For all of our American friends, there's a petition on grassfire to show your disgust at global warming alarmism. Please take the time to sign the petition and do your part to show disdain for the Goreacle and Suziki, etc.. 74,000 plus so far!

http://www.grassfire.org/106/petition.asp

Question: if these guys have truth and science on their side why do they always play with the facts? There is no context to their "Hypothesis" and when there is, it's a fraud...a blizzard of bull-shit.

Something Tipper knew all along. Al's a faker!!

I keep saying it ... don't bother with the ice flows, just keep you eye on the cash flows.

This is not about climate, it's about global socialism and the end of capitalism.

Climate change AKA Global Warming is the means, the end game is a UN Elitist Controlled world of peasants.

A Global Feudalistic State if you will.

I won't!

The woman responsible for CGG (computer generated graphics) for 'The Day After Tomorrow admited that Gore's piece was from the movie.

She was fine with it, because it 'illustrated the problem'. Apparentely, as with all things left, the end justified the means.

I want to say that I truly do believe that we should do all that we reasonably can do to clean up the environment, but I just don't believe the Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever-name-works-next b.s. Science is suppose to be about indisputable facts, not consensus.

Trent

That's not really true... if there was some indisputable way to model the Earth's atmosphere, sure. Since there isn't, we have to the best we can with the data available, if most of the scientists decide that based upon that data, the likely outcome is anthropogenic global warming -- I don't see why there's so much hostility toward them.

I suspect that some are people who don't understand how science works, some are people in denial, and some people objectively examine the data and reach a different conclusion than the majority of scientists. You have to consider whether that differing conclusion comes from a lack of expertise in evaluating the data or whether they have legitimate concerns.

I'm noticing a fourth category lately though -- the conspiracy theorists -- who think that this is some sort of grand ploy by Al Gore and his minions the climatologists of the world to establish a world government / control some post-oil energy source / otherwise tell us what to do / take over the world etc. From Pearl Harbour to 9/11 to moon landings, this crowd seems to always surface. Unfortunately, these "extremists" (and they are on both sides of the spectrum) tend to be the ones who stand out, and end up fouling the actual issues with their mental diarrhea.

For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring, I think that it's great that there are people out there examining NOAA weather stations for accuracy and trying to come up with other theories to explain observed atmospheric change. That's what science is all about. From my perspective as a professional geologist, hopefully they're right!

Here, here, Samuel. Yet one doesn't need a grand conspiracy theory to question the morality of the motives of those who appear to be fraudulently benefiting from doom-mongering, and one doesn't need to dissect the details of this particular phenomenon in order to consider comparing it to other classics such as those elucidated in Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay, published in 1841:

www.econlib.org/library/mackay/macExContents.html

[quote]For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring, I think that it's great that there are people out there examining NOAA weather stations for accuracy and trying to come up with other theories to explain observed atmospheric change. That's what science is all about. From my perspective as a professional geologist, hopefully they're right![/quote]

Samuel,
That is well said!. I for one do not question you or John's dedication to your science. I see AGW as two distinct groups... the ones with a scientific opinion are not my problem. More discusion please! maybe I can learn something.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City March 2-4 was attended by an impressive list of over 500 people. The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute of Chicago and co-sponsored by dozens of organizations. Also participating were over leading 100 scientists in the climate scientific debate. These scientists made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of global warming. In other words, human activities do not cause warming and economy-destroying laws are not needed. http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike11.htm

"For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring"
Yeah right, you and four out of twenty-two hundred IPCC scientists.

Samuel said,
"I'm noticing a fourth category lately though -- the conspiracy theorists -- who think that this is some sort of grand ploy by Al Gore and his minions the climatologists of the world to establish a world government / control some post-oil energy source / otherwise tell us what to do / take over the world etc."

Jacque Chirac proclaimed to the world in 2000 during the Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP 6 meeting.
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet.”

But you so smart samuel and we so dumb!

if the science is sound, if the fate of the population is certain, why the trickery? why the ruse?

it's insulting

Al Gore's film is not the bible of climate change. If this post is attempting to disprove global warming by pointing out flaws in a film about global warming; it has failed miserably. An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.

conspiracy?

http://tinyurl.com/5tdo9w

you can't help but think, maybe

From the article...The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days
before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently
made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite
clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly
misled the public and the world's media.

I'm gonna go burn a couple of old tires.....

"An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue."

So deceit is fine as long as it brings "attention to the issue."

I see.

Guess the Great Gore would never be accused of plagiarizing or sensationalism, too inconvenient for his idolizing Leftist drum beaters who continue to blindly suck up his Henny Penny sermons. He has them mesmerized and eating from his sacred hands.
He'll make a big dent with his inflated ego, well stuffed suits and pockets full of cash for his efforts.

Gore and Suzuki are inflicting collateral damage on the environmental cause with their fraudulent hyperbole. Invasive species represent more of a threat to our ecosystems than AGW. If the grass carp get into the Great Lakes basin, it will be a huge disaster. One little barrier in Chicago is all that is keeping them out. Gore and Suzuki are can cause diversion of public funds that otherwise could be used to combat these invaders.

My greatest concern in all of this is how the public schools were so easily enlisted to promulgate the fraudulent fear. One needs no greater proof that the public schools extinguish critical thought processes than that provided by their role in this bunko operation.

or maybe this winter was the beginning of something new . . .

http://tinyurl.com/43z6r6

Dr Chapman proposes preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. "

"An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue."

So lies are okay if they're done for the 'greater good'. Who decides what's the 'greater good'?

You should go into politics - lefty politics, that is.

just remember in the 'day after tomorrow" global warming caused the entire northern hemisphere to go to - a gazzillion in a week , all of Canada and the northern states were frozen solid millions would have been killed but the "Al Gore " like figure found the time to go find the hobbit like kid who was working on burning all knowledge in the new york library.

The great thing about all this praying to the climate god to appease fools like Suzuker and Her Goring is that here in Alberta we are sequestering that evil gas called co2, which by the way all plants, I think need, but anyway Samuel there is a plan! The Alberta govt is going to wait until they have lots and lots of co2 stored and then when the populace have had enough of this "global warming", here it is -12 on April 23, the head of Alberta Dr. Edevil will for a Billlllllion dollars, release all the stored co2 and warm up the planet. I know this for a fact there is no deniers in my group just one guy who won't wear his tinfoil hat, but he will assimilate or face jail.

So deceit is fine as long as it brings "attention to the issue."

Don't forget Earth Hour. It was a 'huge success' because it brought attention to the issue. Not because it helped reduce CO2 in any way shape or form. Unless you consider masses of people switching from lightbulbs to less efficient candles for an hour then proudly reporting any weekly downward variation in demand from the power grid that hour as tonnes of CO2 emissions stopped.

The political left has glammed onto the GW thing like dog feces on a gumboot. Where is the debate?
They think we wont notice?

Al Gore was first a "politician".

strange, stephen - you state that you are a professional geologist but your acceptance of AGW is a profoundly unscientific action. No, the 'majority of scientists' don't agree that AGW is valid. And the 'some people' who disagree aren't just 'people'; they are scientists.

Just one example of scientific opposition to AGW was outlined by Greg - the 2008 Heartland Conference.

I don't know if you've noticed that the verbiage of those promoting AGW has moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Or that the solutuion proposed by these AGW promoters has been a money scam, where the industrial nations pay to build factories in so-called 'developing nations' such as China and India - which are totally exempt from any emissions or pollution controls. Doesn't sound like an agenda of reducing emissions/pollution. Sounds like an agenda of getting the West to pay for the industrial factories of China/India.

So, I find your comment strange - that you are a professional geologist, and yet, you glide over the scientific expertise of the dissenters of AGW (some people) and readily accept the statements of the IPCC - many of whom are not expert in that area.

"An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue."

.....in addition to making Al Gore a very large pile of cash, publicity, and a Nobel Peace Prize.

Phil Chapman, a physicist and astronaut with NASA, said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees. "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back to where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. My guess is that the odds are now at 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in the coming decades."

But, the science is settled! Just ask Big Al and his phony side-kick Suzuki.

The woman responsible for CGG (computer generated graphics) for 'The Day After Tomorrow admitted that Gore's piece was from the movie. She was fine with it, because it 'illustrated the problem'.

I'm sure glad there are experts on this type of thing because I sure would not have believed all the hoopla over GW based on the facts. That goes to show you that we need more experts like Al (ex-vp, inventor of the internet and nobel prize winner) Gore.

