equinoxes - occurs on a regular basis every 1,500 years. I would also ask the astronomers to explain 'Global tilt' re: the shift of the North Pole from right to left over time. Ancient people knew all about this phenomena, so do the scientists of today. Has no one asked?

It is no wonder people are so confused by this whole subject. The Toronto sun has so many columnists, like Lorrie Goldstein and today Licia Corbella, debunking human-caused global warming. Yet in today's paper they have a full page article in their "science" section called "Extreme Warning" which states "All experts now agree that human-produced greenhouse gases are warming the earth at an unprecedented speed." There are accompanying graphics showing the impact of this rapid temperature rise.

Any casual reader of this type of article then walking outside today when its 15 degrees would say "Pretty clear to me on this global warming thing, don't confuse me with the facts, Susuki and Gore are onto something here." And can we blame them with the MSM, the schools, and that world leader Dion tell them its all happening.

By the way, since this Mike Hulme rejects science as a valid means of finding out whether/not AGW is true or not, then, he should insist that the IPCC and all other Kyoto cultists stop referring to 'scientists agreeing with AGW'.

After all, he himself says that science is not objective but has a political agenda - so, those 'scientists' are also not objective, they are also thinking in a 'post-normal scientific' ie, non-scientific manner.

I still can't believe someone who is a director of a center that is supposed to be doing climate research could possibly write this:

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.

Imagine - people like us trying to establish what is scientifically true. The man runs a lobby group, promoting "values, perspectives and political preferences" - he isn't engaged in science. Yet there he is as a director of a climate research center and had a very prominent role in the IPCC.

Al's got a sequel coming out next summer. It will be a blockbuster.
Look for Indiana Gore And The Flatulence Of Doom, coming to theater near you!

>>between "believers" and skeptics

No.
between "worshipers" and skeptics

Doug said: "Look for mass hippie animal/earth worhsipper rallies in the so-called "civilized" world DEMANDING that the others hand over their livelihood, goods, and their wealth as a sacrifice for their cause."

Ode To Gaia: ""Let My People Come". ...-

Cool the Planet, Save the Arctic:
March 20, 2007 – Washington, DC

Climate Crisis Action Day is your opportunity to ensure that Congress hears your concerns about your climate, your quality of life, and America's fragile Arctic wilderness. ...-

http://ga3.org/climatecrisis/learnmore.html

Poor gore, he has to get a bill passed thru the congress to hold his big kyoto concert. Seems the Mall is already booked and he is asking Senator Reid for permission to hold it at the capitol. Much smaller area. Reid says ok, but needs the permission of congress. Hope they hold up the bill till Aug as his concert is set for July 7.

Doug @ 3.43:
"Is Al Gore the anti-Christ?

That's the real question at hand."

Well someone was saying recently, that St.Al was turning water into whine. You might be onto something!

for the far left everything is political.....therefore facts get in the way of the revealed truth....

eco sharia....i like it.

".. Strong sits on boards with the Rockefellers and Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates. He hobnobs with the world's royalty, too - and with dictators and despots.

He once did a business deal with arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and wound up with a 200,000-acre ranch in Colorado - which his wife, Hanne, runs as a New Age spiritual colony.

He told Maclean's magazine in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." He warns that if we don't heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

Do we really want this? Do we want Marx to be proven right, after all?" Strong asks. He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade outside a global conference, he's the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel." Ezra Levant

//www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Maurice-Strong/article1.html
-------

" ..He met Leonard Hentsch whose Swiss bank handled the money of the YMCA. Strong wanted to become an international ambassador for the YMCA, but settled for a position on the International Committee of the U.S.A. and Canada which raised funds for the YMCA.

This experience may have been the genesis of Strong's realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government. In 1959, Strong created his own company, MF Strong Management. While serving as executive vice-president of Canada's Power Corporation, he also ran his own company, Alberta gas company, another company called Ajax, and elevated his role in the international YMCA and Canada's Liberal Party. He told Elaine Dewar, "We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets. We influenced a lot of appointments.... Politicians got to know you and you them." Henry Lamb.

