The Arctic is NOT in a significant warming trend.

[sunsettommy]

What's Going On With The Arctic?

by George H. Taylor (http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=121)
June 6, 2005

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/) report released last fall asserts that major changes are underway in the Arctic. Is the ACIA a breakthrough climate assessment? Does it faithfully capture the essence of climate change in the Arctic? Or is it just another doom-and-gloom report from the international climate community? Taylor will examine climate behavior in the Arctic over the last couple of centuries (and beyond) to see what has occurred – and what this infers for the future.



George H. Taylor is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. He has been active in meteorology and climatology studies since 1971. Since 1989 he has served as State Climatologist for Oregon, and is a faculty member at Oregon State University. He lives in Corvallis, Oregon with his wife, Cindy, with whom he has three grown children.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=309
It is an excellent refutation of the ACIA report.Especially the part that matters most.The Temperature data.He easily exposes the misleading the use of data.I saw it right away when Markus gave us this ACIA report in a thread last month.

I was going to show Markus666 what a farce the data usage they used to claim that the Artic is warming fast,but Mr. Taylor is way better at debunking this stuff than I am.So I will just present you this instead.

Read on in the PDF.

[markus3622]

Interesting report. I noticed in the pdf that George Taylor was currently writing a paper on his work, and I'd rather wait to see that.

I googled "George Taylor" and "ACIA" and a load of links came up. Almost all of them were from "skeptics". The report is obviously quite new, and it strikes me as interesting that the skeptics get the early version out there quickly whereas the mainstream scientific community seem to take their time.

There's something in that about the falsehoods going round the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.

I'll wait for the peer-reviewed critique of the most comprehensive study ever completed.

[sunsettommy]

Interesting report. I noticed in the pdf that George Taylor was currently writing a paper on his work, and I'd rather wait to see that.

I googled "George Taylor" and "ACIA" and a load of links came up. Almost all of them were from "skeptics". The report is obviously quite new, and it strikes me as interesting that the skeptics get the early version out there quickly whereas the mainstream scientific community seem to take their time.

There's something in that about the falsehoods going round the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.

I'll wait for the peer-reviewed critique of the most comprehensive study ever completed.

Well that is fine for you.However you sure accepted the obviously fradulent Hockey Stick claims(It is getting mauled now) and the Scientific Consensus nonsense on flimsy grounds.:hahaha:

The skeptics are also more open with information than the so called mainstream scientific community.(most of it not accepting the theory,why you still lying over it?):whistle:

[sunsettommy]

More information on the FLAWED ACIA report,

This from TechCentralStation,The point of this link is to show that ACIA is not being honest on what are the boundaries of the Artic and that they used ONLY land based temperatures to say what the temperature is over the waters.It is incomplete.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>What Defines the Arctic? A Discussion of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#000000 height=1></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>By Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David R. Legates, George H. Taylor</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.techcentralstation.com/122004F.html

[markus3622]

I'm still waiting for this promised peer-reviewed critique

[Naturalized-Texan]

sunsettommy:
I see that markus is still peddling the same global warming scam that is being used by unscrupulous politicians and junk scientists to promote world socialism under UN control.

[Bob_Arctor]

According to everything I've ever read on the GW topic - and I'm talking in quality peer-reviewed journals, not anonymous internet sources - the consensus is that there is defintely something happening.

The only "junk scientists" are those who deny it, which appears usually to be for business and/or political reasons. There seem to be very few reputable scientists who oppose the idea. The article to follow lists an analysis of 928 papers, NONE of which disagree with the premise. While labelling the climate scientists who agree on the topic "junk scientists" is convenient, but fundamentally dishonest. Altering the conclusions of science to conform to political/business desires cannot work. The USSR tried it with genetics - we should learn from their example, rather than follow their example.

Read the following, if you will:


Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1)). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2)). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.



The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3)). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4))].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8)).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9)). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
...
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[aaron11]

I don't think the main contention is whether or not Global Warming is happening.

Global warming has been happening for ages, and before that we had global cooling and so on. The crux of the problem is that, this time leftists in league with environmentalists/communists are trying to use it for political gain, IE, this time they are blaming it on man, despite the utter lack of proof in order to damage/kill capitalism.

[dPrasse]

aaron , I'd have to agree .... weather pattens are changing ....
but , man has no more to do with GW than man did bringing on the Ice Age .

[sunsettommy]

I'm still waiting for this promised peer-reviewed critique

I like your selective positions.It exposes your bias in painfull measure.You just can not allow for the possibility that the ACIA report is shabby.

You like so many swallowed whole the Hockey Stick claims,the one that the IPCC apparently accepted WITHOUT noticing the many problems theirin.That is now hurting the IPCC,because two NON scientists have torn it apart.Have you read the recent and probably the "nail in the coffin" proof of D. Mann and pals lousy use of the Bristlecone as a "reliable" temperature proxy? It apparently is not and that alone destroys his Hockey stick.

:hahaha:

[Bob_Arctor]

I don't think the main contention is whether or not Global Warming is happening.
Global warming has been happening for ages, and before that we had global cooling and so on. The crux of the problem is that, this time leftists in league with environmentalists/communists are trying to use it for political gain, IE, this time they are blaming it on man, despite the utter lack of proof in order to damage/kill capitalism.
There are definite long term cycles in play, and plenty of warming/cooling that happens naturally.

However, the GW happening now appears to be anomalous. The scientific community recognizes that something seems to be happening. To reverse your phrase, right-wingers in league with industry are trying to ignore it, rather than leftists are trying to play it up. Who has something to lose if GW is a fact and industry is contributing to it? And who has something to gain by claiming it isn't real, or downplaying the significance? Who disseminates propagandat to that end? Follow the money, as they say. Scientists gain nothing by GW being true. Industry perceives that they will lose much by it being true.

Anyway, simply reducing emissions isn't going to destroy capitalism, any more than mandating fuel economy standards wrecked the auto industry - though automakers argued that standards would destroy them. So what happened? The free market will figured out how to make money from new standards, and scientific and engineering advances helped as well.

[DesertFox]

Nothing anomalous about it. Nature does things her way whether we like it or not. The idea that we can "help Nature along" in either warming or cooling the planet is just ludicrous.

[markus3622]

I like your selective positions.It exposes your bias in painfull measure.You just can not allow for the possibility that the ACIA report is shabby.

Quite the opposite, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how you cannot see that the bias is coming from you. The ACIA is a report compiled by the Arctic Council, which is "a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America". The Report lists 11 pages of scientists who contributed to the report. The report also had international observers from the Governments of the UK, Poland, France, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as external reviewers.

I am thus presented with a report that is peer-reviewed, quoting from the scientific literature, with scientists from all over the world.

On the other hand, you present an article in TechCentralStation written by four known skeptics. The fact that the authors are well-known skeptics is irrelevant, but what is important is that their work isn't peer-reviewed, and in a magazine whose tagline is "Where Free Markets meet Technology", which is a clear statement of its political intent.

You conclude from that the ACIA report is shabby. It would be astounding if you didn't see your bias.

I'll look at work that is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, if its critical of the ACIA, IPCC,etc. As Bob Arctor points out above, the skeptics don't appear to publish much in the journals. If we look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there are a handful of articles that support your case (notably the most famous one that "shouldn't have been published" and half the editorial board resigned), while there are hundreds that support the idea that the climate is changing and part of that is due to mankind.

I would be happy if you could answer these questions for me. Why is it that peer-review and the scientific method is so unimportant for you skeptics? Is it too much to ask for peer-reviewed science? Why do you find "TechCentralStation" a better source than Science or Nature?

[markus3622]

Anyway, simply reducing emissions isn't going to destroy capitalism, any more than mandating fuel economy standards wrecked the auto industry - though automakers argued that standards would destroy them. So what happened? The free market will figured out how to make money from new standards, and scientific and engineering advances helped as well.

Exactly, here's an article that was published in the economics journal Energy

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/people/barker/pdf/v3ej_k.pdf


Taking all the literature into account the macroeconomic costs of greenhouse gas mitigation of the kind envisaged by the Kyoto commitments is likely to be insignificant in the US, provided that the policies are expected, long-term and well-designed. In this context "well-designed" means that market-based instruments are used, such as auctions of internationally tradable emissions permits, and revenues earned by the government are recycled via reductions in burdensome taxes.


<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[sunsettommy]

Quite the opposite, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how you cannot see that the bias is coming from you. The ACIA is a report compiled by the Arctic Council, which is "a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America". The Report lists 11 pages of scientists who contributed to the report. The report also had international observers from the Governments of the UK, Poland, France, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as external reviewers.