A little something from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
"Propaganda....1a: an organized program of publicity, selected information, etc. used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc. 1b: usu. derogatory the information, doctrines, etc. propagated in this way, esp. regarded as misleading or dishonest."

Given the breathtaking level of deception practiced by Mr. Gore and his backers in presenting "climate science" in an Inconvenient Truth, it is small wonder that conspiracy theories abound.

BTW Samuel you may want to Google Maurice Strong, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Bilderberger Group, Trilateral Commission, etc. This is also fertile ground for conspiracy theory.

Psst. Glaciers don't "calve" icebergs unless they are GROWING. Shrinking glaciers simply retreat. So whether it was CGG isn't the issue. The issue is that the footage doesn't support the premise.

Neither does the science, but the intelligent people already understand that.

Poor lefties. Yet another great social scheme thwarted by that pesky "science", stuff.

I appreciate Samuel's comments -- a little bit of cool reflection from the other side of the debate. I arrived at my skepticism over several days when I reviewed the IPCC reports because of genuine concern that AGW might be a serious threat i.e. the most serious threat facing mankind. But I approached the issue with a question, "Is AGW a serious threat or is it not?" Having reviewed the papers including the methods, the results, the conclusions and discussions, using the critical appraisal methods I apply to other scientific papers, and having cross referenced the information where appropriate, I concluded that human CO2 production has no appreciable affect on climate. Subsequent reading has confirmed my opinion.
The key point here is not my conclusion, but how it was reached. Whereas I entered the exercise with a question and sought scientifically acquired information to answer it, my impression is that far too many people enter the exercise with an agenda, and cherry pick scientifically acquired data to rationalize it. That basic flaw of thinking is what has me so flabergasted, frustrated and disgusted with the AGW crowd -- the conclusion was foregone before any data were parsed (if any data were parsed at all). For the likes of Gore and Suzuki it's gone the next step from error of logic to apocalyptic religion.
Were these two simply a couple of loons ranting on a street corner, I wouldn't be too worried. What has me more worried is the ease with they've co-opted a goodly number of people, most of whom have supposedly passed through our education system and apparently done so without even the most basic tools for evaluating scientific information while living in a world immersed in the results of science and technology, from the cars they drive, to the computers they use, to the food they eat, to the buildings they live in and their entertainments -- scientific marvels all. What does this bode for the future, a population of scientific illiterates at the mercy of pseudoscientific demagogues? The earth will do what it's going to do, but will human beings in modern societies have the intellectual tools to adapt to the changes? Or will they fall back on the superstitions and fears of our scientifically primitive ancestors? And when the whole AGW nonsense is exposed for the sham that it is, where will that leave the prospects of creating a scientific thinking population?

ET

I'm going to assume that was directed towards me.

I hardly think that "accepting" AGW is a profoundly unscientific action, but I suppose that's where the debate lies.

As far as my "some people" comment, it wasn't meant to be condescending. Scientists are people too. =)

Scientific bodies "accepting" AGW.

Here, here, Samuel. Yet one doesn't need a grand conspiracy theory to question...

They do what they're allowed to do. No more, no less. It's another cog in the wheel of the new world order written of in scripture.

It's funny though, while people such as Vitruvius question the minutia of how trees grow, the forest takes over.

AL GORE IS A BARE FACED LIAR HE IS LYING JUST LIKE BILL CLINTON DID HE DONT DESERVE ANY AWARDS JUST A SWIFT KICK SQUAWK SQUAWK

I continue to stand by my offer to Al Gore and his wealthy eco-conscious celebrity chums.

First, Al and gang reduce their "carbon footprint" to the same level as mine.

Then we all go down to the next level together.

And so on, and so on.

I'm waiting...

I was listening to National Public Radio from New York State this morning (I can't listen to CBC Ottawa for too long while driving - it makes me nauseous).

Prattling on about "green" this-and-that in the wake of Earth Day, the commentator mentioned something about rock stars doing "eco-friendly" performances and tours.

Except that, by delightful unintentional irony, it came out as "ego-friendly."

Ha!

Forget global warming, prepare for Ice Age

AGW is first and foremost a political issue. No regulatory body that we rely on today would "license" AGW if it was held to the same standards of research and proof as say pharmaceuticals ... or herbicides. But politics has propelled AGW forward anyway.

Samuel: I call bullshit on your sanguine approach. Any genuine scientist would recoil at the political interference, condescending language, black-balling, funding pressures, emotionalism, duplicity, blackmail, and rhetoric of the warm-mongering camp. And, that includes above all some of the key scientists involved.

I call you out Sam, as no more than a partisan, because you can brush over, with a smile, the heinous political activism and unprofessional rhetoric emanating from your side. I find your gentile tones offensive because those scientists you support are at this moment involved in the worst kind of political interference, power buying, and ass-covering possible; and their language when dealing with “deniers” is incredibly unbecoming. Until you can address the politics behind the AGW movement I will put you into the useful idiot category. Every dangerous movement that ever was had them ... and ironically, the most useful idiots were always some of the most intelligent among us.

Those of us who oppose AGW at least admit we are partisans .. useful idiots seldom do because in their minds they've risen above it.

Just another deception added to the "inconvenient" list.

If AGW is correct, then why do supporters allow charlatans, liars and hypocrites to lead the charge?

Rightfully this creates questions and opposition.

If the science is correct, why is Gore falsifying and omitting vital information? The hockey stick graph, the ice core samples and now a CGI film sequence presented as real footage.

Of course people suspect massive fraud. And of course they'll follow the wealth transfer scheme to see who is benefiting.

Dr. D: Just to provide another perspective I arrived at my understanding about climate science in the exact opposite manner. I started out thinking – if I thought about it at all – that it was a way for eco groups to get money from people (similar to the way they use baby seals). As I slowly became interested in it I came across a number of skeptic arguments which I thought were good (CO2 saturation, UHI effect, and a number of others). As I read up on these I realized that they did not hold up scientifically. Well, as an engineer I only need to be hit in the head a dozen times before I can come to a conclusion.

So, I would not agree that if people look at the evidence they will come out against global warming. However I do agree with you that we should teach more critical thinking in school (and based on recent conversations some more basic physics would not go astray). When my daughter told me last year she believed in global warming my first comment was “Why”?

I continue to spend my time looking at the skeptic arguments, hoping to find one that is solid enough that I can resume my previous stance. Hasn’t happened yet, but I will keep looking.

Regards,
John

US Public TV's Frontline .... just a couple of days ago.
A one hour production aimed at discrediting the critics of the AGW scam.
Not only promoting Warming as a fact but activiely supporting the Gore version of AGW.

Pure propaganda .... so the next time their begging for money I'll be calling to NOT pledge a damned thing .... ever again.

The AGW Kyoto Scam should have been exposed in a matter of months. But our beloved Media silenced those who knew it was a scam and gave barrels of ink to the fraudsters, IMO.

Also, IMO, accessories to the fraud include the United Nations, Universities, Hollywood, and our Public School System.

I suspect many in the Environmental field are furious with the way their profession was taken over by the Fraudsters. It simply got away on them.

While presenting melting glaciers as proof of man made global warming, did Al Gore have a disclaimer flashing on the screen ?

'Computer generated scenes for illustrative purposes only'

If not, Exhibit A ?

note the last paragraph.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

John Cross: What about all the "wal-mart parking lot temperature sensors" what about those?

Bob: I think that documenting them is a good and worthwhile exercise. However we must be careful in assessing the effects of what we see.

Over at Climate Audit, John V did an analysis where he plotted the average of the best sites and compared it to the average of the worst sites. The result showed very little difference. Now, his analysis is not the final say, but I think that it indicative that we can not say that there is a problem without further analysis - not just cataloging.

Regards,
John

Dr.D
I greatly appreciated reading your well written post.
I have been doing research in the private sector almost all of my adult life and also have come to the same conclusion as you. What stuns me is that the science behind AGW is so weak and fraudulent that an IQ of well below average should be able to see it. However, as you said it has nothing to do science and everything to do with a quasi religious order that brainwashes people into ignoring critical thinking.
I hang on to the a simple principal that "truth always triumphs eventually" to get me through the mind boggling stupidity of our times.

Learn something everyday - Fry eggs on a sidewalk ? Naw, green grass will do it just as well.

John, did it show a difference of about 0.2 degrees C by any chance?

Not sure Phantom, I recall something like that but I would have to dig back through Climate Audit to find out.