//www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
--------

" .. Maurice Strong 68, and his wife, Hanne, fancy themselves quite the environmental couple. He was chairman of the far-out Earth Council, earning the nickname Father Earth. In 1992 he orchestrated the United Nations Earth Sumniit, which called on the developed world to fork over, for its environmental sins, $600 billion to the Third World." Dyan Machan, Forbes.

//www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/machan.htm
------

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class...involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable... A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns.

Strong has forcefully advocated a new economic order based on the re-distribution of the developed world's industries and wealth to the Third World. Strong is indeed an arch antipodean socialist/capitalist." Vancouver Forum.

//www.discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=131259
--------

" .. As one whose role in putting the climate-change issue on the public agenda is being targeted by critics, I hasten to confess it. As the first head of the UN Environment Program, I convened a meeting of climate-change experts more than 30 years ago. In 1992, I led the Earth Summit that produced the Climate Change Convention, and was involved in Kyoto when the contentious protocol on targets was agreed." Maurice Strong, Globe and Mail.

//www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070307/COCLIMATE07/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/
--------

Sound like someone who would trash normal-science in order to set up a normal-cult ??

How is this any more "post-normal" than scientific truth being established by a bunch of contrarian bloggers with their one-line refutations ("Mars is getting warmer!"), or by journalists completely untrained in science, like Lorne Gunter of the National Post (Pluto is getting warmer!"), or his colleague in error Barbara Kay, whose idea of balance is to match the IPCC summary against a novel (by Michael Crichton). The fact is that anthropogenic global warming is the majority scientific opinion even if it is not unanimous, and the IPCC predictions, while not (yet) proven fact, are still the best bet.

r a ,
......" , or by journalists untrained in science , " , or by politicians untrained in science ( Gore ) , or by LLL ( Suzuki ) , untrained in relevant science .

Rush Limbaugh has a story on the Hoax, and a story from a cdn paper linking gore and strong together from as far back as 1995. Strong is not known in the US, but seems he has been involved in a couple of companies that went belly up and he paid 5 million rather than get a jury verdict.
Well worth the read.

This is what happens when certain political viewpoints come to dominate the mass-information distribution system. The print media tends to be more balanced than say, TV, but in their news --i.e. non-columnist/editorial -- coverage they still predominantly cough up the "everybody knows" attitude about AGW.

The blank-stare-box, on the other hand just kinda slides its assertions into its distracted cheap-dates, who barely notice, or stop chewing. And on climate-change issues, the thrust is relentless and one-sided. To say the coverage is unbalanced would be to pretend there's two sides it. There's not. The verdict is already in: Only the evil and the stupid dispute AGW.

TV is where the "evvabuddy knows", mob-rule sneering-certainties get their traction. And there's no doubt that those who hold certain political viewpoints -- hnkkkk -- dominate that medium.

When politically-driven misinformation is relentlessly broadcast, while the other half -- or seven-eigths, in this case -- where the truth lies is completely witheld, you end up with a category-5 storm-front of lies, the energy of which comes from the misinformed concensus of average citizens.

You can't really blame people, necessarily, for their credulity. How many of us don't find ourselves mouth-breathing after an hour in front of the tube? If the genesis of a global redistribution scheme spawned by an avowed communist -- Mo Strong -- is relentlessly avoided, and if the scheme is presented as being necessary to save the earth from destruction, and that it's all based on sound science, and that "all experts now agree" (see David Hand's reference above, it was in the Edmonton Sun too, btw) how could the average Betsy be expected to even consider disputing the evidence?

At the point where large numbers of people earnestly, reflexively believe -- in effect -- that scientists who don't obey a political, enforced, group-think line, and who instead look at the actual evidence are a threat to the future of the earth, and/or evil, who must be censured and silenced, we've a problem on our hands called "mob rule".

When you've got mob rule, you get people stepping up to the front -- Mike Hulme is exhibit A -- and talking the sort of crazy talk you only hear when they're really sure that they have a whole lot of angry back-up.

(Let's see if Hulme still has a career when the mob disperses....)

