MikeGruber you have wasted space and copied the flotsam from a Skeptic Tank.

Danny Glover was right and you are wrong. 3 of 5 of my ExxonMobil's global warming earthquake predictions for Haiti were seen to be correct in front of God and everybody:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/pentagons-haiti-mission-a-model-for-new-security-role/

Mike-Gruber, you have no clue. Don't you know that before we warm up and die we must first get really cold and die. You have to read up on the subject and become an expert before you go knocking it. Please read how to fool idiots by Al Gore and the latest one, How to send out false information via emails. I understand that there are some new developments on the email saga. There is no substitute for information

Ozonator, are you the one with the magical, miraculous ozone machines?

ozonator, I went to the "link" you posted, no luck

ozonator, my apologies, I finally was able to go into it. Not claiming to be a subject matter expert I can only say that paper takes anything put on it without any complaints. It kind ot reminds me of the birthers and the truthers, to be perfectly honest

loomis, I recommend you read through the comments on a recent AJ blog (link below). I didn't see you on the list after the first day so maybe you missed all the fun later. The weaknesses of Mike's many arguments were covered there in great depth. After posting sixty plus comments on that string it's hard to imagine why Mike felt compelled to start all over again with this blog reposting a predictable editorial from Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, a paper that is about to go out of business.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/141424.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=2&sub_type=blogs&town_id=

The last comment on this blog as of this writing sums up the entire exchange:

On 2/8/10 at 01:25 PM, Bastiat wrote:

Mike Gruber - you seem to remain confused regarding the difference between a scientist with an opinion, opinions about science, and a scientific opinion...the three are very different...as long as you continue to provide equal weight to each you will never come to a "scientific" understanding of anything...obviously, science really isn't your bag...scream from the mountaintops that AGW can't be real because you despise the UN...I support your right to make that statement...just quit trying to argue that AGW isn't real because the science says so...science does not say that AGW isn't real...in FACT it says just the opposite.

loomisresident, pseudo-science can’t spell fool without “U”.

Off all energy released in global warming, the energy released through quakes is among the hardest to lie about and turn a profit off of the victims. For example, LABI Limbaugh screwed up with the quake in Haiti with reduced Viagra and Oxycontin sales to his bald dittoheads. Nature.com screwed up by deleting my set of correct earthquake predictions on their blog as death and destruction started in Bhutan and ended with hundreds of preventable deaths from Somoa - Tonga. Extremist Republican and Christian’s media outlets like Limbaugh, Washington Times, Icecrap.con, 20-Wattsupmybanksaccountoutofyours, Roy ‘d-rage’ Spencer, and George Noory’s Nocturnal Toxic Emissions make grand claims of all knowledge yet never seem to make even an itty bitty prediction. Behold, G Noory and Jim Berkland patting themselves on the back for “predicting” the 6.5 offshore Northern California quake - after the fact - yet also failed to predict the monster Haitian quake a few hours later - just to sell more moldy books and win a bet.

With condolences to the victims;

“A. Our Ozonator’s Preamble for Survival ... For global warming predictions especially for this week, we typically may see up to 2 of the following 3 ecosystem catastrophes at any one time - solar flares, earthquakes/volcanoes, and hurricanes/monster storms. ... global warming (quakes), like diplomacy, is war by other means by those running ExxonMobil and willing accomplice investors. ... powered with the filth of ExxonMobil, global warming models strongly indicate Earth and star getting torn a new one. ... B. Including the odd chance of JJBAL Fireballs with each prediction, with included statistics, the specifics of the Giulaino - Gansu Model (2/7 - 13/10) of extreme earthquake warnings among tectonic energy lines with individual predictions for regions (magnitude in Richters) are: 1. Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge (6+) - Southern Mid-Atlantic Ridge (6+) - South Sandwich Island (6+) - Chile (6+); 2. Costa Rica (6+) - Nicaragua (7+) - El Salvador (6+); 3. Yemen Model: a. Finland (4+) - Poland (4+) - mainland Italy (5+) - Sicily (4+) - Libya (4+), and b. Kazakhstan (5+) - Uzbekistan (6+) - Xinjiang (6+) - Qinghai (5+) - Myanmar (6+); and 4. Kermadec (5+) - New Zealand (6+) - Chatham Islands (5+). ... C. GBRWE official experimental quake, volcano, and other models ... Because of the inherent warning factors while trying to maximize the prediction for the affected region, a correct in this earthquake modeling is anything within 0.5 …