I am thus presented with a report that is peer-reviewed, quoting from the scientific literature, with scientists from all over the world.

On the other hand, you present an article in TechCentralStation written by four known skeptics. The fact that the authors are well-known skeptics is irrelevant, but what is important is that their work isn't peer-reviewed, and in a magazine whose tagline is "Where Free Markets meet Technology", which is a clear statement of its political intent.

You conclude from that the ACIA report is shabby. It would be astounding if you didn't see your bias.

I'll look at work that is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, if its critical of the ACIA, IPCC,etc. As Bob Arctor points out above, the skeptics don't appear to publish much in the journals. If we look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there are a handful of articles that support your case (notably the most famous one that "shouldn't have been published" and half the editorial board resigned), while there are hundreds that support the idea that the climate is changing and part of that is due to mankind.

I would be happy if you could answer these questions for me. Why is it that peer-review and the scientific method is so unimportant for you skeptics? Is it too much to ask for peer-reviewed science? Why do you find "TechCentralStation" a better source than Science or Nature?

This is not your bias?


The ACIA is a report compiled by the Arctic Council, which is "a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America". The Report lists 11 pages of scientists who contributed to the report. The report also had international observers from the Governments of the UK, Poland, France, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as external reviewers.


You are supposed to as a scientist allow for ALL sides of the debate a forum.You plainly do not.

:rolleyes:

[markus3622]

I think the point you might be missing here is that the Arctic Council is comprised of countries that actually have some territory in the Arctic Circle (hence, Canada, Denmark, USA, etc).

Also note that there are international observers from non-Arctic Council countries, as well as a non-governmental organization called the International Arctic Science Committee, whose members include scientific organzations from the following countries

<TABLE width=440 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=166>Canada

China

Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Italy
Japan
</TD><TD width=266>The Netherlands

Norway

Poland
Republic of Korea
Russia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Naturalized-Texan]

I don't think the main contention is whether or not Global Warming is happening.
No one that I am aware of has ever claimed that global warming is not happening. The scam is the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities. That claim is nothing more than speculation and supposition. The fact is that there is NO scientific evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities.

Global warming has been happening for ages, and before that we had global cooling and so on. The crux of the problem is that, this time leftists in league with environmentalists/communists are trying to use it for political gain, IE, this time they are blaming it on man, despite the utter lack of proof in order to damage/kill capitalism.
It appears that there are 500-year natural cycles of warming and cooling:

1) There was a 500-year warming cycle between the 9th Century AD and the 14th Century AD known as the Medieval Warm Period.

2) There was a 500-year cooling cycle between the 14th Century AD and the 19th Century AD known as the Little Ice Age.

3) There is a very high probability that we are in the early stages of a 500-year warming cycle that began in the 19th Century AD and will continue until the 24th Century AD.

It's interesting to note that 2) above coincided with a period of little or no solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and that 3) above is coinciding with a period of increased solar activity. Consequently, there is far more evidence that the current warming is due to natural causes - e.g., increased solar activity - than to human activities. Unfortunately, the Left sees the abovementioned scam as an opportunity to scare people to the point that the Left can have an excuse to establish world socialism under UN control (the Kyoto Treaty).

In our earlier discussions, Markus led me to the conclusion that human activity is not a factor in causing global warming.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

According to everything I've ever read on the GW topic - and I'm talking in quality peer-reviewed journals, not anonymous internet sources - the consensus is that there is defintely something happening.

The only "junk scientists" are those who deny it, which appears usually to be for business and/or political reasons. There seem to be very few reputable scientists who oppose the idea. The article to follow lists an analysis of 928 papers, NONE of which disagree with the premise. While labelling the climate scientists who agree on the topic "junk scientists" is convenient, but fundamentally dishonest. Altering the conclusions of science to conform to political/business desires cannot work. The USSR tried it with genetics - we should learn from their example, rather than follow their example.



Bob, first of all, climatology is not your area of expertise, so please, spare us the lecture. It is much closer to my area of expertise. Second, I know quite a few scientists, including ones from state universities, such as Arizona State, and also top schools, such as MIT, who don't buy into the idea that humans are significantly, if at all, responsible for global warming. These are top climatologists and atmospheric scientists. (And yes, I mean I have personally communicated with them.)

If you think business groups are the only ones being political here, you've got your head in the sand. I don't know how things are in the genetics world, but in this world, it's all politics. Pro-GW scientists are backed by environmental groups, anti-GW scientists are backed by oil companies. It really is that political.

Also, by their very nature, the results are subjective. How? Take all the adjustments that have to be made to temperature data of big cities. It really is a matter of only-slightly educated guessing. Those data are thus unreliable after adjustment. Read the debates (yes, in real journals) over the accuracy of such adjustments.

I'm sincerely depressed that you didn't do better research before jumping on the global warming bandwagon. We're not the ones being fundamentally dishonest here, and frankly, it pisses me off for you, of all people, to be suggesting that we're being so. You should know as well as any how political the scientific world really can be (in intra-field politics, primarily), and if you don't, I guess genetics is a magical realm where such things never come into play. (Dang, how did you guys get so lucky?)

(Note: edited by myself because it got overly personal.)

[Bob_Arctor]

Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
According to everything I've ever read on the GW topic - and I'm talking in quality peer-reviewed journals, not anonymous internet sources - the consensus is that there is defintely something happening.

The only "junk scientists" are those who deny it, which appears usually to be for business and/or political reasons. There seem to be very few reputable scientists who oppose the idea. The article to follow lists an analysis of 928 papers, NONE of which disagree with the premise. While labelling the climate scientists who agree on the topic "junk scientists" is convenient, but fundamentally dishonest. Altering the conclusions of science to conform to political/business desires cannot work. The USSR tried it with genetics - we should learn from their example, rather than follow their example.

Bob, first of all, climatology is not your area of expertise, so please, spare us the lecture. It is much closer to my area of expertise.
It isn't my area, but I can read, and the article I referenced is very clear that opposition to the idea of GW is political. Further, the total lack of anti-GW publication is very telling.
Second, I know quite a few scientists, including ones from state universities, such as Arizona State, and also top schools, such as MIT, who don't buy into the idea that humans are significantly, if at all, responsible for global warming. These are top climatologists and atmospheric scientists. (And yes, I mean I have personally communicated with them.)
Have they published their findings? Your statement confuses me, as the Nature letter I referenced earlier lists an analysis of over 900 papers on GW, NONE of which support your side. How can that be?

If you think business groups are the only ones being political here, you've got your head in the sand. I don't know how things are in the genetics world, but in this world, it's all politics. Pro-GW scientists are backed by environmental groups, anti-GW scientists are backed by oil companies. It really is that political.
Oh, I know the anti-GW people are backed by industry. Conversely, are you arguing that the authors of all 900+ papers are puppets of the environmental groups? As you know, authors are required to include their sources of funding when publishing papers. Can you supply references that they are mostly supported by environmental groups?
Also, by their very nature, the results are subjective. How? Take all the adjustments that have to be made to temperature data of big cities. It really is a matter of only-slightly educated guessing. Those data are thus unreliable after adjustment. Read the debates (yes, in real journals) over the accuracy of such adjustments.
I have. The debates over these issues are misleading, as they are over total increases in temp, for example, versus increases happening at all. The journals are unequivocal in stating that the publications against the reality of GW are almost totally lacking.
I'm sincerely depressed that you didn't do better research before jumping on the global warming bandwagon. We're not the ones being fundamentally dishonest here, and frankly, it pisses me off for you, of all people, to be suggesting that we're being so.
I don't think that you guys here on FC are dishonest on this issue, and didn't mean to imply as such. However, it seems clear to me that there is political/economic motivation to deny GW, and little motivation to promote it. This is shown in the literature, where there appear to be few if any papers denying GW, and hundreds providing evidence for it.
You should know as well as any how political the scientific world really can be (in intra-field politics, primarily), and if you don't, I guess genetics is a magical realm where such things never come into play. (Dang, how did you guys get so lucky?)
Absolutely, but this does not address the dearth of research denying GW, and the huge amount of research that shows it is happening. I agree that the GW debate is politicized, but I argue that it is mainly the deniers who are motivated by politics/economics. Dr Anonymous Climate Scientist has little to gain by GW being either true or false. Industry, on the other hand, perceives that it has much to lose by it being true.

Genetics doesn't seem to be much affected by politics, as far as I've seen.