In the Canadian context, the producers and the reporters who constantly peddle the mis-information which just happens to be the central platform of the corrupt, watch-the-hand party that they tribally support are the ones who are inflaming that kind of attitude. Every time a CBC reporter stands in front of the truth to block it from view, and starts to show signs of feeling personally empowered -- maybe future-senate-seated -- by the environment they've helped create, it's not a joke anymore, and it's not really journalism; it's pure propaganda, and it's creepy, like a mob action with a team of hairdressers running alongside.

There's no point anymore in asking what CBC's excuse is for comprehensively refusing to present the massive amount of compelling evidence against anthropogenic global warming, or for even attempting to be balanced in their coverage, because they TELL ya: There is concensus among scientists that our CO2 emissions are destroying the planet, and that science is sound....only maniacs and people funded by American oil companies disagree....

ra

"""The fact is that anthropogenic global warming is the majority scientific opinion even if it is not unanimous, and the IPCC predictions, while not (yet) proven fact, are still the best bet."""

no it is not the majority opinion of any group other than the lefties

and "facts" opposed to IPCC predictions are a lot closer to being "proven" than IPCC's nonsence, and that is in using the very "science" that IPCC uses to support their nonsense, just not spun

I suggest that if you can not understand the science, get sum tutoring

In addition, ra, the 'Mars is getting warmer' and other issues about climate change may be repeated by a blogger, journalist, etc, but the facts originate within science. Empirical objective science - not 'post-normal science'.

Actually, AGW is not the majority scientific opinion; it may and may not be a majority popular opinion. I hope you are aware of the difference.

Why are the IPCC predictions 'the best bet'? They are hardly carrying out objective science and a model remains a model - reality doesn't always match the model.

r a: Michael Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, obtained his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Please explain why he should NOT be entitled to have an opinion on this topic, at least as valid as a former politician. His novel "State of Fear" was thoroughly researched, extensively referenced and footnoted. Some people make flawed documentaries (which still win awards) and some people write novels - why should one be given more credibility than the other?

their one-line refutations ("Mars is getting warmer!"),

Well think for just a second. If multiple planets are getting warmer at the same time, what do they have in common?

match the IPCC summary against a novel (by Michael Crichton).

Chrichton's scientific credentials re climate are every bit as good as Suzuki's, and not being a leftie, Chrichton isn't biased by the underlying socialism of the global warming religion.

Not to quibble about terminology, but I don't see the problem exemplified by Mr. Hulme and his ilk as post-normal science, I see it as anti-science.

Some people say that environmentalism has become a religion. I don't have a problem with that per se, because I don't have a problem with religion per se, as long as it does not deny reason and the concomitant role of science thereto. That is why I was so impressed by Pope Benedict's Reagensburg lecture, when he said that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature".

Problems do arise though whenever any religion or faith rejects reason. In the case of environmentalism, we now see that the extremist radical environmentalists have found out that science, and in particular the skepticism that is built in to science and reason, is (when it disagrees with their canon) one of the few effective weapons that can be used against them.

So, now they are trying to deny the value of science per se. And there we have a big problem. Almost all the advances in civilization have come via reason and science, directly or indirectly, and now some people want to throw away all this progress because of their new-found apocalyptic brand of faith. Thus, those who lead this faith, those who deny the history of civilization in the name of illegitimate benefit, they are the principal enemy in this battle.

ET:
"Why are the IPCC predictions 'the best bet'? They are hardly carrying out objective science and a model remains a model - reality doesn't always match the model."

BINGO! As I've said a couple of times here and elsewhere, you're right on the money. The climate models make some huge assumptions, and the computer algorithms are incapable of explicitly solving the non-linear equations used in the models. Approximations are the best that can be done and, as a result, inherent errors are accumulated. I could go on a huge rant about the problems with the models here, but I think I'd be (mainly) preaching to the converted. ;)

But try telling all that to Al Gore. He'd screech that you're a denier and that questioning the science, even though it's perfectly open to question, is akin to heresy.

It's becoming quite tiring, frankly.

Putting one novel - Crichton's; against another novel - the IPCC "report", is comparing apples with apples. Except that, Crichton's novel is far more realistic and is based on science, as opposed to being based in politics, as is the IPCC “report”.

Mike Hulme, a professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is writing a book, entitled Why We Disagree About Climate Change.