Mike - This planet, while being resilient, has a delicate natural ecosystem designed to keep you, me, plants and animals alive. We are trashing it at an alarmingly fast pace. No one needs science, pundits, comedians and Fox or CNN for that matter, to tell us this...

Miuwtant,

And since you want to copy Bastiat to Mike Gruber from another blog....

Let's show what Mike Gruber responded with....

"Bastiat,

Run to the aid of your fallen comrade as you please but to borrow his tactics which failed over and over again throughout this blog is a unique way to proceed.

As he does, you want to misrepresent my thought process and the actual argument at hand as to fashion an easier approach

to discredit me. When did I say the AGW Theory can't be true because of opinion of the UN? I said no such thing.

That's a classic Straw Man fallacy in logic.

I noticed you, as with Miuwtant, have let out directly addressing all the scientific data that I have presented clearly and instead just make childish assumptions about credentials to present the data.

IE: If a newscaster explains what a scientist discovered as a flaw in a scientific theory, you are throwing out the science behind the discovery because a journalist said so......? No, a scientist says so, a journalist just reported it. How dumb do you think people are?

No mention of solar correlations with earths temperatures....

No mention of the 100's of years that CO2 lags behind earth's temperatures....

No mention as to why the earth is now in a cooling trend?

No mention as to how you explain normal sea level data?

No mention as to how you explain the absence of the tornados, hurricanes, famines and drought, wild fires and floods that are all overdue?

(cont....)

(cont....)

No, instead you just say "obviously, science really isn't your bag"....

Say what you need to.....anyone can see you are painted into a corner and behaving so."

loomisresident,

I am very interested in that book, How to Fool Idiots, by A.Gore......his bank account alone is evidence that the man is on to something that works.

I see Al as a guy who tried to use the front door but people just saw his as a big bore and the dangling chad was the last straw.

He decided to just put a product together, use his mobility through the highways of power, and become a salesman like no other.

He's kind of like the criminals of Gothem City who all seem to have been spit on by the system and Bruce Wayne.

So he goes to the Dark Side...and says, no more Mr. Nice Guy.....I'm gonna make some serious money now.

Within weeks he had the world shifting the economy toward his investments and folks running around like during

the 50's Cold War.

I did catch the lastest info on the IPCC, from the UK press because our Media is standing down on the issue.

I hear that they were using college students term papers for some of their data.....and magazine article about mountain climbing.

We need to get this group removed from their involvement in this issue and replace it with an independent scientific body

completely free from political scandal.......that task alone with me harder than "saving the planet".

Miuwtant,

FYI,

My posts on the other sight were done at your direct request.

You said there was a consensus, and I smashed your claim to bits....there is a world of experts in every field related to

the AGW Theory in line to be heard......but they are being prevented access to IPCC data and being straight-armed by

card carrying Big Science who have been bought and paid for to create the data behind the policy.

That is an interesting way for science to behave...."here's our agenda, a blank check, make it happen"?

And to this day you have not adressed the core issues that have dismantled the AGW Theory.

Instead you attack the independent scientist I used for being outside of the IPCC rooster, which by the way day by new day is

becoming the place to be because the house of card is falling apart.

And you are coming after me as well, which I only take as a sign I'm doing something right.

Try addressing the direct issue....what do I have to do with the science against AGW?

Observer,

I know how upset you are in thinking that America has invaded other countries on false pretenses just to loot their resources and

grab power.

