We all know science is settled in the matters of:

Global Warming
Evolution
Biological differences between the sexes

.....oops!

/leftists head explodes.

Kate,

the "signed" link doesn't seem to be working.

Out of curiosity, I counted them yesterday. There are exactly 100 signatures. Just trying to be accurate.

John M Reynolds

So basically your attitude is just keep on keepin' on. Dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly be a problem can it?

Seriously... I've said it before... you guys are the sort of people who a few centuries ago would have argued that there is nothing wrong with shitting where you eat.

Remember when "conservative" use to mean conserving things? That was cool. You guys deserve extinction, but lucky for you, us "libs" consistently drag your sorry asses into the future whether you like it or not.

You know this is true right? Conservatives always loose. If not... we'd still be in the trees.

John:
Painting all dissenters as "Conservative" is ridiculous. I know many Greens who agree the science is not yet clear and are open minded to new data and I know Conservatives who believe the science is settled. You are one with the stereotype mind.

In a related factoid, it has been found that a cubic mile of seawater has more gold in it than has been mined in human history...

John,
People like you said that global cooling meant the end of the world and worse yet PEOPLE LIKE YOU banned the use of DDT and an estimated 40,000,000 people died from malaria in poorer countries around the world.
If we here left it up to people like you millions more would die as developing countries would be strangled with the burden of limiting their emisions for what is clearly known to us here as a massive fraud.
I think the world has had enough "caring" from people like you and we "swing from trees" in an effort to prevent millions more from dying from the impact of the utter stupidity and greed people like you would impose on the world.

"Conservatives always loose."

An intellectually overpowering argument from the best and brightest the left has to offer.

Nothing will stand in the way of the complete destruction of the capitalist system and the confiscation of all private property in order for the Elites of the world to create and rule their Global Feudal peasant world.

People like John of the tree swinging conservatives comment, are the unwitting foot soldiers.

His kind of folk have so bought into the fear and guilt tools of these despicable elites that they cannot think clearly about the reality of the planet and it's systems.

I have no argument that there are more people on this planet than there probably should be or needs to be, but global subjugation is not a path I intend to go down.

Meanwhile the debate is over and now one allowed to discuss or debate this issue. We are only allowed to pay up and sign off to whatever we are told.

Fortuately, there are many conservatives and others who will not be bullied by Fat Alberta his minions.

It is going to take more than guilt and fear to get a lot of to comply. "Resistance in NOT futile"

The climate changers will not have enough time to herd us into our stalls before the evidence is obvious ... the sea levels won't rise and the weather is just weather. It will be a lot cooler before it's a lot hotter ... Wait and see.

Keep up the good work Kate.

Oop .. that should have read "Fat Albert and his minions"

"...Dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly be a problem can it?.."

Actually maybe not. There is a diminishing returns aspect to GHG concentrations. As in, the more you dump in, the less effect it has. The latest evidence shows that A) CO2 growth trends in the atmosphere don't necessarity respond to changes in anthropogenic emissions, and B) warming has stalled for 6 years or so, despite increasing CO2 content.

Couple this diminishing returns relationship with the fact that CO2 has one highly beneficial side effect, namely invigorating the florasphere, and you can legitimately argue that since the good effects are precisely known and the bad effects are guesstimates, what is the problem with more CO2?

I doubt we are at the point where in theory anyway, CO2 can't have any more effect. However, as the recent paper from Douglass,Cristy,Pearson&Singer shows, there may be negative feedbacks to GHG forcing that we don't understand yet. The heretic Richard Lindzen has proposed one such mechanism, the "infrared iris" whereby clouds change in sync with changes in GHG forcing to limit their effect.

Regards, BRK

So how did "Big Oil" (tm) manage to get to all those scientists who signed the letter including some who were reviewers for the IPCC reports? Heck, they got to me and I'm still waiting for my cheque -- dammit!

Spelling errors, and DDT conspiracies aside...

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

Whatever you do... keep kidding yourselves.

'Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years'

TOTAL
ABSOLUTE
BULLSHIT

'NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.'

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html

Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Three of the top 10 are in the last decade. Four of the top ten are in the 1930’s, before either the IPCC or the GISS really think man had any discernible impact on temperatures. Here is the chart for all the years in the data base.

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nasa-revises-temperature-data-1998-now-behind-1934-as-hottest/

---

Just keep repeating your lie, john. You and yours are the only ones who believe it.

John:

Your problem is the trends are going the wrong way for you, particularly in the troposphere. And if there is ANY solar component to climate change, they are about to get worse. Solar cycle 24 is late, and late means long cycles and long cycles have a habit of correlating with cooling periods.

Here's another record to ponder. The coldest monthly anomaly for sea surface temperatures since December 1999, was, you guessed it: November 2007.

At the beginning of 2007, based on a waning El Nino, the Hadley Centre made a prediction that 2007 would be globally the warmest year ever. What a flop that prediction turned out to be.