Remember he is the guy who coined the phrase “climate porn”
This is his opinion
“I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory. "

Part of what he is describing in his article is analogous to our politicians asking for the Supreme Court to render an opinion on abortion or gay marriage. The politicians and decision-makers are trying to avoid the responsibility for making the judgement call.
He is saying that this is a typical outcome for any tough collective decision. He is speaking from the perspective of one of those scientists that is now been transformed into a policy maker by the successful transfer of responsibility from the real decision-makers.

If you have been following the series about the "deniers" in the National Post by Lawrence Solomon here is part of the final summary after interviewing “deniers” like:
Richard S. J. Tol, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, or Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, or Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences

“Most of the 10 especially object to being called "deniers" because they do not at all deny the existence of global warming, only what they see as erroneous and even outlandish claims from climate change alarmists. "Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in [human caused] climate change'?," protested Tol. "I published one of the first papers [in 1993] that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions." Tol believes that the IPCC bureaucracy is forcing out many of the best who once were part of the IPCC process, “

The issue really isn’t about the science anymore.

doug newton: "The issue really isn’t about the science anymore."

The issue was never about science.

B. Hoax Aware I'll repost what I said about Ball yesterday

Tim Ball never met a microphone or camera he didn't like.
themeliorist.com/?q=lawsuit_filed_against_professor_board_of_governors_and_n
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/tim_ball_update.php
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php
Point being, this guy does anything for attention, (especially when it leads to cash) which leaves me sceptical about any death threats that he has recieved.

I have met Ball and there is no doubt, he’s his own biggest fan.

ural
Take a look at this
http://www.urbanelephants.com/nyc/node/6531

"Limbaugh just reported that Al Gore's partner in a for profit carbon-trading scheme is Maurice Strong.
Who is Maurice Strong? A Canadian billionaire and environmental extremist with interesting connections to the U.N. oil-for-food scandal:"

I think that almost 40 years of research into climate change has been hijacked by some very special interests.
This is not to say that there is a lack of evidence supporting anthropogenic contributions to global warming.

Tim Ball will debate Suzuki ANYTIME, ANYWHERE !!

A challenge was issued to Suzuki a long time ago. What's the problem ??

John Oakley, Toronto radio host, would be a good moderator. He doesn't put up with any s***.

tick tick tick ...

Here's the thing. Regardless of the dialectic roles of Dr. Ball, Mr. Strong, et al, the best available evidence to date supports two propositions:

(1) Solar flux precedes global temperature variations, which precede CO2 concentration changes. Until someone proposes a good reason otherwise, the reasonable man must conclude that the causality is from Solar flux to global temperature to CO2 concentrations, not from CO2 concentrations to global temperature.

(2) Independent of whether or not (1) is found to be true upon further scientific examination, the total contribution to green-house gas warming (which keeps the Earth from freezing solid), that is contributed by CO2 produced by humans, is only some ten-millionths of the total green-house gas effect.

Unless both of those propositions are shown to be incorrect, it is a misallocation of resources to pursue reductions in human-produced CO2 as an effective plan for bettering the human condition.

r a says.....

"How is this any more "post-normal" than scientific truth being established by a bunch of contrarian bloggers with their one-line refutations ("Mars is getting warmer!"),"

What? You can find the time to type a comment here but you can't find the time to type -Mars getting warmer- in google?

Honestly fella, do some genuine research and reading on the topic before you come back to spout off.

B. Hoax Aware, why would Suzuki bother to debate Ball? Ball is not what he says he is and is considered irrelevant in the scientific community, he's selling snake oil and you’re buying. If Ball has anything to back up his claims then hew would publish, which so far he has refused to do.

Dr. Timothy Ball researched the weather and climate records of The Hudson Bay Company. Extensive records that go back centuries. He is undoubtably a Climate Scientist. He has world wide respect on the subject of the Earth's Climate.

Suzuki ?? Watched fruit flies.

Dave will also NOT debate Dr. Patrick Moore, greenspirit.com

Nor Bjorn Lomborg.

Nor a host of others. Why ??

Because he is a disciple of Gore and Maurice Strong. They only preach. Case closed.

Solar Flux huh? Well, lets take a look, shall we?
sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Nope that's not it. The warming trend on Mars is a regional event on the southern hemisphere, and not a planetary event.