And though I disagree with that assessment concerning the motivations behind the deployment of America's Military,

I do see that the UN by way of the IPCC has forwarded an agenda based on incomplete flawed science in order to

shift the economy of the world on false pretense.

If this "Climate Change" issue was an airplane it would be grounded until it could be proven beyond a doubt that it is

not going to fall from the sky....let alone, allow it's investors to sell tickets on a flight that can't even get off the ground.

Some folks are getting very very very wealthy selling tickets on this airline.

Un Air.....don't get on that plane.

If you look closely at the ticket, Fantasy Island is not on the map.

I'm not advocating toxic behavior of industry and development.

Not one bit. They are going for the whole planet! Global Extinction just around the corner if we don't act NOW.

Hurry up....don't think about it to much....vote for cap-n-trade.....vote for everything Green....hurry, no time to

find out if the disasters looming around the corner are real......hurry, hurry, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go.

I'm saying 250 cents of every dollar you surrender to the UN's version of planetary salvation

is being spent on administrative costs.

Save it for the real deal.....

All of mans greatest achievements have come during periods of global warming. What is the problem? Beats the heck out of another ice age. Man on Earth is like a flea on a dog. The flea has no control over what the dog does. (with the exception of scratching.) And we have no control over the planet's cycles of cooling and warming. We can and should prepare for cooling and warming but we can not stop it.

ozonator, since you want to fall back to insults I will say that I put you on the same plane as the birthers and truthers. You are a proponent of voodoo science.

You never answered my question. Are you the man behind the ozone machines that were recently confiscated by the FDA? I guess those ozone generators and the benefits were also bogus.

Go ahead and shoot more insults if that is all you can come up with. Let me know when you find the lost city of Atlantis or Noah's Ark will you.

Thanks

Ozo;

Do you adjust your tinfoil hat before or after you write these letters?

I nominate Ozonator for the Loomis Flying Jackass award.

Mike, say it aint so, I just bought a Prius to save the polar bears.

Polar Bears are experiencing a baby boom? Where did you pull that incorrect info from? Have you seen the North Pole lately? If so please explain how polar bears can have a baby boom if their hunting grounds continue to shrink?

You argue sunspot activity is the cause of global warming and then you contradict yourself with the statement that Russia hasn't seen increase temps and Scotland is facing its coldest winter. So are you suggesting global warming is real or not? The general argument is whether or not human activity is the main cause. Also one of the predictors of GW is more volatile weather patterns worldwide i.e. Scotland, the constant Ice storms in Oklahoma and Texas, record breaking snow fall in D.C., etc.

FYI on a chemical level carbon-dioxide and other green houses gases are called such because when they interact with minimal amounts of energy, the energy of the molecule become reactive and "heats up".

Mike - you haven't smashed anything to bits...there is still scientific consensus that AGW is real. That is a fact.

skimammoth,

In 2002, the US Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population was near historic highs. Biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Arctic community of Nunavit who tracks 13 of those colonies, says 11 are stable or thriving with populations that have increased 25%. Mr. Gore’s depiction of a polar bear drifting off to his death on a melting piece of ice was misleading and emotional plea...looks like it worked. Vast areas of these barren iceless polar bear habitats have returned recently as we continue of recent cooling trend. A trend that has thrown a wrench into the gears that turn this agenda driven IPCC machine. The ebb and flow of the ice fields is not a new phenomenon, and has been taking place for thousands of years.

Global warming is caused by water vapor. And you are merging different factors to make them appear to clash. The solar cycles, periods of sun activity which affect temperatures on earth, correlates beyond any doubt with the earths warming and cooling trends. We have never cooled during high solar activity and never warmed with low solar activity. The record winters in Europe are not in the IPCC’s list of catastrophes and neither are normal temperatures in Russia. Why you think if it is snowing in Ireland it should be snowing at the same time in Russia is interesting. The point is that neither location should be having that weather, according to the IPCC’s predictions.