John

AIT, the Fraudulent Movie. Why was Al Gore not run out of town long ago ?

Because a lot of people really don't mind Con Artists ? Even inmates have a ranking. Child Molesters at the bottom, Con Artists at the top. Because bilking those with, is seen by some as an evening-up ?

Kyoto, just another con - on a grand scale. Countries, instead of people. Hippies, without cars, hitch-hiking on the establishment.

The scientific method is the attempt to provide analytical evidence to support your argument that is created using well formed formal logic. In most cases the approach that is used is you demonstrate that it isn't the case that your hypothesis is incorrect.

To put this in terms of global warming, the typical approach would be to prove that the "warming" trend we have seen can not be natural, and that it is not/can not be a neutral or positive occurance.

What a large portion of the Global Warming "Science" is, is assuming the hypothesis and then demonstrating how this could be negative using computer models. This is not the scientific method!

Heh, heh... Suzuki Sidekick...

http://www.whiteknight.ca/Img_0121.jpg

A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by someone over the Internet for permission to use one of my photos that he found in an on-line album. It was a photo of a groundhog with green grass in the background and he wanted to use it to illustrate an article demonstrating that spring was arriving earlier due to global warming. Since the photo was clearly labeled as having been taken in early July (five months after Groundhog Day), I though it was a bit disingenuous of him to use it to make a point, but I guess stretching the truth is OK with these people if it's in a 'good cause'.

I tried to watch the video but it seems to have been removed. Oh well.

As for the placement of thermometers, 0.2 degrees C would account for about 1/3 of the warming seen in the 20th century. A non-trivial matter.

Cross, et al,

serious question here.

What is the effect in terms of solar radiation from a big hole in the ozone layer on temp. and how is the thickness of the ozone layer add/subtract to any temp change?

Do these holes correspond to the places that show warming?

Ok, the video is back again. Must have been a glitch here.

So, the beef here is that two hysterical environmental movies used the same shot? Sorry, not feeling the outrage.

Kydor,

Like a typical leftard, you miss the morality of lying. It's wrong because it's dishonest.

Keep up the fight, comrade. The propagandists need you!

The errors and dishonesty of AIT (an inconvenient truth)puts into question the credibility of both Gore and the claims of AGW.

Through AIT's promotion by the media, The Nobel Committee and Academy Awards, it has been made a popular symbol of AGW. AIT was produced to educate non-scientific people about AGW. Yet its science (according to a UK judge)is inaccurate and its scenes are contrived. If this prominent symbol of AGW is a work of fiction then perhaps so too is the science that it was developed from.

The revelation that AIT is a fiction not fact should alert the public and media to look deeper into the "settled science" for other false and misleading information.

It's the Pine Beetles fault now.....

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417566

"Like a typical leftard, you miss the morality of lying. It's wrong because it's dishonest."

Of all the piles of incredible junk science in the Goreacle's little propaganda film, you get outraged over what amounts to stock footage.

So, once again, I'm not feeling the outrage. Oh NOES stock footage! Gore LIED. No goddamn kidding. The entire film is nothing but exaggerations and crap science. Using stock footage, once again, is not a lie.

As for calling me a leftard, well, no I'm not. I don't think anyone has ever called me that before. Either conservatism is losing its way, or I am. Seeing as how my core beliefs have been the same for 20 years, then I would have to say that the movement is losing its way.

Kydor,

I think that the use of CG footage in a movie is ok, Day After Tomorrow wouldn't be much without them, but DAT was never put forward as a documentary.

Wikipedia defines documentary thus: Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. Note the word reality.

The use of CG footage in a documentary would be fine if it was presented as CG footage.

If polar bears are floundering around in the arctic seas in great numbers and massive chunks of ice 700 feet tall are floating around aimlessly, surely Gore could have gotten actual footage. He didn't because he couldn't, or at least thought that nobody would notice the difference. Either way, its a misrepresentation of reality.

Come to think about it, a floating piece of ice that stands 700 feet tall would have to be 7,000 feet thick. The chances of it going anywhere are remote at best given the depth of the Antarctic continental shelf at about 2,600 feet (800 m.) He clearly says it is floating and that it is 700 feet tall. Oh well, its just a documentary, not related to reality or anything.

Speaking of mind control.

Jeeze, you're starting to look desperate.

Hugger

Samual:

I have seen no evidence of this "consensus" you and the AGW crowd brag about. C.Adler put a call out to any expert who would like to argue on behalf of AGW in 2007 and none have stood up. Would you care to elaborate on who has signed on to this consensus and what their expertise is. I too am an engineer but that does not make me an expert in trains; therefore you being a geolog"ist" or Suzuki being a genetic"ist" doesn't make you an expert in all things "ist", except perhaps elit"ist".

"An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue."

What issue?

Jon

When did I claim to be an expert in all things "ist"?

You guys might get a laugh out of this:

F*ck the Earth Day (Language Warning!)

I don't get environmentalists opposition to global warming (if it is occuring)

Many of them seem to think that the world is over populated and that this is responsible to depleting resources. They would also argue that the manufacturing of more and more consumer goods and the land taken to feed up all is what is directly casuing global warming, thru increased polution etc etc etc...

The result of global warming from what they tell is that millions of people will die

and I say....

"Why don't we just let nature take its course. Millions will die thru an act of nature which is not a moral agent. The population will drop and global warming will cease to be a problem because there will be less of us.....who caused the problem in the first place"

Global warming is not the problem. Its the solution !

//sarcasm off

I find it curious that in the past 6 months of seeing john crosses' posts, I have not seen even ONE time where he's found favor with the work of anyone but a pro-agw CO2 scientist. What are the chances of that?

I get a kick out the CBC reporting on those poor saps that bought new electric mowers to replace those "poluting" gas mowers.
These electric mowers are essentially powered by coal but even worse yet coal burning plants that captures only 30% of the energy consumed after the conversion.
Another solution they offered was a solar charged battery powered mower. I have one and they can't shave a bald spot off a hairy arse.
I own one because we only have 500 square ft of lawn( and a noise law) and it barely has enough power to cut that.

"I suspect that some are people who don't understand how science works, some are people in denial, and some people objectively examine the data and reach a different conclusion than the majority of scientists. You have to consider whether that differing conclusion comes from a lack of expertise in evaluating the data or whether they have legitimate concerns."

Samual: I read your post again and you are right. My bad.

That being said if you read what I have in quotes you still come off as having a very haughty perspective (in my opinion). Having a differing opinion from you must point to a lack of expertise, or better yet ignorance. Consider this: as a geologist you don't have the expertise to see the politics of AWG that are at play.

Since you have expertly examined the "consensus" of the scientific community, would be so kind to provide a link to your unanimous list of scientists? Your statement infers that you have independently looked into this consensus, it wouldn't be very "scientific" to take the Goreicles word for it. That would be "faith".

Perhaps there are several considerations when sorting through the rhetoric from all sides of the debate:

The average experience of "Climate Scientists" is not more than 10 years. It is an expanding employment opportunity. The majority of "Climate Scientists" are employed by organizations in which Policy trumps science.

Scientists can be divided for sake of argument into three classes:

Those whose job it is to measure Reality honestly and accurately to find Truth.

Those whose job it is to support the Policy on which their continued employment depends.

Those whose income is not dependent on Policy by reason of being retired or being of independent means

Few are fortunate enough to fall into the first category.

Most fall in the second category.

A small number (relatively) occupy the unfettered third category. (Mostly old, experienced, properly disinterested old guys and girls)

Since scientists are drawn from the Human Race it would be wrong to assume they are not subject to the same virtues, vices, deficiencies, hopes, fears, desires, manipulations, persuasions, and coercions as everyone else. While we may dream them to above coercion and to adhere to the highest standards of ethics, there are rogues and opportunists. There are the weak and the bullies. There are the egotistic and the mild. And there are the principled.

There may be some value in filtering all opinions and statements through the above filters. One might also “follow the money” and judge on the basis of who benefits.

" I don't see why there's so much hostility toward them." -- Samuel

Because AGW is so clearly ideological, pushed by socialistic, anti-western ideologues who want to control other people's lives. The message is always so blatantly political. It's never, "it's too late to do anything", or, "it may not be too bad"; it's always "catastrophe is imminent, but can be averted if only you will let us run your lives".

That is why there is so much push-back.

Jon

I'm not sure what you're asking for here... I wouldn't say that I've really looked into the "consensus". Frankly, I don't care that much about "the consensus".

Scientific organizations in agreement with AGW.