As some bloggers pointed out in one of the sites I posted-

"I hope Timmy Ball doesn't throw in the towel. It would be a real treat to witness Timmy defend his "credentials" on the stand."

"Timball : Very good performance. Please stick with the case 'til the Bitter End so that the Piñata will be produced forth many times for everyone's enjoyment!"

"Ball sounds qualified to be a spokesman for Intelligent Design."

"I wonder if this is a riff on the Scientology policy of suing the hell out of critics. As for Dr. Ball's motives, it doesn't matter if the suit will be successful, all that matters is that Dr. Johnson is intimidated. Now fewer people will want to write a letter to the editor if they might be sued and incur legal bills out the wazoo.

So, my feeling is Dr. Ball is being a whining bully. But, since he's not a good scientist, he's probably not a good bully either."

""as I understand it, ...ball is now employed as a consultant in climatology."

Climatology Consultant, or spinmeister, fake science reporter, disinformation expert, fact manipulator, public relations man posing as a working scientist? Some people have a hard time telling the difference."

"Yes that is the bizarre thing; right-wing shill sues right-wing rag."

Oh yes Lomborg AKA "Mr. Don't Worry Be Happy"

lomborg-errors.dk/

mylinkspage.com/lomborg.html#PRO -that one also talks about Patrick Moore

"Climatology Consultant, or spinmeister, fake science reporter, disinformation expert, fact manipulator, public relations man posing as a working scientist?"

You know suzuki?

B. Hoax Aware, you are referring to the book

"Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay"
BY Stuart Houston, Tim Ball and Mary Houston. 2003

This and one physical geography textbook called ”Fundamentals of physical geography” (which he also co-authored) is all the material with his name on it. There was nothing at all found in a search of reviewed scientific journals with his name on it. The man has no credibility. He claims extensive work in the field but there is no evidence of it?

From Bloomberg Feb 26 2007

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — The smartest money in global warming stocks may be scurrying to the exit just when the enthusiasm for alternative-energy companies is at an all-time high.

“As an investment play,” global warming is “a bubble” and “social short-term craze,” said Ken Fisher, who oversees $35 billion as chairman of Fisher Investments Inc. in Woodside, California.

Anyone looking for corroboration of that assessment may find it in the so-called short selling of U.S. alternative-energy stocks last month, which climbed 45 times faster than the average for Standard & Poor’s 500 Index members.

By itself, I don't know that global warming is a viable investment theme,'' said Malcolm Polley, who oversees $1 billion at Stewart Capital Advisors LLC in Indiana, Pennsylvania. ``It's largely Wall Street's answer of trying to create something where there really isn't anything that exists. (Bloomberg)

//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aqBr9N4m4Rko&refer=home

The Gores, Suzukis and Maurice Strongs of the world may be steering the naive of the world into the poorhouse. For an entire generation.

Are we supposed to be getting our climate info from Bloomberg now? That's the real reason for the right's denial isn't it? It's all about the bottom line.

Well as Suzuki says, "no ecology, no economy".

Hey, Albatros you troll. Answer me one question seeing how everyone is always wrong except you. Did Michael Mann falsify the data that produced the hockey stick chart used by Gore and IPCC report?

"Hey, Albatros you troll. Answer me one question seeing how everyone is always wrong except you. Did Michael Mann falsify the data that produced the hockey stick chart used by Gore and IPCC report?"

No

The smart people were probably never "invested" in the green, carbon-credit scams.

The fleeing is likely the Gores, Suzukis, Strongs of the world.

"...While that controversy rages, Strong is up to his eyeballs in Molten Metal Technology, a busted handler of hazardous waste notorious for its flaky technology and ties to presidential hopeful Al Gore (FORBES, Jan. 22, 1996 and Apr. 21, 1997). A big contributor to Gore's campaigns, Molten Metals has surfaced in the Senate hearings on corrupt campaign financing.

A member of Molten's board, Strong sold some shares at around $31 apiece a month prior to the stock's October 1996 collapse. Today the stock is at 13 cents a share and Strong is being sued by San Diego class-action shark Milberg Weiss." (Forbes)

//www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/machan.htm

Okay Albatross, how about this:

Tell me why climate models are right and those who question them are wrong.