(cont...)

(cont...)

The world-wide upheaval in weather patterns is just not happening above and beyond what has happened in the past, or will happen in the future. It’s call weather, and it comes and it goes.

Basically, the liberals have falling for this IPCC racket, but the earth just isn’t cooperating and their AGW model has been devastated. As the UN scientists scramble to adjust their data by any means possible and obstruct the wave of independent scientist from bringing their own data to the world...the earth quietly continues to dismantle it as well.

FYI: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen, while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Decomposition of organic material produces CO2. When the oceans warm they release CO2. When the planet warms up, as it has done off and on for millions of years, CO2 levels follow this cycle, they do not cause it. Increased CO2 levels lag 100's of years behind earth’s temperatures. The IPCC has the cart in front of the horse...even with your dynamic molecular spin on carbon.

Bastiat,

Thanks for your comments here. On far too many topics of importance some people, like Mike with global warming, take the easy way out. It's far easier to be blissfully and noisily wrong than it is to look into a matter in depth, understand and sort out the facts from the fiction, and make an informed decision. Mike seems to think we only believe in the theory of AGW because the "untrustworthy UN" says it is true. He has ignored my reference to the fact that there are literally nundreds of international scientific organizations which endorse the theory, a handful which are neutral, and none which refute it. That fact would make thoughful people stop and think. Not Mike.

He wants people to think that scientists are making this up so that they can continue to get grant funding or the like. He simply ignores the reality which is that this is important stuff to study either way so very little funding is at stake by taking a position pro or con. In fact it seems that a whole bunch of people are making good money by taking a position against AGW. Too bad all of that spending hasn't delivered any real science to support their claims. Look at the article Mike posted above, for example. It starts by conflating Obama and Osama and slides downhill from that low start. It refers to not one piece of real science. Why? There aren't any.

Mike - I continue to stand by my statement that "science really is not your bag". You just don't seem to really "get it". Your "proof" is wanting...

MG: No mention of solar correlations with earths temperatures....

B: Solar vairiation is DIRECTLY addressed in the science that the latest IPCC reports are based upon...why don't you try reading the actual science before saying that it is invalid or doesn't take solar variation into account?

MG: No mention of the 100's of years that CO2 lags behind earth's temperatures....

B: I believe what you are getting at here is that ice core data suggests that, typically, CO2 increases do not precede warming trends but follow them. This may be true...but this fact certainly does not prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that man's contribution of CO2 to our environment through the burning of fossil fuels can not lead to warming trends.

MG: No mention as to why the earth is now in a cooling trend?

B: According to whom?

MG: No mention as to how you explain normal sea level data?

B: According to whom?

MG: No mention as to how you explain the absence of the tornados, hurricanes, famines and drought, wild fires and floods that are all overdue?

B: According to whom?

richcrane,

Al Gore thanks you, the polar bears couldn't care less, but enjoy your new car!

Bastiat'

There is still a UN "scientific" group with a consensus that the backbone of AGW Theory (the hockey stick graph) is real.

So what? They are trying to deliver what they have been paid in advance to deliver... so what?

There is a consensus that the earth has warming trends and cooling trends.

The politically agenda driven madness of cataclysmic planetary self destruction has been exposed

for what it is, a scam of epic proportions.

Believe what you want, naturally, go run out and pumps your money into this pyramid scheme, let the Government

tell you what you can do and not do, own and not own. They know best....right?

If they say the sky is falling then start dancing to that tune.....and tell a friend.

I'm not going to stop you...I'm just sitting this one out.....if that's alright with you?

Mike cherry picked his polar bear data. From 2002, no less.

Here's the real deal, an exhaustive study by the U.S. Geological Service (excerpt is from their Executive Summary) completed in 2007, long after the period of Mike's cherry-picked data:

"The overall conclusion of the USGS research effort is:

Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative."