[DoctorDoom]

Bobby, you're a liberal. Your blind faith in global warming is automatic. If you seriously believe that man's puny efforts can alter the global climate, then you are not an atheist. You are ascribing godlike powers to humans. If we WANTED to cause GW, we couldn't. We are insignificant. Nature pumps more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than we could generate in a concentrated effort to warm the planet.

GW "science" is pure leftist politics. It is aimed at paralyzing the US economy by imposing a demand to invest trillions of dollars in a futile effort to achieve a goal for which there is no scientific support whatever, while exempting blatant polluters such as Mexico. On July 25, 1997 the US Senate, in a rare show of collective wisdom, rejected Kyoto 95-0 (Bryan (D-NV), Feinstein (D-CA), Grams (R-MN), Harkin (D-IA), and Reid (D-NV) didn't vote). They knew it was crap.

Scaremongering and bullshit are typical liberal/leftist tactics, and it is glaringly obvious in GW (and "The Day After", the most egregious junk-science horseshit from Hollyweird since "China Syndrome").

[Bob_Arctor]

You've offered nothing more than polemics, as is your nature. You did not respond to the article in post #7 in any way.

I maintain that the only people engaging in 'junk science' are those of your ilk, who would distort science in the interests of business. You present no science, only ignorant opinion and wishful thinking.

1. First paragraph - you claim, without backing, that human activities could not affect climate. References?

2. Second paragraph - you ignore the science because you favor business interests, and you imagine that the science will harm business.

3. You appeal to an eight year old US Senate vote, of all things, to support your position.

Now, explain why over 900 papers in recent years support the reality of GW, and NONE go against it. Refer to post #7. And do it without the inane posturing, blanket claims, ad homs, and assorted other vapid time-wasting tactics you employ. (Don't worry, I know you won't, as you will do no better with this branch of science than with the others at which you're failed.)

Don't let me think that your blind rejection of sciences is related in any way to your knee jerk conservatism...oh, no.

Bob
Bobby, you're a liberal. Your blind faith in global warming is automatic. If you seriously believe that man's puny efforts can alter the global climate, then you are not an atheist. You are ascribing godlike powers to humans. If we WANTED to cause GW, we couldn't. We are insignificant. Nature pumps more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than we could generate in a concentrated effort to warm the planet.

GW "science" is pure leftist politics. It is aimed at paralyzing the US economy by imposing a demand to invest trillions of dollars in a futile effort to achieve a goal for which there is no scientific support whatever, while exempting blatant polluters such as Mexico. On July 25, 1997 the US Senate, in a rare show of collective wisdom, rejected Kyoto 95-0 (Bryan (D-NV), Feinstein (D-CA), Grams (R-MN), Harkin (D-IA), and Reid (D-NV) didn't vote). They knew it was crap.

Scaremongering and bullshit are typical liberal/leftist tactics, and it is glaringly obvious in GW (and "The Day After", the most egregious junk-science horseshit from Hollyweird since "China Syndrome").

[Aric2000]

Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob,


BAD Bob, indoctrinated Bob.

See Bob post ridiculous socialist nonsense that he reads in the papers.

Those 900 papers are actually 938 papers.

Go here http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm

And then here http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568

And then here http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/jan_10_05.htm

You will notice that your "consensus" is not at all what it seems.

OH, BTW, did you know this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050921/sc_nm/space_mars_dc

Mars is warming up too, so, is that our fault as well?

Now, take a VERY close look at this graph, look at the CO2 levels, and tell me that THAT is what is causing global warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif


Please Bob, EDUCATE yourself, and quit allowing yourself to be indoctrinated with CRAP!! And of course JUNK SCIENCE....

And JUST for the halibut, go this link as well, it is rather amusing....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163999,00.html

So, in essence, your GW buds are WRONG, have ALWAYS been wrong, and don't care if they are wrong or not, all they care about are their political goals.

They don't care about science, they have an answer, and they are going to find that answer, and as long as they continue to find that answer, they will CONTINUE to get grants to CONTINUE getting their answers....

[markus3622]

Aric,

I'm sorry, but we're faced with the similar "science versus the skeptics" problem. You quote three sources in your post

1) Sepp (Science and Environment Policy Project), led by Fred Singer. He's a well known skeptic, that recently hasn't published much. He admits that he's been funded by Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. This link also quotes Dr Benny Peiser (a social anthropologist) discussing solar physics.

2) Heartland Institute, which describes itself as a "libertarian institute" and has been funded by Exxon and other right-wing organizations. Your link then quotes Singer, voicing his skeptical viewpoint. In this link, you have a climatologist coming up with an estimate of the cost of Kyoto, which links rather well with the social anthropologist discussing the impact of solar activity on climate.

3) CGFI which is part of the Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank, that has been funded by Exxon and others, and is strongly linked to groups like the Heritage foundation.

In essence, you have three sources that overlap, funded by similar bodies and quoting some people with little expertise on which they pontificate.

Your graph on prehistoric climate is nice, but two points spring to mind. Firstly, it's badly referenced - what paper from C. R. Scotese does the temperature data come from? Secondly, but most importantly, proponents of the consensus view, aren't arguing that CO2 is the only factor that affects the climate, so even if the consensus view were correct, we wouldn't expect a perfect correlation between CO2 and global temperature over the past 600 million years. In short, your graphic tells us little about the current warming that has been observed.

Finally, you have a link to an article about Joe Barton, a republican congressman. The article was written by Stephen Milloy, a well known recipient of Exxon funds, and starts "Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas"

Hang on, we're going to do science in Congress, where, I assume politics has no place.

The best place for scientific debate is in the scientific journals and at conferences, not in right-wing policy journals, and not on the floor of the senate.

I could equally quote pages of non-peer reviewed work that supports Oreske's work, but I'll stick to my own rule and refrain from doing so.

[Aric2000]

Aric,

I'm sorry, but we're faced with the similar "science versus the skeptics" problem. You quote three sources in your post

1) Sepp (Science and Environment Policy Project), led by Fred Singer. He's a well known skeptic, that recently hasn't published much. He admits that he's been funded by Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. This link also quotes Dr Benny Peiser (a social anthropologist) discussing solar physics.

2) Heartland Institute, which describes itself as a "libertarian institute" and has been funded by Exxon and other right-wing organizations. Your link then quotes Singer, voicing his skeptical viewpoint. In this link, you have a climatologist coming up with an estimate of the cost of Kyoto, which links rather well with the social anthropologist discussing the impact of solar activity on climate.

3) CGFI which is part of the Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank, that has been funded by Exxon and others, and is strongly linked to groups like the Heritage foundation.

In essence, you have three sources that overlap, funded by similar bodies and quoting some people with little expertise on which they pontificate.

Your graph on prehistoric climate is nice, but two points spring to mind. Firstly, it's badly referenced - what paper from C. R. Scotese does the temperature data come from? Secondly, but most importantly, proponents of the consensus view, aren't arguing that CO2 is the only factor that affects the climate, so even if the consensus view were correct, we wouldn't expect a perfect correlation between CO2 and global temperature over the past 600 million years. In short, your graphic tells us little about the current warming that has been observed.

Finally, you have a link to an article about Joe Barton, a republican congressman. The article was written by Stephen Milloy, a well known recipient of Exxon funds, and starts "Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas"

Hang on, we're going to do science in Congress, where, I assume politics has no place.

The best place for scientific debate is in the scientific journals and at conferences, not in right-wing policy journals, and not on the floor of the senate.

I could equally quote pages of non-peer reviewed work that supports Oreske's work, but I'll stick to my own rule and refrain from doing so.

No, we are not in the same science versus skeptics, the above 3 links are scientists versus scientists, whether you care to admit it or not.

THe CO2 graph is peer reviewed, and has yet to be debunked in any way shape or form, and why is CO2 used in that graph, because the MAIN gas that is used in the Kyoto protocols is CO2,.

Last but not least, Oreskes Hockey stick has been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED by SCIENTISTS, AFTER of course he finally released his findings and HOW he found his fidings so that his answers could be repeated, which they YET to be.

Poor Markus, just as indoctrinated with flimsy Global Warming BS as Bob is.

Sad, very sad, but what else should I expect? :djd:

You r Global Warmist Alarmist scientists have NOT taken history into account, this global warming, has happened THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of times, and NOT one of those OTHER times was it MAN's fault.

Oh, BTW, what about Mars warming up as well, how this that our fault Mark?

How can normally intelligent people be STUPID enough to fall for such NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT.

THe earth DOES what it DOES, and it has warmed up and cooled down THOUSANDS, literally THOUSANDS of times before, but somehow, THIS TIME is man's fault?