Does that help?

Anyway, I've looked into some of the data that other scientists have used to conclude that AGW is legitamate, including studies "for" and "against", and concluded that we humans are likely having an affect on the global atmosphere, and that effect will continue to increase.

Maybe those carbon credits are working after all

Perhaps there are several considerations when sorting through the rhetoric from all sides of the debate:

The average experience of "Climate Scientists" is not more than 10 years. It is an expanding employment opportunity. The majority of "Climate Scientists" are employed by organizations in which Policy trumps science.

Scientists can be divided for sake of argument into three classes:

Those whose job it is to measure Reality honestly and accurately to find Truth.

Those whose job it is to support the Policy on which their continued employment depends.

Those whose income is not dependent on Policy by reason of being retired or being of independent means

Few are fortunate enough to fall into the first category.

Most fall in the second category.

A small number (relatively) occupy the unfettered third category. (Mostly experienced, properly-disinterested old guys and girls: Their careers are not at risk. The have the luxury of doing science for the sake of science.)

Since scientists are drawn from the Human Race it would be wrong to assume they are not subject to the same virtues, vices, deficiencies, hopes, fears, desires, manipulations, persuasions, and coercions as everyone else. While we may dream them to above coercion and to adhere to the highest standards of ethics, there are rogues and opportunists. There are the weak and the bullies. There are the egotistic and the mild. And there are the principled.

There may be some value in processing all opinions and statements through the above filters. One might also “follow the money” and judge on the basis of who benefits from the position taken.

Samual:

TY for the link to Wiki.

I think you do know what I am asking for, the list of 750 scientists who have for lack of a better term have "stamped" their names and reputations on this "settled" science. Engineers must "stamp" their work which says "I take responsibility for what I have said here, the design is settled."

You did get me again though, you said "majority" not "consensus". You must care somewhat about this "majority" since it is the basis and anchor for your argument.

All that needs to be said is - so?

That Gore used material from elsewhere is irrelevant and hardly deceitful unless he used the material without permission from the owners. If Gore used it without permission then there is potential for copyright infringement, otherwise the use of snippets from more than one media is hardly unusual, especially in documentaries.

As for it being deceitful because it was a manufactured graphic rather than actual footage, the question that idea raises is "does the graphic represent actual current/past events or faithfully represent a valid view of future events?" If so, then it is not deceitful.

Does someone here have evidence that the image does not reflect reality, or that it does not fit scientific predictions, or that it was used without permission? If you don't, then what basis do you have for claiming deceit? I mean other than your emotional response to science you don't like.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth"." All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude.

Included in the endorser list are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

Also:

Apr 23, 2008
Scientist Who voted for Gore in 2000 Now Debunks Warming Fears
By Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University

We’ve been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice Age in about 1600. We’ve been warming for 400 years, long before human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate. If we project the previous century into the coming one, my projection is that we will have about a half-a-degree of cooling from 2007 (plus or minus three to five years) to about 2040. Then it will start getting warmer as we enter the next warm cycle, followed by cooling again.

For a number of interviews, especially in the national news media, they ask ‘Are you a Republican?’ and I say ‘No, I�m not, as a matter of fact, I voted for Al Gore. I don�t want to pick on him because he�s not a scientist.’ The nonsense he spews comes from the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], so in a sense I don’t condemn him as much as I do the so-called climatologists like [James] Hansen, who says things that are idiotic. They’re the ones giving him all this stuff.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

agw hysteri-cysts, enjoy!

Gary Bohn,

Go back up to:
John Nicklin at April 23, 2008 3:42 PM

Your a snake-oil salesman's dream.

err - You're

Okay, so here's the problem I have with Gore illustrating his "An Inconvenient Truth" with Hollywood theatre. First, AIT doesn't portray itself as a piece intended to simply "raise awareness of an issue". If it were so it would present both sides of the issue. It would present a serious discussion of the criticisms of the AGW theory. AIT doesn't do that. It comes down squarely as claiming that human CO2 production is causing rising earth temperature with catastrophic results, and it claims that "science" supports that contention. It wraps itself in the flag of science. It attempts to take upon itself the authority of the scientific method without submitting itself to the responsibility or discipline of the scientific method. If, in a "science" documentary one chooses to speculate, then inform the viewer that what they will see is clearly speculation unless it is blatantly obvious (recreations of the appearances of dinosaurs for instance). Credit your sources. If the opening scene is fake then what else is fake? How much fakery takes us from "science documentary" to "Al Gore's Traveling Medicine Show"? Hey, I like listening to a good carney huckster as much as the next guy. It's fun. It's entertaining. But I know when I enter the fair grounds that that's what I'm in for. What I do not appreciate is going to a scientific meeting and getting PT Barnum. Likewise I do not appreciate PT Barnum muddying the waters for an already scientifically illiterate population by portraying himself as a spokesman for Einstein or his traveling medicine show as a documentary. Barnum made himself rich on the truth that, "There's a sucker born every minute." I shudder to think that he may have underestimated.

The other thing to consider is why the pro-AGWers refuse to openly debate the skeptics. If the settled science is so rock solid and their opposition are all quacks then the AGWers should jump at the chance to prove it. Instead they engage in character assassination, bully, threaten. They also claim that opposition are deniers, in the pockets of Big Oil or delusional conspiracy theorists. Those are not the actions of people who have a solid scientific case or in honest science. It looks more like an attempt to hide bad science behind a wall of aggression and exaggeration.

Samuel. Re: April 23 1:59

You state that you are one who “thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring”.

Could you explain what man-made condition is driving global temperature and how it works?

Just as an addendum, the graphic used by both Gore and "The Day After Tomorrow" was a depiction of a real event, the Larsen B calving.

Sorry folks, but Gore using the same graphic as TDAT is hardly deceit. Even the author of the graphic is OK with Gore's use of it.

Posted by: JJM: So deceit is fine as long as it brings "attention to the issue."

Turn up the bullshit detector sensitivity to 11 whenever you hear the phrase, "raising awareness".

>>Go back up to:
>>John Nicklin at April 23, 2008 3:42 PM

>>Your a snake-oil salesman's dream.

The points Nicklin makes would be good if they were true. CG is used in documentaries all the time, especially when the documentaries are about events where getting actual film is difficult, like the Larsen B calving. The calving was caught from above but not at the angle used by TDAT and Gore. The comment that Nicklin makes about "surely Gore could have gotten actual footage" is only valid if someone was there to take the film.

Nicklin's comment "floating piece of ice that stands 700 feet tall would have to be 7,000 feet thick. " would also be interesting if accurate, but it isn't. Gore was talking about the ice shelf that spawned Larsen B being 700 ft tall before the calving. Ice shelves for the most part do not float on the ocean because the ocean eats away at the underside leaving them suspended. It's the splash and subsequent wave created by the ice shelf drop that is so spectacular to watch. The icebergs resulting from the calving would not be sticking out of the water 700ft, but Gore did not say they did.

I'm sorry, but the post you directed me to did not debunk my statement in the least.

Posted by: OMMAG the next time their begging for money I'll be calling to NOT pledge a damned thing .... ever again.

I donated a couple hundred bucks to KSPS (because I like some of their programming) and I got a letter back from them this week. The contents of the letter was asking for MORE money!

Gore put it in there to deceive his audience or he would have acknowledged it source. Just because TDAT's author okays it does not make the deception more palatable. Besides AIT has a pattern of stretching the truth. Here are the other 9 errors in the film (as ruled by a UK judge):

1 Sea levels will rise by up to 20 feet "in the near future."
2 Pacific atolls have been evacuated.
3 Gulf Stream will shut down.

4 Graphs showing rise in temperature and carbon dioxide are "an exact fit."

5 Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.

6 Global warning dried up Lake Chad.
7 Global warming is bleaching coral reefs

8 Polar bears drowned when they couldn't find ice.

9 Global warming melted snow on Mount Kilimanjaro.

>>Psst. Glaciers don't "calve" icebergs unless they are GROWING. Shrinking glaciers simply retreat. So whether it was CGG isn't the issue. The issue is that the footage doesn't support the premise.

No, glaciers don't calve unless they are moving over open water, the operative word is "moving". However, ice shelfs are not glaciers in the sense you seem to be talking about where movement of land based glaciers creates large icebergs as the ice reaches the ocean (or some other warmth). Ice shelves calve, which is actually a collapse, when water develops on the surface thinning it from the top and warmth from the ocean eats away at the bottom until the shelf cannot support its own weight.