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf

The polar bear is currently on the U.S. Endangered Species list:

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do

As I said before, Mike, I don't care at all if you have any opinion in the world. You can believe in the tooth fairy or whatever. I don't care.

But when you post online and push your opinion as fact on other people - while simultaneously ridiculing people who don't agree with you - then you get what you deserve, the public drubbing that has occurred on this and the other recent string on this subject over the last few days.

It's time to simply withdraw. Nothing you have said has apparently resonated with people who might be politically aligned with your findings. That must be because they understand that the facts aren't there so they stay quietly on the sidelines while you keep coming back for more. I don't know. But as Bastiat has repeatedly said what you have posted here as support for your views doesn't pass as science.

Mike Gruber - You keep attempting to convince us that CO2 is not a pollutant. I am not sure why you feel this is an important point. What is a pollutant? Dictionary.com defines it as: "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose". CO2 can be a pollutant...depending upon the context. So can oxygen, or water...what is your point?

Hey! Miuwtant is back!

And still attacking me instead of the issue.

I don't see why you see me as the one taking the easy route here.....I am lining up against Big "UN Science" and following the work of independents as they slowly make inroads through the obstructions

being thrown at them by the Al Gore Green Machine....In my view it is you who are choosing the easy chair of Government Supplied State of the Planet alarmist jargon because that

"unspecified dog" that you claim isn't in this hunt might starve on his leash.

Just come clean and tell us all here what you personally have to gain by the success of the UN's global agenda re; AGW......

The way you are attacking me instead of explaining the horrible behavior of the Scientific Community pushing AGW's "hockey stick" flawed theory

is a pattern that points to a personal stake you have in the Green Machine.

You keep falling back to a straw man argument by misrepresenting my position.

Yes the earth is warming and then cooling, warming and cooling.....just as it has been for millions of years........SO WHAT.

Form the first time in the history of this predictable trend, a situation that has never existed before, is that this latest normal warming cycle can be

packaged and sold like potato chips to a gullible planet because the apparatus to do so has for the first time had all the tools in place

to make the sale. Al Gore is like Elvis, and timing is everything.

IPCC is falling apart....concentrate on why.

Breaking news...from those in charge of the information.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34479085/ns/technology_and_science-space

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/01/28/atmospheric-dry-spell-eases-global-warming/

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jan/27/cover-global-warming-crap/

With so many forces at work..what is a Jedi to do?

Mike - The "hockey stick" is nowhere near a "backbone of AGW"...it is a side-show at best....

IPCC falling apart? I believe it is your grasp on reality that is falling apart Mr. Gruber.

What about the polar bears, Mike?

Maybe it is time for little humor...or is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

I went to Obewan's link from the San Diego reader. It's an interesting article and many of the comments below are worthwhile, also.

Bastiat,

......And logic does not appear to be your "bag".

A) The IPCC threw solar correlations a bone, out into the sideyard, as to be able to claim it has been incorperated.

And they did that because without solar cycles in the sideyard where THEY put it.....Solar Cycles would otherwise

be sitting at the head of the table in the fine dinning room......center stage.

Just by acknowleding it does not mean they gave it just due, but that is the illusion....ask a good lawyer about that tact.

B) You believe "want I am getting at"......do you think treating me like a child actually works? What I have said is perfectly clear re; CO2.....

there is no reason to dramatically wince and stretch to understand it.

Not typically.........has NEVER precedeed warming trends.

When did I ever say CO2 was not a greenhouse gas? When?

If warming occurs first, before CO2 levels rise at all....then CO2 is not available to use as a cause to the warming.

Let my "unscientific" mind spell this out for you....

Show me one natural phenomenon where the CAUSE of something happens AFTER the EFFECT.

C) Phil Chapman. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer......for one,

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9....good article, for two...

etc....etc....(of course these sources aren't Card Carrying UN Scientist so....toss them all out)

D) & E) This data is readily available..look it up.

Hey....I'm working on an estimate (my work) and getting back to this "tag-team" blog session...as well......