BRK

ALBATROSS!!...BLOODY BLEEDING SODDEN ALBATROSS!! WHERE ARE YOU??? ALBAROSS YOU 'OL' CLIMATE DOOM GROUPIE WHERE ARE YA BOY? YOU HAVE A MILE OF xxxx TO EAT!

Ah yes, John, sunshine... so while you blithering fools are obsessing about a natural compound vital for photosynthesis (CO2), real pollution is going on unchecked in many parts of the world. And no lefty, greenie moron to complain. Almost makes you think that Al the Goracle and his groupies are fronting for the big oil, big chem and other industries releasing toxic compounds - you know, like sulphuric acid, mercury and other fine stuff. But no... in th blinded eyes of the international sociocrats, CO2 is the greatest danger to the planet. BULLCRAP. John, you're a cretin and you don't even know it.

How much CO2 did the attendies from the various UN crooks and the eco-wacko groups put out while traveling their and i,ll bet gore did,nt come by row boat or peddle plane HE CAME BY PRIVATE JET and he rode there in a 4 mpg gas guzzling limo and they burned up all those kilowatt hours of electricity while they sat around and watched gores junk science movie SCREW THEM ALL

Another one that doesn't appear to be so settled:

"SAN FRANCISCO—A reduction in clouds was likely a culprit in this summer’s record Arctic meltdown which temporarily opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, scientists announced this week.

While Earth’s rising temperatures* fueled by global warming are certainly a factor in the Arctic melt, unusual weather patterns this summer also influenced how much of the sea ice melted."

*They've actually started cooling since 1998.

THE LETTER TO THE UN IS KEY:
THE DAM IS BREAKING OVER THE PROBLEM of the NULL HYPOTHESES

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theorists have it backwards. The burden of proof is on the model builder, not on those who question it.

I’m a scientist who has worked extensively with statistical computer models. When we develop any hypothesis of any sort, science requires that we also develop a fully contrarian hypothesis (the null hypothesis). For disinterested scientists, the null hypothesis is true unless one can compellingly disprove it. This process of disproof must go on indefinitely, for as is often said, myriad data can prove a theory, but even one observation can disprove it.

The problem with the IPCC is that it seems to show a fundamental ignorance of the null hypothesis and how it works. For example, the IPCC documents mention the null hypothesis, but they act as if they can put it to bed once, and never have to deal with it again. This is probably because the IPCC is written by politicians and other non-scientists.

There are many null hypotheses in AGW theory. Here are just a few: (1) there is no global climate, (2) there is no single global temperature, (3) there is no single sea level, (4) sea level is not related to surface temperature, (5) there are no upward or downward trends in global temperature, (6) there are no greenhouse gases which influence global climate (7) any observed and verified changes in local temperatures contain a very large proportion of measurement error. Therefore, these local temperature changes will regress to the mean over time. In other words, they will go back to where they started out, (8) there are no interaction terms which would change the pace or trend of global temperature, and (9) there are no multivariate predictive models which predict future global climate, (10) humans do not and cannot influence global temperature, (11) any effort by humans to change climate or climate trends would not be cost-effective, (12) humans can adapt to any change in climate, (13) no predicted change in climate is outside the range of historical records.

All of these 13 null hypotheses must be disproved for AGW theory to be considered true. All disproofs must be robust and convincing, such that no reasonable scientist would dispute any part of AGW. There can be no substantive observations which confirm any part of the 13 null hypotheses. Please let me quickly run through one example:

(1) THERE IS NO GLOBAL CLIMATE. Just because an astronaut took a picture of our Earth does not mean that our planet is a ‘unity’. Gaia is probably not home. To prove that there IS a global climate, one must resolve orthogonalities. Data sets are orthogonal if they show zero correlation with each other. That is, they are statistically and stochasticaly independent. They are not causally connected. If two data sets are only somewhat correlated, then they are also mostly orthogonal.

Therefore, if Northern and Southern hemisphere data are only poorly correlated, they are mostly orthogonal, and they are mostly not causally connected. But this happens all the time in climate research! Surface temperature data varies up and down and all over the place, even if you exclusively focus on the most reliable data sets. AGW theorists are constantly implicitly confirming the lack of ‘Globality’ in their data.

For example, AGW theorists say that the Northern hemisphere is supposed to be different from the tropics, and different again in the South.

Greenland is (falsely) thought to be melting, but Antarctica is not. Some ocean areas are thought to be heating, others cooling. Fine, but this all disproves ‘Globality’. That is, if global warming is occurring, temperatures throughout the globe MUST move together, they MUST be correlated in a non-trivial way. Otherwise, one cannot disprove the null hypothesis that there is no ‘Global Climate’.

Global temperature data sets are often uncorrelated. If they are uncorrelated, then there is not sufficient evidence to claim that these temperature data sets arise from the same source. That is, they are not caused by the same climate system. One may hypothesize that they are, but one cannot prove that they are. The null hypothesis insists on compelling evidence.

If there is no such thing as global climate, then there cannot be such a thing as global climate change. Any climate changes would be local.

John:

Repeat this mantra: .04%. Or, if you like, one bottle of your favourite Chardonnay in 2500.

1/2500 John.