>> Neither does the science, but the intelligent people already understand that.

If the science you are supporting is anything like the misunderstanding you posted above, then climatologists have nothing to worry about.

>> Poor lefties. Yet another great social scheme thwarted by that pesky "science", stuff.

From this I suspect you believe harbouring extreme doubt about anthropogenic climate change is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a conservative.

Go to www.darwincentral.org, which is a group of American conservatives, many who are working scientists who do not doubt global warming.

>> Posted by: Sober2ndThought at April 23, 2008 10:02 AM

I can't say your argument was terribly convincing, sorry.

>>if the science is sound, if the fate of the population is certain, why the trickery? why the ruse?

>>it's insulting
Posted by: bruce riley at April 23, 2008 5:57 AM

What ruse?

Gore screws up in the movie often enough for complaints to be made, but this one little segment is accurate.

lynnh: Two responses to your comments. First, Andrew Dessler tried all fall to get a skeptic to go to his class to discuss global warming with them. He could not get anyone to participate. However he did arrange a debate with Dr. Ball through some sort of phone in show - but Dr. Ball ended up not showing up.

In regards to the judge finding "errors" in AIT, if you read the judgment it shows that the errors are in the examples Gore used in his movie. The judge is quite clear that he accepts the science behind AGW.

As always, links available upon request.

John

>>Posted by: bruce riley at April 23, 2008 6:38 AM

The link you posted is quite interesting. If the scientists do have scientific evidence that solar forcing is superseding anthropogenic forcing I would like to see it. It would surely be a refreshing change from current anti-AGW arguments.

I like listening to a good carney huckster as much as the next guy. It's fun. It's entertaining. But I know when I enter the fair grounds that that's what I'm in for.

Hey DrD, maybe the MSM *is* the fair grounds, it's just that most people don't realize it yet and think it's there for education and enlightenment.

Gary Bohn,

I wasn't trying to "debunk" anything. Just attempting to point out the direction where reality lives.

Some of us actually like reality a bit more than Hollywood's "based on reality" shows.

BTW: I like watching ninjas jumping 30 feet into air to fight ... it's entertainment, not science.

>>>Just one example of scientific opposition to AGW was outlined by Greg - the 2008 Heartland Conference.

I just went to a site that listed the speakers of that conference and performed a short random sampling of the qualifications and expertise of those speakers. It seems the number of scientists is low and the number of scientists actively researching climate even lower.

Since you are the one posting this link, could you please present a break down of the number of scientists in total and the number of active climate scientists speaking at that conference?

I guess I'll have to thank you for all that work you will be doing ahead of time, so thank you.

While you are at it could you explain to me how that conference is objective? After all, you anti-AGW people do complain about the AGW proponent's agenda, making consideration of agenda fair game.

>>I don't know if you've noticed that the verbiage of those promoting AGW has moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.

The term climate change and the understanding that changes in factors such as reflection of light from glaciers (we now call albedo) would cause strange and wonderful changes to the environment since the late 1800s.

(See Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Chamberlin)

In the 1950's, physical models of fluid dynamics showed that changes in one factor influences all the others. Other models showed similar effects. (See Ewing and Donn, and Phillips)

The only motive behind the insistence of scientists for journalists to use climate change instead of global warming is because there is a common error of understanding of the affects of global temperature increases on local weather patterns. Many seem to think that global warming indicates a smooth, incremental, consistent increase in temp where each year has to be warmer than the preceding year, and that all localities will experience the same weather patterns as in the past, only warmer. This misunderstanding seems to be fueled by the term 'global warmng'. Climate change is less likely to cause it.

To a scientist, global warming is the statistically predictable increase in global mean temperatures over time. Climate change is the consequence of that warming, primarily on arbitrarily selected local patterns.

>>Or that the solutuion proposed by these AGW promoters has been a money scam, where the industrial nations pay to build factories in so-called 'developing nations' such as China and India - which are totally exempt from any emissions or pollution controls. Doesn't sound like an agenda of reducing emissions/pollution. Sounds like an agenda of getting the West to pay for the industrial factories of China/India.

OK, on the publicly promoted solutions I have to agree with you, they are restrictive instead of expansive, high in cost, low in benefit, and disruptive.

>>So, I find your comment strange - that you are a professional geologist, and yet, you glide over the scientific expertise of the dissenters of AGW (some people) and readily accept the statements of the IPCC - many of whom are not expert in that area.

Which group from the IPCC are you talking about, Group I, Group II, Group III, or the politicians?

>>Posted by: ET at April 23, 2008 9:40 AM

The fact is that AIT is supposedly to educate the public about AGW. But the examples are wrong. Therefore its credibility and its educational value are also suspect.

BTW - What predictions have the IPCC or Gore made that have come true? Warming in the troposphere? Warming in the Oceans? Warming on the surface? Hurricanes? Things that can be proven to be caused by AGW.

The proposers of AGW should have to prove their case based on being right about actual events rather than skeptics having to disprove science that is based on models.

"In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless....Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science...If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html

They have debated and the AGW were the clear losers, even with a crowd who at the beginning were AGW believers.

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.

'So deceit is fine as long as it brings "attention to the issue."'

I would hardly call it deceit. It is just a video supplement for his slide show.

Plus, you completely missed the point I was trying to make. My point was that all of the science behind climate change is not based on An Inconvenient Truth. Trying to disprove global warming by pointing out flaws in Al Gores movie just goes to show that you global warming deniers don't really have a leg to stand on.

If you want to learn about climate change, don't listen to Hollywood, or a politician. Try listening to what the scientists are saying. Read as much as you can on the subject and then make up your own mind.

I agree with Jason!

And here's a few sites that do exactly what he says:

http://icecap.us/index.php

The above site prints and links to articles from scientists around the globe.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

These are just a few of many sites, where quite a few scientists of various fields come together to discuss the coming global cooling (which has already begun).

lynnh: If you accept that there are examples that are wrong because the judge said so, then you must accept that the science is sound. If that is the case, then great, lets make sure that the examples are out into context while at the same time saying that the science is solid.

If you don't want to accept the judges ruling on the science, then that is also fine, lets open the "errors" to discussion as well. But you can't have it both ways.

If you want to see what the scientific community says about the "errors" then Tim Lambert has a very good rundown.

In regards to people "proving" their case, I would say it is even more fundamental than that. I always like to come back to my three points:

1) We are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.

2) Increasing CO2 will cause an increase in downward longwave radiation.

3) More infrared radiation will mean more heat energy will be transfered to the ground.

Regards,
John

Posted by: otter at April 23, 2008 8:23 PM

I find it interesting that temperature data from the 1930's is considered accurate, but modern data isn't.

Then there is the 1998 threshold that someone addressed here recently.

And then your source says, "so in a sense I don’t condemn him as much as I do the so-called climatologists like [James] Hansen, who says things that are idiotic."

Anyone who says something like that about NASA's top climate expert is suspect in my view, so I looked into his credentials.

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology

First, I discovered he is retired. From that same source they point out there are a considerable number of economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, amateurs and industry-supported scientists plus 49 retirees who are included in the list of 400 experts opposing global warming concepts.

Then I found this;

http://www.library.wwu.edu/specialcollections/findingaids/easterbrookd.htm

Contained here, you will find a list of published works by Dr. Easterbrook. I didn’t see any on Climatology.

It would appear those would come after the year 2000, thus Hansen's studies specific to climate change span a much longer period of time.

I expect few would argue Easterbrook's background in his specific area, that of a teacher and scholar of geology, specializing in glacial geology, including effects of climatic influence. Thus his input could be seen as another stone on a large pile. As a teacher/Professor, is it fair to assume Easterbrook also relies heavily on data gathered by other sources rather than his own personal efforts?

Hugger

John Cross @8:35 am

I'll suggest another 'principle' for you.

When politicians turn an environmental issue into a money-making fear-mongering industry using computer graphics to 'increase awareness' we have reason to be skeptical.

but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view.
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 12:56 AM

Something for you to think about lynnh. Firstly, I think most people would be much happier if these global warming/climate change people had never been heard from. Many if not most would prefer them to be proven wrong and just go away so we can go on as we were. But that's not my main point.

If you are old enough, think back to when Trudeau and Joe Clark debated. Trudeau was very good at debate, had a tremendous memory and in fact made Clark look foolish. We know how that turned out. Fast forward 40 odd years, and it looks a little different now doesn't it?