I'll comment on it all before the night is out.....you know that is true.

Miuwtant,

There are approximately 19 worldwide polar bear populations, the Fish and Wildlife action was based solely on reviewing data for only one of those populations in western Hudson Bay which has declined by 259 bears in last 17 years. The decline is due to hunting to prevent overpopulation and ironically the Canadian government is looking to increase the quota. (US Geological Survey in Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 2002, and Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada “Last Stand of our wild polar bears” 5/1/06)

And as to your earlier post....

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population....."

The key words here are "IF REALIZED".......and that is my point for crying out loud.

The data these projections are based on combined with the AL Gore IPCC flawed prediction of the planets future conditions

means that if the current trend continues.....

AND THAT IS JUST IT........THAT TREND HAS NOT ONLY SLOWED AND STALLED, BUT IS NOW REVERSED.......

The "if realized" is actually what has NOT taken place.

The earth and the polar bear populations ARE NOT COOPERATING with your Mega-Scientific Consensus.

That is your task.....explain why all these scheduled events are not taking place and we are cooling.

Is that perfectly clear?

Bastiat,

Someone better run down to the IPCC and then them know that the hockey stick is not central to their refuted AGW hockey stick graph

because without it they got nothing. Perhaps they should just go back to exploitation on smaller issues that they can control

from start to finish, in house.

My grasp is fine, but you apparently have a television set for a pacifier.

If a polar bear shows up on Oprah to discuss AGW please postpone judgement and

look hard for that zipper.......

Obewan,

Interesting links.....

I don't care for internet google pissing contests myself.

On any issue under the sun.....there are X saying yes and Y saying no.

It has turned into a river of soothing lies for both sides...but when you think

for yourself and make your own armor and keep your mind away from the

flow of popular anything....you think more clearly.

I can sit on a rock in my lower meadow and learn more from a creek

than I could from a week of 24/7 canned collective nothings that most

breathe like air.

(Don't know what happened to my original blog....I guess "someone" didn't care for the previous photo of Osama in a space suit)

Miuwtant, (your 4:23 pm post)

Go back to the very beginning of this exchange between us Miuwtant and you will see that it was you that was pushing your opinion as fact..the spur was when you claimed, in no uncertain terms, that there was a complete consensus in the scientific community regarding AGW Theory.

I stepped in and refuted that with ease for the statement is so over the top it was insulting. And off to the google races we went.

I don’t see this “public drubbing” that you say has occurred nor do I feel you, or your one comrade, have handed me my hat in any way shape or form. You are pushing your views and I am pushing mine...what is wrong with that?

You have evaded direct questions. Refuse to explain why your “unspecified dog in this hunt” has such a unique status. And spent the vast amount of your time on attacking me and claiming that my independent sources do not qualify against your UN IPCC hired scientific personnel. And now you are claiming that any folks who have been following this and not commenting are quietly supporting you...You have yet to defend the IPCC’s behavior

You have already withdrawn once and yet you are back. If I am such a fool and your Big UN Science is so strong then prove your faith and don’t bother with a guy without a UN de-coder ring such as I.

The IPCC is being dismantled outside of the iron curtain of American media.

I am all in, and calling the IPCC's bluff.....It's great to live in a …

......live in a free country!

Want to go Green.......go for it!

Want to make me go Green......that's where we have a little problem.

Want to send billions of my tax dollars to India based on flawed science and political agendas........that's where we have a problem.

But I'm not invested in this is any way finacially....can you say that?

Let's watch the earth without an agenda...without special interest....without paid experts.......

before we shift our economy through Green bank accounts.

We can do better as a species and not continue to due the environmental damage that we have been doing...and will that take some kind of thought and then some kind of action... on the part of all Jedi's...yes.