You need get a finer grip on reality, just as Bob does....:soap:

[dPrasse]

I remember some very cold winters with lots of snow in the 70's and all of the talk was that humans were causing a new coming ice age ...

and , yes , ou lil Mars rover causes Martian warming ....
has NOTHING to do with the SUN , Solar Activity .... nothing at all ....

[markus3622]

In your links, you have a climatologist discussing economics and a social anthropologist discussing solar physics. Your third link is an agricultural economist. I'll admit that Singer is a climatologist, but is one of a handful of those who have published work skeptical of the consensus view.

The point about CO2 and its link to global temperature isn't referenced. It certainly isn't a peer-reviewed work on the link between global climate and CO2. It might contain a few bits from peer-reviewed work but that isn't the same.

Here's a paper from Science on the issue

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Thirdly, Oreske's opposition comes from the economist who did some googling in his lunchbreak - he hasn't published, or a piece of work that no-one would publish. Isn't it more likely that Piesner's work was bad, rather than there was a bias. Surely someone would have published it if it were good work?

[markus3622]

Oreskes Hockey stick has been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED by SCIENTISTS, AFTER of course he finally released his findings and HOW he found his fidings so that his answers could be repeated, which they YET to be.

Naomi Oreske's work is not debunked by someone not publishing a rebuttal.

On Mars, here's a good link (which links to published research).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

The key point is that "global warming" on Mars cannot be inferred from three years of data from one region on the planet.

You need get a finer grip on reality, just as Bob does

Why the hysterics and caps lock? - too much caffeine?

[Aric2000]

Naomi Oreske's work is not debunked by someone not publishing a rebuttal.

On Mars, here's a good link (which links to published research).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

The key point is that "global warming" on Mars cannot be inferred from three years of data from one region on the planet.



Why the hysterics and caps lock? - too much caffeine?

AHH, but global warming is the fault of man can be inferred from 75 years?

Whereas when paleontoligists find that the weather in ancient times was actually WARMER then we are now, and when looked at HISTORICALLY, this global warming is NOTHING new or different for the earth. When it has been scientifically shown that the earth warms up and cools off ALL the time on a geologic scale?

When it has been scientifically shown that CO2 levels used to be RIDICULOUSLY higher then they are now, and from that it can be inferred that CO2 is NOT the greenhouse gas that these socialist wannabes make it out to be.

Come on Mark, you'll have to do a LOT better then that...

Also, considering that the TOTAL CO2 that human beings put in a year is less then 1/2 of 1%. or of it is easier for you .47% of CO2 in the atmosphere is put out by Human activity, so, nature puts out 99.53% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and SOMEHOW, SOMEHOW, that less then 1/2 of 1% is warming up the earth?

As I said, you need to get a firmer grip on reality.

THe earth has warmed and cooled THOUSANDS of times before, but SOMEHOW, SOMEHOW, this time it's man's fault?

Yeah, right Mark, SURE THING.....:djd:

[markus3622]

Well, actually, on the earth, with the use of ice cores and other proxy data, we can go back quite a long time (consider the Vostock Ice cores), we are able to say that

"New palaeoclimate analyses for the last 1,000 years over the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the magnitude of 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of any century during this period" - IPCC Report

The consensus view is that the change in climate observed in recent decades is unusual, and not completely due to natural variability.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig3-2s.gif

Figures b) and d) are particularly interesting. The current CO2 levels are higher than in the past 400,000 years (and that increase has come in the past century), so the carbon cycle has changed. That is just scientific fact. The numbers might seem small to year, but they add up over 100 years.

The present atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years....

CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions from fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to be the dominant factor determining CO<SUB>2</SUB> concentrations during the 21st century.

[Aric2000]

Well, actually, on the earth, with the use of ice cores and other proxy data, we can go back quite a long time (consider the Vostock Ice cores), we are able to say that

"New palaeoclimate analyses for the last 1,000 years over the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the magnitude of 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of any century during this period" - IPCC Report

The consensus view is that the change in climate observed in recent decades is unusual, and not completely due to natural variability.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig3-2s.gif

Figures b) and d) are particularly interesting. The current CO2 levels are higher than in the past 400,000 years (and that increase has come in the past century), so the carbon cycle has changed. That is just scientific fact. The numbers might seem small to year, but they add up over 100 years.

Completely, totally, and ABSOLUTELY WRONG....

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Quit with the indoctrination with your junk science.

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen.


http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/FPalmer.jpg "At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.



And LAST but NOT LEAST!!!

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.



NO, global warming isn't a political movement, NAH...

Yeah, right, whatever Mark.

Quit being INDOCTRINATED, and THINK!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Aric2000:
The junk scientists, unscrupulous politicians, and envirowackos who claim that global warming is being caused by human activities are basing their claims entirely on climate models that can't even accurately recreate past climate changes, much less predict future climate changes. They are placing their blind faith in completely invalid climate models because they can use those invalid models to promote their left-wing political agenda.

[dPrasse]

N-T ... climatologists can't even predict the weather beyond a few hours ....

[Naturalized-Texan]

N-T ... climatologists can't even predict the weather beyond a few hours ....
And the junk scientists and envirowackos expect us to believe their predictions for 100 years from now. What a joke. :hahaha:

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, BAD Bob, indoctrinated Bob. See Bob post ridiculous socialist nonsense that he reads in the papers.
Ahh of course, if you disagree with it it's socialist. Ad homs are a common logical fallacy you know. Moving on...

Those 900 papers are actually 938 papers.
That might have something to do with the fact I mentioned "over 900" papers. By the way, it's 928, not 938.

Go here http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm
And then here http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568
And then here http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/jan_10_05.htm
You will notice that your "consensus" is not at all what it seems.
Your links are not to journals or peer-reviewed documents. I'll take peer-reviewed science over propaganda constructed by those with an agenda, such as you provide.
Mars is warming up too, so, is that our fault as well?
I fail to see the relevance.

Now, take a VERY close look at this graph, look at the CO2 levels, and tell me that THAT is what is causing global warming.
I'd like a reference for the graph, so I may examine the accompanying paper. Send me the reference, please. I won't comment on an anonymous graph.
Please Bob, EDUCATE yourself, and quit allowing yourself to be indoctrinated with CRAP!! And of course JUNK SCIENCE....
Peer-reviewed papers aren't "crap", even if one disagrees with their findings. Again, I'll take hundreds of peer-reviewed papers over your political propaganda.

The only "junk scientists" are those who deny evidence because of their political and economic ties. It's a bad habit, regardless of who does it. Environmentalists who argue against GM foods are in just as bad a position.
So, in essence, your GW buds are WRONG, have ALWAYS been wrong, and don't care if they are wrong or not, all they care about are their political goals.
So says the junk science propagandist. Sorry, but I accept only legitimate science, not industry propaganda.

Once again, I refer you to this article, which demolishes your belief that there is any scientific disagreement on the issue. Please respond to its major points, which I have put in bold text:

Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
<!-- beginning of outer tables --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=215 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=top><!-- beginning of inner table --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#affiliation)


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1)). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2)). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3)). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4))].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8)).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9)).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686


Despite your propaganda, all the evidence shows that you are not on the side of facts, but on the side of politicians and industry.

Bob

[Aric2000]

And OF COURSE your source is Oreskes, of the Hockey Puck fame, who REFUSED, until forced, to release his findings, facts etc to OTHER scientists to be peer reviewed, and when reviewed was torn into itsy bitsy shreds.

Wishful thinking on Oreskes part, does NOT make what he says true.

Oh, and he does NOT take into account the fact that, if your study finds for Global warming, you get GRANTS, LOTS and LOTS of grants, but if your study finds that Global warming may be happening, but cannot be blamed on mankinds pollution etc, etc ad nauseum, you ain't gonna get another government grant.

[Bob_Arctor]

And OF COURSE your source is Oreskes, of the Hockey Puck fame, who REFUSED, until forced, to release his findings, facts etc to OTHER scientists to be peer reviewed, and when reviewed was torn into itsy bitsy shreds.
You seem to be thinking of the wrong person. Who is famous for the 'hockey stick'? Or is it the 'hockey puck'?
Wishful thinking on Oreskes part, does NOT make what he says true.
Naomi Oreskes is also a woman. You really aren't very familiar with this material, Aric.