My point is, the publics perception of debate can be influenced by any number of factors, not solely the strength of arguments and positions offered. Their ability to comprehend via spoken word is very much a factor. Consider the rather lengthy technical explanations given here on this blog, and the ensuing arguments particularly by those who don't understand the material.

Take this blogging world as further example. There is a lot of skulduggery afoot there. Blocking posts and links, withholding posts until numerous other blog entries have taken peoples' attention away from that topic, routing controversial material that doesn't support the desired message to persons for study and rebuttal, which is then posted on current threads.

Lot's of things to consider about influencing peoples thinking.

Hugger

Perhaps they just were weak debaters but then again maybe they lost the debate because the facts do not support the AGW theory. It would take more debates to confirm that. I, for one, would welcome a sereies of debates.

As for the judge, the facts confirmed that AIT was inaccurate. The judges feelings were that AGW is real but without facts..just emotion. I do not put much stock in feelings, even a judges. They are too subjective.

John and Greg, you have yet to address one point. Why are none of the predictions being observed in nature? It should be the proponents proving their theory by observations in nature not skeptics disproving computer models. In classic scientific methods the onus is on the AGWers not the skeptics. To demand that skeptics prove a negative is a perversion of science.

More public debate needed!!!

More infrared radiation will mean more heat energy will be transfered to the ground.

Really? Have you measured this heat the ground has supposedly "received back" from the atmosphere?

Yes ol hoss they have. Please see Figure 4 of this.

As the caption describes the top pannel shows the atmospheric longwave irradiance during nighttime and as you can see the value is significant - on the order of 190 W/m2.

It should be the proponents proving their theory by observations in nature not skeptics disproving computer models.
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Ah! Thank you for bringing us all the way back to where I started.

Repeating part of one of my first posts, I say for me it is not so much the Science as it is what I can see, feel and touch. This, it so happens supports the position of the majority of Scientist. I posted that over the last decade, my observations support Climate change. In fact, its more two decades, but I was trying to be conservative.

In the 50's, 60's and 70's I remember consistent winters. Some worse, some not as bad. That began to change in the 80's, more so in the 90's and the soft winters of the new millennium have added much weight. Even this past winter was not comparable. I don't even jump at every major occurrence such as Katrina to support my views. An East Coaster is used to storms.

I do put stock in the continued erosion of coastline though. In my lifetime I have seen entire building lots consumed, sea walls built to hold back the erosion not being sufficient as was the case this winter. Some properties close to me lost half a city building lot and the huge cement blocks placed as a sea wall, washed out to the low tide mark.

If the Sea wasn't rising, how could it keep coming further up the landscape and eroding more and more land?

Here is a link and an excerpt from an article I posted earlier;

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

* Geological data suggests that global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last 3000 years.
* However, tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of sea level rise during the 20th century was 1 to 2 mm/yr.

Along relatively flat coastlines, such as those of the Atlantic, or coastlines bordering fertile, highly populated river deltas, a 1 mm rise in sea level causes a shoreline retreat of about 1.5 meters. We are already seeing evidence of shoreline retreat in the U.S.:

* Along the Atlantic Coast of the USA, erosion is narrowing beaches and washing out vacation houses. As sea level rises and coastal communities continue to grow and pump water from aquifers, salt water intrusion into groundwater will become a greater problem.

I have a link from Natural Resources Canada for a greater number of coastal areas on request.

That being said, we awoke to more April like weather this morning as opposed to the record high temperatures of recent days. With a brisk wind, rolling Seas and some driving rain. As I peered out onto Me Ocean, I saw a curious thing. There, before my eyes was a gigantic propeller boat flying a banner bearing the word "Gore", riding shotgun was a little man with white hair, horns and a tail. He was crying loudly, "No more photo ops Al, to the Bus to the Bus I say!"

Mr. Suzuki I presume...

Hugger

Those poor Alarmists - they just don't realize what they are doing; give Idiots enough rope and they will end up hanging themselves.

But I was talking about objective data like satellites recording surface temperature, troposphere temperatures and and oceans temperatures. Even the IPCC admits that there has not been temperature increases in the last decade, despite the rising of human CO2. I have not seen any predictions proved accurate. The AGWers have not proved anything either by direct observation or by exclusion of all other possible factors.

The earth, oceans and lakes have always changed and always will. My community sits in an ancient lake that once stretched for hundreds of miles, before that it was covered in glaciers, now it is parkland, in the future it will be something else. Change is natural and humans adapt. Money towards adaptation is money well spent, the Kyoto scheme is not.

I posted links April 22 on the first blog entry on The Sound of Settled Science from Hansen. If you look for Posted by: Greg at April 23, 2008 2:33 PM, you will find them. Reading this indicates his conclusions are based on averaged temperatures from earth based censoring devices. Thus, if you accept this then there is proof of temperature increases.

In my post above there is information on how much sea level has increased in the 20th compared to previous centuries. I think this is significant indication of what I see personally. Plus the Natural Resources Canada link I mentioned shows some extraordinary changes in some areas.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/potentialimpacts/coastalsensitivitysealevelrise/1

Ex. Northeast Graham Island, British Columbia. This is one of two regions of high sensitivity in British Columbia - the score is 24.8. The sandy bluffs in this photo are retreating up to 12 metres annually, supplying sediment to prograding beaches elsewhere in the region.

Can you provide some links that indicate what has brought you to your conclusions regarding Kyoto?

Hugger

Here is a few

1.http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
2.http://www.reason.com/news/show/125323.html
3.http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
4.http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/ny_climate_conference_journey.html
5.http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_epicycles_of_global_warmin.html
6.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
7.http://tinyurl.com/327e2j
8.http://tinyurl.com/6s72xl
9.http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/
10.http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002878.html
11.http://tinyurl.com/5uftp8

Gee, that should keep me busy. Which are your favorites??

Hugger

That is the short list.

I think that you will find that skeptics generally rely on many sources. In fact, as an environmentalist, I initially leaned towards belief in AGW. But as the the proponents descended into attack and exaggeration, I became more skeptical. The more I researched, the less credible the AGW science seems. At this point all I see is politicians as business masquerading as environmentalists for a quick buck.

It is distracting the public away from real environmental protection. As the scam is revealed, this will erode future credibility of not only environmentalism but science in general. That is its biggest crime.

Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 4:39 PM

I have had a look at the first two links, and I don't think you understood my original request.

The National post link seems to deal with a series of articles which outlines persons who disagree with various aspects of global warming/climate change science, and lists their credentials. Not much more. The 2nd link goes into arguing specifics of science.

What I was asking is what is it about the Kyoto agreement itself that you dislike? For example, what is your understanding of how Carbon trading is supposed to work?

Hugger

Carbon taxes are in the Kyoto protocol -> the Kyoto protocol is based on AGW -> I do not believe in AGW -> Therefore regarding carbon taxes :"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton"

As the caption describes the top pannel shows the atmospheric longwave irradiance during nighttime and as you can see the value is significant - on the order of 190 W/m2.

That doesn't show any added heat to the ground. It only shows the atmosphere radiates heat.

The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton"
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 6:32 PM

Does he work for the government?

Hugger

>>Posted by: ural at April 24, 2008 12:07 AM

>>I wasn't trying to "debunk" anything. Just attempting to point out the direction where reality lives.

Huh? Then why did you direct me to a post with no obvious link to reality?

>>Some of us actually like reality a bit more than Hollywood's "based on reality" shows.

I take it then that you refuse to accept documentaries that use actors to portray historical characters?

>>BTW: I like watching ninjas jumping 30 feet into air to fight ... it's entertainment, not science.

I assume this is an attempt to portray documentaries that use actors or CG to depict historically accurate (as far as possible) events as being as inaccurate as ninja movies. Nice try, but there is significant difference in using CG to depict actual events and a movie where actors defy known physics.

>>Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 12:56 AM

>>They have debated and the AGW were the clear losers, even with a crowd who at the beginning were AGW believers.

>>Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

>>Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov

>>Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

>>Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.

I have a question - when did science become a popularity contest decided at public debates?

I always thought science was done through research, hypothesis testing and peer review.

All a debate shows is that some are better showmen than others. Most audiences are hardly in a position to understand the science, especially in a debate where every argument is a 30 second sound bite.

>>Posted by: Jason at April 24, 2008 5:45 AM

>>If you want to learn about climate change, don't listen to Hollywood, or a politician. Try listening to what the scientists are saying. Read as much as you can on the subject and then make up your own mind.

Now there is a comment that needs to be repeated frequently. At least until it sinks in.