Climate models accurately displayed historical climate when historical data was plugged into them. This means there is no reason to doubt climate models predicting the future.

Those who doubt the climate prediction simply are not looking at the evidence.

Climate models do not accurately display historical climate when historical data is plugged into them. This means there is grave reason to doubt climate models predicting the future. Those who don't doubt the climate prediction simply are not looking at the evidence.

Vitruvius, that was true ten years ago.

Funny how some things don't change, isn't it.

Albatross, you're ignoring the fact (V alluded to it) that climate models cannot explicitly solve the equations they purport to solve. Further, they use approximations to make many calculations that would otherwise become unwieldy. Therefore, the results output from climate models are not an accurate representation of what will happen in the future. It's more or less a case of "close enough". And in such an intricate system, we don't actually have a clue how close that really is. Trust me, I work with forecast models all the time.

Those who do not doubt climate models are a) not true scientists, as true scientists are skeptics, and b) ignoring the glaring fact that the equations are not solved explicitly, because that cannot be done.

And don't get me started on the assumption that we know the entire state of the entire atmosphere at any given time. We don't. The only way to know that that is to send up measuring instruments for every cubic millimetre of the atmosphere simultaneously over the world. And further, doing so would alter the base state of the atmosphere in the first place. So in summary, we can't know the current state of the atmosphere in its entirety. If we don't know what it's like now, we cannot know what it'll be like in the future ad infinitum. And anyone who ignores THAT is just a science denier.

"we don't actually have a clue how close that really is. Trust me, I work with forecast models all the time."

Johann, the climate models tell us we are going to see a warming. The chemistry and physics tell us we are going to see a warming. Reality tells us we are presently in a warming.
The climate models are close enough now to show past and current climate, there is no reason not to trust the future predictions of climate. We don't need to know cubic centimetre of the atmosphere to plot trends in climate; that kind of detail would be handy for weather and weather is no the same as climate.

The problem is, Albatross, that reality does not tell us that we are doomed to face terrible catastrophe due to atmospheric temperature variations caused by human production of atmospheric carbon-dioxide vapor. The processes, the causality, and the numbers just aren't there. Ergo, if we were to pursue your concern, we would be misallocating our resources to fight a chimera. That's all wrong. Sorry to disappoint you.

"We don't need to know cubic centimetre of the atmosphere to plot trends in climate"

That's just plain wrong. In a sense it IS the same as weather; it's just long-term weather trends. And weather, climate, and any permutation of the two is nonlinear. Computers cannot solve these nonlinear equations; ergo, the models are not trustworthy (as in following them blindly).

"The climate models are close enough now"

Close enough is never close enough until you're exactly bang on. You see, the problem is that any minute error in the climate model will get propagated throughout its integration. Any error, therefore, magnifies and makes the results meaningless. Or, alternatively, if there are filtres to weed out the garbage so that the errors don't propagate, well, they also weed out some of the right data, and thus these crucial bits of information loss are also propagated through integration. Even if the timestep in a climate model is a year, integrating through 50 timesteps will bring about enough problems that we can't say for sure what's going on; it's all speculation.

Think about it: if we can't get the weather right a week in advance, what the hell makes us so arrogant as to think we can get the climate right 50 YEARS in advance?

I don't deny that we're in a warming; I don't think anyone here does. I'm debating HOW MUCH and CAUSED BY WHAT. We simply don't yet know. Could be us. Could be something else.

I trust that you will disagree with me till you are blue in the face, so this is where (on this thread) I stop trying to convince you. But believe me, you're wrong. Climate models cannot be taken as Gospel, and being skeptical about them is real science. Cheers.

Johann, no, climate is not weather. Though they are related, climate is a cause of weather.
If climate models accurately plot the past and the present, when the data is plugged into them we must take note of what they tell us about the future.
The fact is science tells us the earth should warm with increased atmospheric CO2 and the climate models are simply confirming the science. The big question is, just how hot is it going to get and are we too late to arrest what is now happening.

Vitruvius, the reality is we are in a period of warming.

CO2 is not a vapour, it's a gas.

The processes, the cause and the numbers are indeed there.