Anyway, deal with her conclusions, which clearly are not based on mere wishful thinking.
Oh, and he does NOT take into account the fact that, if your study finds for Global warming, you get GRANTS, LOTS and LOTS of grants, but if your study finds that Global warming may be happening, but cannot be blamed on mankinds pollution etc, etc ad nauseum, you ain't gonna get another government grant.
Uh huh. This is no more than an empty appeal to some conspiracy. It doesn't even make sense. You won't get a grant for publishing something opposing GW, even though our government is currently against the idea? And you will get many grants for affirming it, despite the position of the government? This is utter nonsense. Back up your assertion with facts and references.

You've done a miserable job so far dealing with the papers. Your reliance on true 'junk science' is apparent.

[Aric2000]

I give up Bob, Your RELIGIOUS convictions are just too much for me to handle.

Global Warming CAUSED by man is JUST that, A RELIGIOUS belief, because there is aboslutely NO scientific evidence FOR it, and there is PLENTY of scientific evidence that THIS is what the earth does, and no matter what we do, we cannot SPEED it up, CANNOT slow it down, and most of all couldn't stop it.

Your religious convictions, indoctrination, and brainwashing seem to be total and complete.

So sad too, you seemed like you might have been an intelligent man at some point in the past.

[sunsettommy]

I think the point you might be missing here is that the Arctic Council is comprised of countries that actually have some territory in the Arctic Circle (hence, Canada, Denmark, USA, etc).

Also note that there are international observers from non-Arctic Council countries, as well as a non-governmental organization called the International Arctic Science Committee, whose members include scientific organzations from the following countries

<TABLE width=440 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=166>Canada



China

Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Italy
Japan


</TD><TD width=266>The Netherlands



Norway

Poland
Republic of Korea
Russia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I think you are showing your insecurity,since it is plain that CONSENSUS is what impresses you.

:whistle:

It takes just one person to overturn a claim on something that is published.

It took just two NON climate researchers to expose the many holes in the Hockey Stick paper.

The paper was suspicious from the start since it was written for the purposes of overturning DECADES of research that gave clear evidence of a real Medeival optimism age and the little ice age.It is fraud!

Markus666,

The skeptics have a difficult time publishing papers with an opposite point of view on the issue.Surely you knew this.Why be such a dishonest person over it? That is why they have to go to websites that gives them access to provide their thoughts on the research that is published in several science magazines.The website TechCentralStation publishes Climate articles that are often written by a skeptic SCIENTIST.It is plain you have bias AGAINST small groups and skeptics.

I have growing doubt that you are really a Hydrometerologists.A good scientist would allow for dissenting debate in the main body of the group.It is not happening much anymore since too much money rides on a belief and not on convincing evidence.

Did you read what happened to Bjorn Lomborg for his book the Skeptical Environmentalists?

Have you learned what happened to Halton Arp? Do you know that Hannes Alfven was regularly derided for his theories(by the rank and file astronomers),only later quietly accepted some of those theories he has put fourth on the Solar Plasma and such.

What about an AMATEUR geologists who came up with a theory,that most of the rank and file geologists reviled.Then a few decades later his ideas about a CONTINENTAL drift and the patterns of fossils mating the two coastlines as being at one time together,was then accepted by LATER and more open minded geologists.

There are many more examples of one or two people OVERTURNING a dogmatic position in science.

I leave it up to you to try being more honest about it.

[markus3622]

I have growing doubt that you are really a Hydrometerologists.A good scientist would allow for dissenting debate in the main body of the group.It is not happening much anymore since too much money rides on a belief and not on convincing evidence.

A true scientist will reference scientific journals. When I write papers, I don't quote TechCentralStation. If you can find evidence that skeptics are regularly barred from publishing, not because of the quality of their work but because their work challenges the bias, then present it.

I'm not sure whether you understand the importance of peer-reviewed publications to the progress of science. Scientists have to rely on it.

If the tables were turned, and your position was supported by IPCC, AAAS, AGU, etc, hundreds of papers in the literature, you would laugh at me if I supported my position with articles in "The Nation" or the "New York Times". Can't you see that would be the reverse of what you're doing?

You've argued before that paradigms have been changed by lone scientists, which is true, but it's ass-backwards logic to say that the consensus is wrong because hardly anyone disputes it.

[markus3622]

Completely, totally, and ABSOLUTELY WRONG....

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Quit with the indoctrination with your junk science.



Now, you must know that you're biased here, when you say that I am absolutely wrong. You must be able to see the difference between peer-reviewed science, as referenced in the IPCC website, and funny websites on the internet that have the Global Warming Test :thumb:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest

Then, you go on to quote mining, great. James Hansen is quoted out of context. The point he makes is that model uncertainty is actually now lower than the uncertainty regardig future emissions scenarios. James Hansen certainly isn't a man who disputes the consensus.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen1.pdf

He has also stated that

<DD>"some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. "</DD>
From the paper cited above, he also writes that

<DD>Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models. </DD>


Quit being INDOCTRINATED, and THINK!!!

Why do you define thinking as ignoring the evidence?

[Aric2000]

Why do you define thinking as ignoring the evidence?

Because there is NO EVIDENCE.

The climate models at their very best are still completely wrong.

They can't decide what the weather is gonna be like tomorrow, let alone the entire climate 100 years from now.

Also, .47%, .47%, do you know how SMALL that is? Any clue?

A volcano will put out MORE greenhouse gasses in a day, then the ENTIRE human race puts out in 10 years.

To say that OUR pollution is what is causing something that HISTORICALLY happens ALL the time on a geologic scale, is pushing the bounds of credibility to all time highs.

The earth DOES, what it does, there is nothing we can do to stop it, there is nothing we did that started it, and there is absolutely NOTHING we could do to slow it down.

ANyone that says that Human developement and pollution is what is creating Global Warming is speaking from a position of weakness, because there is NO way to prove it, and Myriad of different ways to DISPROVE, which I have done in numerous posts.

Global warming caused by man, is junk science of the worst sort, and the only way that anyone would believe such nonsense is if their zealotry overwhelms their common sense.

[markus3622]

The climate models at their very best are still completely wrong.



Actually, in a previous post you (unknowingly) quoted a paper that says the opposite.



They can't decide what the weather is gonna be like tomorrow, let alone the entire climate 100 years from now.

Meteorology isn't the same as climatology, and you're making a logical error here. Despite the fact that there's uncertainty in tomorrow's forecast, you can pretty confident winter will be colder than summer. Predicting long term trends is easier than forecasting individual events.


Also, .47%, .47%, do you know how SMALL that is? Any clue?


Well around 6 PgC/year, and the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been 3PgC/year since the 1980s. 6PgC/year is about the mass of 100 million blue whales, or 500 million automobiles. You don't need me to tell that it's quite a lot. You make it sound as if it's nothing. Given that CO2 causes around 25% of the greenhouse effect, you can imagine that the forcing is quite big.



A volcano will put out MORE greenhouse gasses in a day, then the ENTIRE human race puts out in 10 years.

They mainly emit sulfur-dioxide (not a greenhouse gas) which actually acts as a coolant, so volcanoes can cause short-term cooling (see the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991)

To say that OUR pollution is what is causing something that HISTORICALLY happens ALL the time on a geologic scale, is pushing the bounds of credibility to all time highs.

As noted earlier, the observed warming and CO2 atmospheric concentration are unprecendented in recent times (at least temperatures for the past 1000 years and CO2 concs. for the past 200,000 years).



ANyone that says that Human developement and pollution is what is creating Global Warming is speaking from a position of weakness, because there is NO way to prove it, and Myriad of different ways to DISPROVE, which I have done in numerous posts.

Quite the opposite. Read the journal papers, read what the experts are saying. If it's such a position of weakness, why are the world's experts mainly in agreement? It's rather arrogant to suggest you've disproved a scientific consensus (years of research) by a few links to junk-science pages on the internet.


Global warming caused by man, is junk science of the worst sort, and the only way that anyone would believe such nonsense is if their zealotry overwhelms their common sense.

To take this position, you have to maintain such a disconnect from the actual evidence, and that takes real zeal.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Because there is NO EVIDENCE.

The climate models at their very best are still completely wrong.

They can't decide what the weather is gonna be like tomorrow, let alone the entire climate 100 years from now.
Correct. All the junk scientists have are those invalid climate models. Models are NOT evidence of ANYTHING.

A volcano will put out MORE greenhouse gasses in a day, then the ENTIRE human race puts out in 10 years.
By far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor that comes from the oceans. According to NASA satellite data, since 1979 the only time there has been significant warming was during volcano eruptions - El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.

To say that OUR pollution is what is causing something that HISTORICALLY happens ALL the time on a geologic scale, is pushing the bounds of credibility to all time highs.