The truth is.. we have done a great deal of damage in a short period of time to the earths biological ecosystems and this needs to stop or possible disruptions in the food chains can and will occur. Now to the extent that we have altered the climate....since HARP project and then possibly via Chemtrail spraying programs or Ozone holes and then with our new tinkering around with things we do not completely understand like in Cern and the Hadron Collider etc. are just more potential problems with no apparent solutions that also may have a direct impact. Scientists will do what they do...and few have ever asked the taxpayers who are the ones paying for all these research programs... if we thought it was OK for them to do such things.

So picking on C02...sounds kind of silly...when you realize the governments true daunting potential to do massive amounts of destruction to the planet via unbridled scientific assault through experimentation.

CO2 is cause of global warming and in the above article link...it was the cause of the cooling...some one needs to make up their mind and yes the massive sun.....has a huge role in our climate.

Enjoyed the Jedi arguments...now have to run out and get my H1N1 shot.....someone told me too...so it must be …

Mike, many of us think that global climate change is political science rather than real science. It is mostly based upon models, which have a very short life (mostly zero). No matter how much data you model, these models have no established credibility for the sort of long range prediction they provide. People with agendas can easily get any answer you want them to provide. When congress tells us we will need to pay more for everything to limit our impact to the planet, it should raise a flag. It does not matter that we resist. They will teach our children. They will establish their 'new religion'. There is no point in engaging with them. Their argument has their 'religion' behind it, so they have the moral high ground. They only ask 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of questions.

It is not as if people like us want to create a better world for our kids. Cheaper and greener sources of energy save us money. We reduce our dependence on oil. They don't talk about how we can find ways to get there. Instead, they want to make us pay more for everything. Once they start getting that money, they will not stop. It is what 'they' do.

It is not as if people like us DON'T want to create a better world for our kids....

Good for you MikeGruber

this is something that i would post and the AJ cronies attack me. im glad you are using your thinking cap and putting the pixels together and looking at the big picture. Gratz!!

The whole push for climate change is to carbon tax the world. The taxes will be used to fund the new IMF backed world bank. And fund the new world government. The united Nations is indeed planning on taking over America. They express this fact in there own documents.

dont think so?? im crazy??? tin foil hat???

well you can look into this for yourself and prove me wrong please.

timeslip,

I agree with you.

This "either/or" false dilemma is their way of recreating opposing views as they are not, and in doing so they can better attack the new straw man with greater ease.

Either I swear allegiance to the prevailing UN wind or I am an eco-terrorist thrashing the planet to the last leaf.

That is not the case. People in this country are fed up with taxation without quality representation. There is a justified

growing mistrust of the goings on in the hall of power and I obviously feel this "climate change" issue has been highjacked

and is now an entity unto itself, complete with investors and policy makers routing the "solutions" right through their portfolios.

There are very real environmental issues that are being forgotten about that are tangible and pressing issues that humans

can actually do something about.

And in my lifetime, knock on wood, I will see the end of oil and run-away population growth have profound effects on living

life as we know it. I look at little kids these days and wonder what kind of America they will have to raise their children in.

Americans4Truth,

You have your reasons, I have mine.

We can just agree to that eh?

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm

"Peer-reviewed" science from 2008:

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Miuwtant and his comrade Bastiat,

have argued that I lack any scientific support for the many challenges I have posed against several of the key premises of the AGW Theory itself and the "use" of that theory

by the UN's embattled IPCC to forward their agenda across the planet. They claim there is no science to support me and that there is a world wide 100% consensus in all

scientific communities in full support of the AGW Theory.

Well here are a few that must have fell off the back of the UN ICPP Truck on the way to the Consensus BBQ:

**Global Warming is Not Occurring or has Ceased.....

*Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: " The world's climate warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview) "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ...

(cont...)

cont....

.....By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.” (Feb. 5, 2007)

*Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

*Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."

**Accuracy of IPCC Climate Projections is Questionable.........

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

*Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “ We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

cont....

cont....

*Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."

*Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

*Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes.

cont....

cont....

It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"

**Global Warming is Primarily Caused by Natural Processes.......

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

*Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

*Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."