>>Posted by: otter at April 24, 2008 6:22 AM

>>These are just a few of many sites, where quite a few scientists of various fields come together to discuss the coming global cooling (which has already begun).

April, there have been scientists convinced of the impending onset of global cooling - some expecting it tomorrow, others in a couple of thousand years - since the understanding of the cyclical nature of glaciation events and the realization that Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics, and large injections of aerosols into the atmosphere can initiate climate change. However they have always been a minority, somewhere around 10%.

There have been scientists contemplating the effects of CO2 and changes in glaciation since the late 1800s (Tyndall). Even then they understood that increases in GHGs would cause temperature increases.(Arrhenius) In fact they came to realize that without GHGs and other atmospheric solar energy modifiers, the Earth would be far colder. (Fourier)

The temperature would be similar to that of the moon, ~-150C on the side away from the sun and ~100C on the sunny side.

As long as there has been an atmosphere, and more recently, a biosphere, there has been a 'greenhouse effect' regulating temperatures.

>>Posted by: bluetech at April 24, 2008 9:14 AM

>>When politicians turn an environmental issue into a money-making fear-mongering industry using computer graphics to 'increase awareness' we have reason to be skeptical.

Yes, yes you do, you have reason to be skeptical of the politicians and their motives. This skepticism should lead you to examine the work of the scientists directly, without relying on second hand information from doubters who have their own agenda.

Be a skeptic, not a blind doubter.

>>lynnh at April 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Perhaps they just were weak debaters but then again maybe they lost the debate because the facts do not support the AGW theory. It would take more debates to confirm that. I, for one, would welcome a sereies of debates.

How about before you entertain a debate that will generally be information poor, you read the IPCC Group I Technical summary, followed by the underlying technical papers and maybe some from the NOAA. That will at least give you a working basis for understanding and evaluating the arguments.

Why are none of the predictions being observed in nature?

Do you have a full list of predictions, or just the cherry picked ones listed in your previous post?
How many predictions have been made? How many have panned out, how many not? Have you bothered to investigate the predictions, or have you just stuck to reading Anti-AGW sites that only mention those that they believe have not been validated?

ol hoss: so is your argument now that if we shine 190 W/m2 on an object it will not receive heat?

John

Debate has always been part of scientific discovery. It is a necessary part of the process. It is a safeguard that protects against junk science.

Make a theory, test it, make it falsifiable, ensure results can be reproduce, make the data available to others and then defend it against critics. A process that shuts down discussion by declaring "the science is settled", "All skeptics are Big Oil Deniers" and "throw skeptical politicians in jail" is not part of the normal process. If the proponents are not willing to openly debate skeptics then it indicates that even they their science it too weak to stand up to serious scrutiny.

But again, it is up to the AGWers to prove their theory through actual, observable data in nature not up to the skeptics to disprove human generated computer models about future events. The burden of proof is on the propenents. So the better question is - What AGW/IPCC predictions have been proven and then confirmed by 3rd party scientist?

But I was talking about objective data like satellites recording surface temperature, troposphere temperatures and and oceans temperatures. Even the IPCC admits that there has not been temperature increases in the last decade, despite the rising of human CO2. I have not seen any predictions proved accurate. The AGWers have not proved anything either by direct observation or by exclusion of all other possible factors.

Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 2:35 PM

To say that there has been no increase in temperature during the last 10 years is, in my opinion, purposeful and misleading cherry picking. One decade ago, the average global temperature was at its highest recorded level. It was so high it could be, except for the high confidence the records give us, considered anomalous. Starting a trend line from an anomalous data point will force an extremely biased outcome. This appears to be intentional on the part of anti-AGW people. If you pick either the preceding year, or the following year, or any other year closer to the curve than 1998, the result is a totally different picture. Picking the last year in the series also affects the apparent trend line. If that point diverges from the curve significantly, it too will bias the curve until later data points give a more accurate trend.

The following is a collection of temperature anomalies (from the normal) for the years 1990 to 2007. Each number is the variance, in Celsius, from the average of an arbitrary range of years, called the normal. The normal simply creates a base line. The purpose isn't to give absolute temperature values but change.

.2542, .2118, .0612, .1053, .1710, .2755, .1371, .3509, .5456*, .2959, .2699, .4084, .4642, .4734, .4473, .4817, .4216, .4021

You can see that from 1990 to 2007 the trend line is increasing. The trend line can only be claimed to be decreasing if you dishonesty choose for a trend line endpoint a point that would in many data analysis, be considered an outlier - like 1998.

Both a curve built from five year averages, and a best fit polynomial curve for the entire range, show the trend continuing to rise.

There are several predictions that can be made. One prediction is that the stratospheric temperatures will decrease, the tropospheric temperatures will increase and the surface temperature will increase if the case is GHG. If it is solar forcing (from whatever ultimate cause), the pattern would be different in that the stratospheric temperature would also be increasing.

What is found the the pattern suggested by GHGs.

There you go, this is one prediction that has been validated by observations of hard data.

The other objections you have mentioned to AGW warming are similar, they are only a problem if you cherry pick your data.

Many other factors, including solar forcing, have been considered and rejected. Whoever told you they are being ignored is simply wrong.

>>lynnh at April 24, 2008 4:39 PM

I took a look at two randomly chosen links from your post. What I found was the reliance on polls and newspaper articles to determine the support level for AGW among climatologists.

If you want to get an accurate picture of the support level for a science, any science, the only way is to look at the papers published and the number of citations made to those papers.

Here is the latest survey:

2004 - Oreskes: Of 928 abstracts found 75% support for AGW, and 25% that were about methods or paleoclimatology. None disagreed.

Although I suspect there were dissenting papers missed in this survey, the result epitomizes the Anti-AGW method - don't publish papers, don't do any research, cherry pick data that can be popularized and run to the media.

Just to back up Gary Bohn, Hansen's Bulldog over at Open Mind has done a lot of the statistical work looking at the temperature trends. I can confirm from a discussion I recently that if you look at certain datasets with certain start points you can see flat or even negative trends, the problem is that these tend to have R2 coefficients of around 0.02! Try presenting that as a significant result.

John

No you have not proved the point. The "normal" temperature baseline you choose is itself not reflective of the wide variance of earth temperatures throughout the ages. In fact todays temperatures fall well within the maximum and minimum temperature values that have occurred during even humankind's brief existence.

Back to the present. The IPCC central claim is that human CO2 has become the main driver of "climate change". Yet,the temperature has decreased in real terms for the last decade, even as human CO2 was rapidly increasing. The goes directly against the IPCC's "human CO2 controls the climate" theory. In addition the troposphere temperature in the tropics is decreasing, the oceans temperatures are decreasing and surface temps measured by satellites are decreasing. The IPCC models and theories have failed miserably in the last 10 years.

The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.

graph at link
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002868.html

Gary Bohn you wrote

What ruse?

Gore screws up in the movie often enough for complaints to be made, but this one little segment is accurate.

How much will all that Styrofoam melting cause the oceans to rise???

Sorry for the late reply, had to pay my utilities bill, so I was drinking heavily for two days.

The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.

Posted by: lynnh at April 25, 2008 12:13 PM

Nice graph. Unfortunately it uses information from 2008 so the graph is skewed downward at the end. Remember what I said about endpoints? This is an example of why it shouldn't be done. And yes, even AGW proponents do this to make their case, which it does not.

Go through the data from HadCRUT3, or GISS/NASA and repeatedly pick a 3 year window (the length of time the author of the Blog you linked to is complaining about) anywhere before 1998. You will find many instances of similar decreases in temperature. However those decreases did not portend the demise of warming in any way as can be seen by later temperatures.

3 years is far too fine a resolution to take any conclusion from, up or down. Let's see what the last 3 years look like in a decade, shall we, before drawing any conclusions.

If we have several decades of temperatures that indicate an increasing trend, then it will take a lot more than 3 years to show a reversal of that trend, without other corroborating evidence.

An interesting comment from the author of that blogged piece leads me to believe he has a poor understanding of AGW in general.

And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation.

"The IPCC: On The Run At Last by Bob Carter"

No scientist claims that the Earth is not naturally variable, nor do they deny that natural variability should be considered when we look for the cause. Nor do climatologists expect or require an effect outside that shown by natural causes to be present. The conclusion that the current trend is anthropogenic is made after the consideration of natural causes and the comparison of the many more than two hypothesis to the observed data. The evidence from the observed data suggests, quite strongly, that the cause is anthropogenic in nature.