The earth DOES, what it does, there is nothing we can do to stop it, there is nothing we did that started it, and there is absolutely NOTHING we could do to slow it down.

ANyone that says that Human developement and pollution is what is creating Global Warming is speaking from a position of weakness, because there is NO way to prove it, and Myriad of different ways to DISPROVE, which I have done in numerous posts.

Global warming caused by man, is junk science of the worst sort, and the only way that anyone would believe such nonsense is if their zealotry overwhelms their common sense.
Junk scientists like Markus don't really care if they are credible. They are willing to accept speculation and supposition based on invalid climate models because it advances their socialist political agenda.

Since the current warming is nothing more than the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century, there is absolutely nothing that we humans can do to stop it. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.

[Bob_Arctor]

Aric, you've rebutted NONE of the information presented in posts 7, 21 and 34.

You resort to empty ad homs.

Try and argue the facts. Explain the near total dearth of anti-GW publication. Explain how the hundreds of papers that provide evidence for it actually don't constitute scientific evidence. If they don't, what would?

You can do better than this.

I give up Bob, Your RELIGIOUS convictions are just too much for me to handle.
Global Warming CAUSED by man is JUST that, A RELIGIOUS belief, because there is aboslutely NO scientific evidence FOR it, and there is PLENTY of scientific evidence that THIS is what the earth does, and no matter what we do, we cannot SPEED it up, CANNOT slow it down, and most of all couldn't stop it.
Your religious convictions, indoctrination, and brainwashing seem to be total and complete.
So sad too, you seemed like you might have been an intelligent man at some point in the past.

[sunsettommy]

[/b]

A true scientist will reference scientific journals. When I write papers, I don't quote TechCentralStation. If you can find evidence that skeptics are regularly barred from publishing, not because of the quality of their work but because their work challenges the bias, then present it.

I'm not sure whether you understand the importance of peer-reviewed publications to the progress of science. Scientists have to rely on it.

If the tables were turned, and your position was supported by IPCC, AAAS, AGU, etc, hundreds of papers in the literature, you would laugh at me if I supported my position with articles in "The Nation" or the "New York Times". Can't you see that would be the reverse of what you're doing?

You've argued before that paradigms have been changed by lone scientists, which is true, but it's ass-backwards logic to say that the consensus is wrong because hardly anyone disputes it.

You really a scientist?

You hide it well when you write your replies.It is plain you have no idea where I am coming from.I encounter very few like you who claims to be a scientist and be so clueless as to what I say.

Oh well.

[Naturalized-Texan]

sunsettommy:
No, Markus isn't a scientist. He's a junk scientist with a leftist political agenda. There's a huge difference.

[Bob_Arctor]

sunsettommy:
No, Markus isn't a scientist. He's a junk scientist with a leftist political agenda. There's a huge difference.
Odd, as he's citing what has proven to be the mainstream scientific consensus, versus the paranoid right-wing pseudoscience as presented by the few on your side.

You guys complaining about "junk science" is pretty rich.

[Aric2000]

So Bob, what you are saying is this.

That the scientific community knows enough about climate to be able to say with definitive thoroughness, that pollution created by man is enough to cause global warming?

Are you saying that we have the scientific knowledge to be able to predict with 100% accuracy, that WE are creating the global warming that SOME scientists are seeing?

Are you saying that we can model the EARTH'S ENTIRE climate SO well, that we can say with full accuracy, that man is CAUSING global warming?

Are you saying that EVERY variable has been accounted for? That historical data has been completely accounted for, that all the data that has been put into those computer models is SO perfect, that we can say, MAN IS CREATING THE GLOBAL WARMING?

Is that what you are saying Bob?

[DoctorDoom]

You've offered nothing more than polemics, as is your nature. You did not respond to the article in post #7 in any way.This topic has been repeatedly addressed. The same people who bury us in crap about Darwinism bury us in crap about man-caused global warming.

Junk science is junk science, no matter what name it uses. As for global warming, bring it on. I'm too old to appreciate winter.

[DesertFox]

Phoenicians PINE for winter. :D

[dPrasse]

Phoenicians PINE for winter. :D

Fox , Peach and I were down there when it was 119 ... We needed some Ice Age that day !

[DoctorDoom]

You can have my winter. How about swapping some of your January temperatures for ours.

Re the topic, who the hell cares if Earth is warming? There's not a farking thing we can do to restrain it, nor is there a strong reason to attempt it. I say enjoy it.

Re "models", they can be tailored to produce any outcome by selecting the proper variables (and rejecting inconvenient ones) and writing the algorithms that process them to attain a desired result. Junk science does that as SOP.

As as for our omniscient atheists/liberals who are the World's Greatest Authorities on every aspect of science, they've long since become crashing bores.

[aaron11]

As as for our omniscient atheists/liberals who are the World's Greatest Authorities on every aspect of science, they've long since become crashing bores.

Not to mention a bit dingy...


They remind me of the ancients who believed that they had to sacrifice "other" humans in order to appease their Gods and atone for their precieved mistakes...

Let the sluaghter begin...

:tinhat:

[sunsettommy]

Odd, as he's citing what has proven to be the mainstream scientific consensus, versus the paranoid right-wing pseudoscience as presented by the few on your side.

You guys complaining about "junk science" is pretty rich.

Funny that you call it right-wing pseudoscience,when most of the skeptics are not even republicans.Many are Scientists who have served on the IPCC panel.Some of them STILL do too.

I myself am NOT a Republican.In fact I was for many years a Liberal and now an Independant and all along still a skeptic of the claims of a Global warming doomsday tripe.

But then your whole attack based on right-wing partisanship is plain nonsense if you have knowledge of the whole history of Global warming hysteria anyway.

It was the LIBERALS and Environmentalists who created a show in 1988,pushing the idea of a doomsday warming scenario.Do you recall the Senate Subcommittee that was chaired by such Luminaries as Timothy Wirthless and Alfred Gore? They were stools for the Environmentalists and they wrote laughable books on the subject.James Hansen was the guy who basing on the already OUTMODED climate models of the mid 1980's promoted the idea that humans are the main cause of the tiny warming.

Surely you have read of Gore's book.It is TERRIBLE!

At the time in the mid 1980's the Conservatives were hardly even discussing the issue at all.It was the DEMOCRATS who pushed this Global Warming Cabal and along with United Nations.Created a GOVERNMENT backed panel call the........

INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel on Climate Change or known as I.P.C.C.

It is this panel that is the driving force for Global warming.A politicized panel somehow given much booklicking by retards like you and Markus666.See how stupid now your above post.It was idiots like you who have COMPROMISED the Climate research! Both YOU and Markus makes it clear of your hostility for skeptics and derisively attack small groups such a TechCentralStation.The very opposite of what a openminded person would do.

Two people have destroyed the credibility of the Hockey Stick and Mann himself shows his true bias and stupidity in their replies.Example of the cleansing action of a small group to clear the Hockey Stick shit and go on.

I noticed that Markus666 did not bite on the latest findings I casually mentioned that puts the "nail in the coffin" to the moronic Hockey Stick claims.It was of course posted on a personal website.It was based on many PUBLISHED science reports made over the years about those Pines.Mann and his boys had improperly used as temperature proxies.It turns out that Atmospheric levels of CO2 influences the thickness of the Bristlecone rings.These Pines after all grows in LOW precipitation areas,so having addtional CO2 in the air helps them grow better.Mann and his boys never included this in their creative calculations.Funny how science works.

Today most of the FUNDING for Climate Research are coming from places that have a personal interest in the game of promoting jabberwocky such as the Kyoto Treaty and other bullshit! It has the anti-Capitalism written all over it.The treaty is now debunked and yet clods like you seems oblivious to that and still cheerlead the effort to get it implemented here in America.

The bashing of President Bush over the Kyoto Treaty by the likes of you again exposes your hostility to him and exposes your flaming ignorance.It was in 1999 that The U.S. Senate sent President Clinton a resolution to make changes to the proposal.The vote was 95-0 telling the President not to bother sending the treaty for ratification without making those changes.The Clinton administration withdrew the treaty and NEVER tried to bring it up to a vote.It was the Democrats who tried to get us on that stupid treaty.

President Bush is correct in resisting the worthless treaty.The Prime Minister of Britain a LIBERAL has recently made it clear that Kyoto is dead.


I gave that dweeb Markus a number of examples of INDIVIDUALS who blows away the "Consensus" and reset the path in a field science.He showed how stupid he is with his reply.

His bias against small groups is obvious.He loves "consensus" so much I wonder if he has shrine to it in his house.It is pathetic.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Odd, as he's citing what has proven to be the mainstream scientific consensus, versus the paranoid right-wing pseudoscience as presented by the few on your side.

You guys complaining about "junk science" is pretty rich.
There is NO consensus about global warming and the only "scientists" who claim that global warming is being caused by human activities are those who toe the socialist line so that they can get grant money from leftist groups like the UN, the Sierra Club, etc. There is NO scientific evidence that global warming is being caused by human activity. That claim is based on nothing but supposition and speculation.

BTW, since the word "consensus" is defined as "unanimity" there is no way that any honest person can claim that there is a consensus on global warming.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 19th Century, global temperatures have increased 0.6 deg. C according to the UN's IPCC and the NAS Climate Change Report. More than two-thirds of that increase occurred before 1940, before the huge industrial expansion and before the huge population explosion following World War II. If global warming were being caused by human activities, nearly all of the temperature increase since the end of the Little Ice Age would have occurred after 1940, not before. It's just simple logic. Oops! I almost forgot. Liberals are governed by emotion, not logic.

[sunsettommy]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Richard Muller is a Global Warming believer.However at least he is open minded about OBVIOUS errors.

From TECHNOLOGY REVIEW.COM,



Global Warming Bombshell
<!---AUTHOR --->By Richard Muller <!--- ISSUE_DATE --->October 15, 2004

</TD></TR><TR><!---- BUILDS PAGE NAVS - CALLS PAGELINK FUNCTION IN INCLUDES.ASP ----><TD>Page 1 of 2 (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.2.asp) next (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.2.asp) http://www.technologyreview.com/images/nextarrow.gif (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.2.asp)</TD></TR><TR><TD class=ArtbodytxtP><!----START ARTICLE TXT----><!--- ARTICLE_TXT_1 --->Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.


There is a lot more in the link:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp?p=1

This is a year ago now but interesting to read an article written by a Global Warming supporter.That plainly states that Mann and his boys blew it big time.

Just as I suspected.

:whistle:

[Naturalized-Texan]

The question that must be answered now is:

Did Michael Mann purposely commit fraud or did he just make an egregious error?

[dPrasse]

I vote fraud ...

[sunsettommy]

The question that must be answered now is:

Did Michael Mann purposely commit fraud or did he just make an egregious error?

I think he purposely committed fraud because he is fighting back hard against people and has shown a huge reluctance to publish ALL the data.It belongs to the taxpayers and therefore we should be allowed after a reasonable time to see the data.He has already said no to M and M for the REST of the data.

What a man,what a science bigot!

It will be interesting how Markus666 tries to rationalize this away.It will be interesting what this miserable person will do to try and lie his way out.

I have a lot more for this close minded man,on the subject of a flawed Hockey Stick.

Muller made clear note of the REFUSAL by Nature magazine to accept the paper from M and M.This is why McIntire and McKitrick then set up a website and since then been doing their thing.Just like a number of other rejects of the establishment have been doing.The very people Markus666 recently showed hostility to.The Scientists who are skeptics are being generally shut out by those who holds the power to disallow alternative positions of opinion on the subject.That is what I have been trying to tell this so called Hydrometerologist.

Markus666 loves to blather that he will only read from "peer reviewed" papers.It is just a narrowminded mindset I keep trying to point out.Just as he clearly dislikes "skeptics".He is hostile to anyone who does not belong to some "Ivy league" science club.It is pathetic to meet someone who is this bad.

[aaron11]

Damn it's cold out today!

Can i get a order of Global-warming with a side order of Republicans pushing old ladies dowm flights of stairs?

And can i get that to go?

[markus3622]

Muller made clear note of the REFUSAL by Nature magazine to accept the paper from M and M.This is why McIntire and McKitrick then set up a website and since then been doing their thing.Just like a number of other rejects of the establishment have been doing.The very people Markus666 recently showed hostility to.The Scientists who are skeptics are being generally shut out by those who holds the power to disallow alternative positions of opinion on the subject.That is what I have been trying to tell this so called Hydrometerologist.

Markus666 loves to blather that he will only read from "peer reviewed" papers.It is just a narrowminded mindset I keep trying to point out.Just as he clearly dislikes "skeptics".He is hostile to anyone who does not belong to some "Ivy league" science club.It is pathetic to meet someone who is this bad.

I'm just going to say a few things on this "hockey stick" debate and on peer-review.

People can put anything on the internet. I'm sure you're aware of that. For example, you can find that

(i) JFK was killed by Israel
http://100777.com/node/219
(ii) Diana was killed by the British Government
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=41
(iii) The world was created 6000 years ago
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Now, you can call me an "elitist" if you will, but I prefer to use reliable sources. For that reason, peer-review is a cornerstone of science. If I google "global warming", pages and pages of links to groups saying just about anything will pop up. We can debate all of these links (we've already done a good job at that). For that reason, a basic level of reliability is required, and that is best performed by debate in the scientific literature.

There's little evidence skeptics are barred from publishing because of any bias. M & M did manage to publish in GRL. I don't have access to the minutes of the referees at Nature, but we know that M&M have had trouble distinguishing degrees from radians before. Ultimately, we've no reason to believe that skeptics are being stopped from publishing.

Going back to the "hockey stick" controversy, Mann's work has been far from discredited. The work has been reproduced with different data sets and different techniques (wavelet analysis rather than PCA)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5711/828a?rss=1

Moberg et al 2005
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/pdf/nature03265.pdf
Ammann et al
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
Rutherford et al
http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdfhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol307/issue5711/images/medium/828a-1-med.gif

Still no equal. Temperature records recovered from tree rings and other proxies broadly agree that no time in the past millennium has been as warm as recent decades (black). - article in science quoted above

The point is that numerous temperature reconstructions have added evidence to the idea that the recent warming is anomolous.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I vote fraud ...
So do I.

[sunsettommy]

Markus,Markus,Markus..... Sigh,

That was a

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5></TD><TD class=sectionHeading vAlign=center noWrap>News Releases


Media Advisory: The Hockey Stick Controversy
New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise

May 11, 2005

BOULDER—Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.



</TD><TD width=20></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>



</TD><TD class=sectionHeading vAlign=center noWrap><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>



</TD><TD class=sectionHeading vAlign=center noWrap></TD><TD width=20></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


</TD><TD width=20></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That was NEWS RELEASE! :hahaha:

M and M already in the subsequent months afterwards dealt with it.They DID NOT reproduce the ORIGIONAL data as published by Mann et al in 1998.

You really need to go read M and M's website.They honestly provide links to Ammonnand Wahls websites and also provide relevant data response.Something Ammon and Wahl just like his buddy Mann fail to do.

Why even now is Mann still resisting in providing ALL the data of his ORIGIONAL 1998 paper?

Then as I earlier pointed out to YOU.Ammann and Wahl are associates of Dr.Mann.Ammonn is even a LISTED contributor on Mann's Realclimate website.

They are not INDEPENDANT.

God you are pathetic!

[sunsettommy]

Markus666 why not read up on the exchanges between Mann and M and M?

Take note of the many zigzags Mann makes in his replies.The mann is all over the map on his own paper!

This is from M and M's own website CLIMATE WATCH.

Mann's Responses and Our Counter-Arguments

While the above articles have been under review and in press, Mann et al. have established a weblog at www.realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/) and have published a number of criticisms of our work. As described in the NWT article, there has been somewhat of an ongoing dialogue between Mann et al. and ourselves, since our original article in late 2003. The comments at realclimate.org are directed at our original article and towards a submission to Nature in early 2004 and re-state positions previously made in an Internet response by them to our first article and in correspondence with Nature. We were accordingly familiar with all of these positions by August 2004. Our new articles directly rebut the positions at realclimate.org. Since we anticipate that these positions may be re-iterated, we summarize comments on these responses below. Many of the points are quite technical. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P>


http://www.climate2003.com/mann.responses.htm

[sunsettommy]

This link will show the replies M and M has made concerning the Ammonn and Wahl paper allegedly supporting Mann's long ago exposed 1998 paper called the "Hockey Stick".

It starts on MAY 12 2005.The very next day after the Press release you mentioned.Ammonn and Wahl has in the subseqent months fared rather poorly.

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?cat=20

[Naturalized-Texan]

Honest scientists are obligated to supply their raw data and methodology to other scientists so that the others can duplicate and confirm the conclusions of the research. The fact that Mann refuses to supply that information is prima facie evidence that he is dishonest and is perpetrating fraud.