Even if the warming trend matched exactly a trend from the past where we know anthropogenic causes are impossible, that does not by default determine the cause now. Each historical variation in the climate has to be examined independently from every other variation for cause, simply because there are many potential causes. Each variation could have a different cause, although the dynamics of Earth's system and the observed regularity suggest otherwise. Simply assuming the current cause is the same as the last cause is hardly scientific, nor does it inform us of anything important. What does inform us of the cause is the examination of the data underlying the cause. The past is helpful in many ways when it comes to climate, it gives us an indication of what changes to expect, the impact of feedback loops, even the chaotic nature of weather, but the past does not determine the cause of the present. And yes, we do and have considered the affect past causes have on current trends, it would be foolish to ignore them.

The observed effect is not the same thing as the cause.

To give an example, here is a small, overly simplistic, analogy. The point I am trying to make is that each event has to be evaluated independently and on its own evidence.

You live in a house beside a field when a specific tree gets broken at the same point on the trunk every year. You have witnessed two causes, the wind, and a large bird, both breaking the tree at the same point, which you conclude is weak.

Then comes along a company who buys the land and starts storing large equipment there. You notice that the movement of equipment has an effect on all the other trees on the land.

One morning you wake up to find the little tree broken at the same point as observed in the past.

Now you can either assume that the wind or the bird broke the tree, because that is the historical reality, or you can assume a new potential cause for the break, that being the movement of equipment.

What do you do, ignore it or go over to the tree to see if there are any clues that might indicate the cause.

Anti-AGW people want to do the former, the AGW crowd wants to and has done the latter. The clues we have found give strong support for anthropogenic causes with other natural causes such as Milankovitch cycles, Solar radiation cycles and Earth bound catastrophic events considered and through the evidence, rejected as major influences.

Remember, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause major changes all by itself, it is simply a trigger for other events that do impact the environment dramatically.

Debate has always been part of scientific discovery. It is a necessary part of the process. It is a safeguard that protects against junk science.

That is true, but how many times do you have to debate the same things before you can draw valid conclusions from the data?

Make a theory, test it, make it falsifiable, ensure results can be reproduce, make the data available to others and then defend it against critics.

Very well put.

What in this process has been ignored by climatologists? Of course the critics also have to bring their own science to the table. Science doesn't need to defend itself from your neighbour's pizza boy or the drunk next door just because they have doubts and are vocal about it.

A process that shuts down discussion by declaring "the science is settled", "All skeptics are Big Oil Deniers" and "throw skeptical politicians in jail" is not part of the normal process. If the proponents are not willing to openly debate skeptics then it indicates that even they their science it too weak to stand up to serious scrutiny.

It could also be cause they are sick and tired of debunking the same old canards time and again. The unwillingness to debate non-scientists in the media does not reflect concern about weaknesses in the theory. It isn't a part of science. Science is decided through published papers. Both the promoters and the critics of an hypothesis generally bring their own work to the table, both of which have survived a review of the methods used and the logic of the conclusions. All that the Anti-AGW people have done so far is say, see, you are wrong because this alternative could be possible, without showing that the possible is in fact the correct hypothesis.

But again, it is up to the AGWers to prove their theory through actual, observable data in nature not up to the skeptics to disprove human generated computer models about future events. The burden of proof is on the propenents. So the better question is - What AGW/IPCC predictions have been proven and then confirmed by 3rd party scientist? Posted by: lynnh at April 25, 2008 11:18 AM

Sorry, but just denying that it is the best fit to the evidence is not enough. It brings no information to the table.

The models are just one source of evidence.

What prediction type are you interested in, predictions based on the physics and observations, predictions from the models, predictions from the politicians, or predictions from journalists?

How precise do they need to be? Are they to be along the lines of "Jimmy will tie his left lace at 3:05pm tomorrow and get his middle finger caught at the second knuckle." or, "GHG (and ozone to a lesser degree) should produce warming on the surface and in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere, a pattern not similar to other causes and therefore can be viewed as diagnostic"?

The observed effect is not the same thing as the cause.

It's the Pine Beetles fault now.....

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417566
Posted by: Alistair Macfarlane

Using analogies, they are blaming the devastating ruin caused by the pine beetle on global warming.

Really...

My reply to the same allegation in the Globe and Mail

During the early 1990's while conducting heli-assist seismic explorations on the eastern slopes of the Rockies in northeastern B.C. we were aware of the mountain pine beetle presence, signified by small amounts of saw dust near the base of the affected trees (the tell tale blue fungus not noticeable at the time), in small isolated areas. These locations were mapped and submitted to both B.C. Forests and the FMA of the region for observation and analysis. Nothing was done by either faction other than a wait and see tactic, no small controlled burns or other measures, nothing. The reason?? The timber was deemed too valuable to burn and too remote to be harvested economically.

Greed my dear friends, lack of foresight, and fire suppression are the causes of this fiasco, we could have nipped this in the bud a long time ago. Simple....

The point I am trying to convey?

AGW is not the cause of most of the perceived catastrophes of the world. Too much fossil fuels being used, go nuclear, forget solar and wind power. Price of corn and beer going through the roof,water usage out of control, forests disappearing, axe the ethanol boondoggle. Water and wind lapping at your door, move, you shouldn't live on a flood plain or a sand dune near the ocean. An ice shelf cracking in the Antarctic,think sub surface volcano and tectonic plate shift. AIT on the movie channel, turn off TV and go drink yourself silly.

What prediction type are you interested in, predictions based on the physics and observations, predictions from the models, predictions from the politicians, or predictions from journalists?

There's your problem. Science doesn't predict. Gypsies predict. Science records observable, repeatable phenomena and attempts to explain them. It does not look into the future to foretell of previously unseen phenomena.

And since our current climate falls within the range of historical fluctuation, the default case is that man does not cause climate change. The "skeptics" do not have to prove anything. It is the proponents of AGW that have to prove and defend their case using known science.

Pd: But the skeptics do have a responsibility to review what is presented and then agree with it or disagree because... To do neither but move on to another point is not science.

Also, the responses must be rational. In my latest discussion with ol hoss, he is claiming that if you shine 190 watts/m2 on an object, it won't impart any heat. Do you think that is a rational response?

John

ol hoss: so is your argument now that if we shine 190 W/m2 on an object it will not receive heat?

No. My argument is that heat can't of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

That's not just my argument, that's a law.

Such a thing as you describe only exists in mathmatical equations. This bi-directional exchange of heat has never been measured in the real world.

And it's rather silly to think that an object knows when to stop taking in heat so there remains a net positive from warmer to cooler.

Figures lie and liars figure.

ol hoss: I know exactly what your argument is and I have know it since you first raised it. The point that you cling to is a phrase that seem to recall hearing i.e. that heat can't of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

That is actually an incomplete statement and a better way of putting it would be that there can be no net heat that of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Above I showed that there are sensors that measure longwave radiation and these sensors can detect the infrared radiation that shines from the atmosphere to us. If you point the same sensors down they will measure the longwave radiation that shines up.

Everything above absolute zero emits longwave radiation. As long an object does not receive more energy from a cooler object than it emits then no laws are broken.

John

...there can be no net heat that of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.

That makes no sense at all. In any event, you're arbitrarily adding to the second law.

Above I showed that there are sensors that measure longwave radiation and these sensors can detect the infrared radiation that shines from the atmosphere to us.

That doesn't mean the ground absorbs it. And there are no measurements to prove it does.

ol hoss: yes, I am not surprised that you think it makes no sense.

"That doesn't mean the ground absorbs it. And there are no measurements to prove it does."

I see - so the ground is a perfect reflector? There are only 2 choices - it either gets reflected or absorbed. Which is it (and if you say reflected I am going to ask why the ground doesn't look like a mirror)?

There are only 2 choices - it either gets reflected or absorbed.

3rd choice is simply not absorbed. Show me real world measurements that it is.

ol hoss; well you are correct that there is a third choice - it can be transmitted, but I didn't think you wanted to argue that the ground was transparent.

So you have three choices and only three choices. It can be absorbed, it can be transmitted in which case you must show why the ground is transparent or it can be reflected in which case you must show why you think the ground is like a mirror.

So a very simple question, which is it?

John

There's a way to settle it, provide measurements of heat absorbed by the ground from the atmosphere.

ol hoss: there is an even easier way: does it absorb, reflect or transmit? Just answer the simple question.

Or that silly movie WATERWORLD wherwe KEVIN COSNER swims around looking like a complete dork and calling himself MARINER he must have felt stupid