[Bob_Arctor]

There is NO consensus about global warming and the only "scientists" who claim that global warming is being caused by human activities are those who toe the socialist line so that they can get grant money from leftist groups like the UN, the Sierra Club, etc.
Right right, the conspiracy, blah blah. Appealing to a faceless conspiracy explains everything so well.
There is NO scientific evidence that global warming is being caused by human activity. That claim is based on nothing but supposition and speculation.BTW, since the word "consensus" is defined as "unanimity" there is no way that any honest person can claim that there is a consensus on global warming.
NT, you appear to be guilty of denying reality.

Read again (or perhaps for the first time):

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#affiliation)


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1)). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2)). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3)). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4))].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8)).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I hate to say it, but denying the existence of facts that sit on your computer screen is dishonest. The scientific consensus is that GW is happening, and human activities are in part responsible. You don't have to believe it, but that is the consensus.

[Bob_Arctor]

Funny that you call it right-wing pseudoscience,when most of the skeptics are not even republicans.Many are Scientists who have served on the IPCC panel.Some of them STILL do too.
References?

The right-wing comment was partly out of truth, as energy interests help finance GW denying voices. It was partly in jest, in response to the litany of socialist, left wing, and assorted other names called climate scientists.
IPCC It is this panel that is the driving force for Global warming.A politicized panel somehow given much booklicking by retards like you and Markus666.
If that were the only one saying GW exists, maybe you'd be on to something. Unfortunately, just about everyone else says it exists.



IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5))]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8)).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So, attacking the IPCC seems a little pointless.
See how stupid now your above post.It was idiots like you who have COMPROMISED the Climate research! Both YOU and Markus makes it clear of your hostility for skeptics and derisively attack small groups such a TechCentralStation.The very opposite of what a openminded person would do.
Stupid? Why? Compromised? How?

Skepticism is fine. I'm quite a skeptical person. I note you haven't responded to Oreskes' article. You have not addressed the total dearth of papers that deny GW. Why?
Two people have destroyed the credibility of the Hockey Stick and Mann himself shows his true bias and stupidity in their replies.Example of the cleansing action of a small group to clear the Hockey Stick shit and go on.
Did they publish their analysis of the hockey stick? The larger question is why do you focus on Mann so much? Have you any idea of the volume of literature on the subject of GW?
Mann and his boys never included this in their creative calculations.Funny how science works.
I understand that Mann's paper has been criticised by actual scientists in print. There's more to GW than Mann.
Today most of the FUNDING for Climate Research are coming from places that have a personal interest in the game of promoting jabberwocky such as the Kyoto Treaty and other bullshit!
I asked you before: references?

While your're at it, does any funding of GW deniers come from industry? Be honest.
President Bush is correct in resisting the worthless treaty.The Prime Minister of Britain a LIBERAL has recently made it clear that Kyoto is dead.
Great. I'm not interested in Kyoto, personally.
I gave that dweeb Markus a number of examples of INDIVIDUALS who blows away the "Consensus" and reset the path in a field science.He showed how stupid he is with his reply.
Aric, you might want to mellow out. Your reply is becoming incoherent.

Also, you never responed to Oreskes' article. Read it again and get back to me.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Also, I know you're not a creationist. TechStationCentral hosts quite a bit of creationist material, if I'm not mistaken. Why do you trust them?

[Aric2000]

Right right, the conspiracy, blah blah. Appealing to a faceless conspiracy explains everything so well.

NT, you appear to be guilty of denying reality.

Read again (or perhaps for the first time):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I hate to say it, but denying the existence of facts that sit on your computer screen is dishonest. The scientific consensus is that GW is happening, and human activities are in part responsible. You don't have to believe it, but that is the consensus.

And again, Oreske is full of it, there is NOT and NEVER has been a consensu on global warming being caused by man.

It is scientifically questionable, the models are questionable, and the scientists that do question it are ostricized by the global warming believers.

Sorry Bob, but global warming caused by man is questionable in the EXTREME, it is NOT based on sound science, it is NOT repeatable, as amatter of fact, EVERY time a model is done, there is a different result.

The scientists are actually quite clueless, but as long as they continue to say with vigor that it is indeed man's fault, their grants will continue.

[Bob_Arctor]

And again, Oreske is full of it, there is NOT and NEVER has been a consensu on global warming being caused by man.
You have yet to explain for the first time - much less "again" - how Oreskes is wrong.

She looked at 928 papers, and NONE were anti-GW. NONE. Therefore, it seems that there IS a consensus.
It is scientifically questionable, the models are questionable, and the scientists that do question it are ostricized by the global warming believers.
Sorry Bob, but global warming caused by man is questionable in the EXTREME, it is NOT based on sound science, it is NOT repeatable, as amatter of fact, EVERY time a model is done, there is a different result.
There any many lines of evidence. They all point in the same direction.

Only junk pseudoscientists funded by the energy industry deny GW. The consensus is that it's happening. This is supported by the literature. Denying it is just as nuts as are those creationists who insist there's no evidence for evolution, or that the Earth is billions of years old.

[Aric2000]

Aric, you might want to mellow out. Your reply is becoming incoherent.

Also, you never responed to Oreskes' article. Read it again and get back to me.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Also, I know you're not a creationist. TechStationCentral hosts quite a bit of creationist material, if I'm not mistaken. Why do you trust them?

Mellow out?

When I see questionable science, I call it out, science is science, NOT a political tool, which in this case, is EXACTLY what it has become.

Scientists that say Global warming is NOT the fault of man, have had their funding cut, and grants cut off, whereas the ones that continue to spout the politically correct line, continue to get their funding, as long as they STICK to that line.

Politics has gotten in the way of REAL scientific research, and thos actually doing REAL research, you know, peer reviewed, full disclosure etc, continue to question the global warming is caused by man mantra.

The earth does what it does Bob, historically, the earth has cooled and warmed hundereds if not thousands of times, and to say that this ONE time is caused by man is insanity itself.

It is the ONLY time this cycle has hit it's peak while we have been industrially mature, and scientifically aware of what is happening. The problem is, that we really haven't a clue as to what is happening.

I believe that science should remain that, SCIENCE, it has NO business getting involved in religion, or politics, and religion NOR politics has any business getting involved in science.

As ID is religion attempting to get involved in science, Global warming caused by man is Politics trying to get involved in science.

You mix either of those things in science, it is NO longer science.

[Bob_Arctor]

Scientists that say Global warming is NOT the fault of man, have had their funding cut, and grants cut off, whereas the ones that continue to spout the politically correct line, continue to get their funding, as long as they STICK to that line.
Frankly, I don't believe you. I've asked you repeately for references, and you failt o provide them. You're no different than those YECs who insist there are all sorts of scientists on their side, but are kept down out of fear or will lose their funding if they question the party line. Ridiculous.
Politics has gotten in the way of REAL scientific research, and thos actually doing REAL research, you know, peer reviewed, full disclosure etc, continue to question the global warming is caused by man mantra.
Then why don't they publish? Why do the overwhelming majority of papers accept GW?
The earth does what it does Bob, historically, the earth has cooled and warmed hundereds if not thousands of times, and to say that this ONE time is caused by man is insanity itself.
It is the ONLY time this cycle has hit it's peak while we have been industrially mature, and scientifically aware of what is happening. The problem is, that we really haven't a clue as to what is happening.
Wow, so the climate scientists are so naiive that they don't corrrect for this? Really?
I believe that science should remain that, SCIENCE, it has NO business getting involved in religion, or politics, and religion NOR politics has any business getting involved in science.
Heh. Ironic, as many GW deniers are funded by energy interests. You don't mind if industry/politics mixes with science as long as they propagate what you already believe, eh?
As ID is religion attempting to get involved in science, Global warming caused by man is Politics trying to get involved in science.
Unfortunately, the evidence does not support you. The only political involvement in GW science is from those why have financial interests in it being debunked.

Try one more time explaining why the majority of publications and general consensus is for human involvement in GW, if that really isn't the consensus.

[Aric2000]

Believe what you want Bob, but Global Warming caused by man is nothing more then politics getting involved in science, and getting the answer it wants by cutting funding to those that give the politicians that answer they don't want.

Common sense and history tells us that the earth has warmed MANY times, in JUST THIS FASHION, nothing strange, it is not going any faster then it has in the past, the CO2 levels are as a matter of fact WAY below other times.

The GREATEST greenhouse gas is water vapor, yet I hear NOTHING about how we should quit evaporating water, or how we should quit volcanoes from erupting etc.

The fact is that