*George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California : "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly,

cont....

cont....

(3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

*Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

*David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate …

cont...

.....warming."

*Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

*William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential. "I am of the opinion that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

*William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"

cont...

cont...

*William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

*George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."

*David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

*Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

cont.....

cont....

*Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

*Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

*Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."

cont...

cont....

*Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "The truth is probably somewhere in between the common view and that of skeptics, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... About 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming over the past century should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

*Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

*Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "There's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

cont...

cont....

*Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".

*Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."

*Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

*Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ...

cont...

cont...

. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."

**Cause of Global Warming is Unknown

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

*Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... The IPCC should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."

cont....

cont....

*Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

*Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "It is very likely that the recent upward trend in global surface temperature is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

cont...

cont...

*John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

*Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the temperature increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"

*William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

cont...

cont...

*David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

*Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

*Ross McKitrick, Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. His research found a strong correlation between surface temperature data and a nation's gross domestic product. A regression analysis revealed that a state's GDP explained about half of the warming over the observed period. Mckitrick has remarked, "I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with....

cont...

cont...

....with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. ... I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws."

**Global Warming will Not be Significantly Negative........

Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

*Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."

*Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "Warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ...

cont...

cont...

......We have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

*Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."

**Now Deceased......

The lists above only include living scientists. The following are deceased.

*August H. "Augie" Auer Jr.(1940-2007) believed that the cause of global warming was unknown. Retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, in 2006 he said: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'".

cont...

cont...

*Reid Bryson (1920-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 2007 he said: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

*Marcel Leroux (died 2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. former Professor of Climatology, UniversiteJean Moulin, in 2005 he said: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

cont.....

cont....

.....and:

*Frederick Seitz (1911-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. Former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, in 2001 he said: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."

*********

Boy I tell you.....what a bunch of bumbs out there.

Grown ups.....pretending they can compete with the "high standards" over at the UN's ICPP.

Yeah.....there's nobody worth a darn out there who can come up with one sound argument against

the premises of AGW.

Who do these guys think they are?

Hey, where did ozonator go? Flying around maybe?

I think ozonator is laying in his backyard with his ear to the ground

waiting for that distant rumble of Global Rumbling.

Now Jedi's...lets look at everything that has been used to influence the force...not just the above. Continue to allow the knowledge quest to expand exponentially...many have used our progress and purposeful distraction to enhance their dark side...

Gruber - Singer, Abdumatsov, and Lindzen is all you've got? Rather than post a bunch of op-ed pieces by folks who are scientists (these are opinions of scientists and not scientific opinions) why don't you publish the links to the actual research and science performed by these guys that proves their assertions scientifically? Oh that's right...they don't actually have any peer reviewed science to support their opinions...all they have are opinions without any proof or actual science to back them up. If you cannot discern between the opinion of a scientist and a scientific opinion then I suggest it is you who dismisses logic and science in favor of politically motivated spoon fed thought and sound bites....Lindzen and Singer? Seriously? You might want to go back to that rock by the stream and wait for Lindzen and Singer to produce something other than an opinion.

Again, the SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports your position is wanting.

Geez, Mike. At least you could check your own sources to see if in fact they actually agree with your pre-conceived notion of their position on climate.

For example, in your 1:50 a.m. comment you posted a link to the American Physical Society web site. I followed your link and clicked on:

A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change

By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz

That took me to the page that contained the article from which I have excerpted and posted below:

Quote

A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate ChangeEmail | Print

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Unquote

The article concludes with the following:

Quote

Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.

David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz

Physics Department

Cal Poly University

Unquote

I suppose when you posted your link you wanted me to click on the link there to Christopher Monckton's article which argues that the sun, not man, is responsible for the recent warming trend.

That article has also not undergone peer review. In fact Monckton has never published any peer reviewed work. He has published his opinions, though, in fairly large quantity.

Monckton's formal training is in classic literature and journalism. He is not a scientist though as a wealthy British lord he has had time to indulge his interests. He has been an outspoken critic of AGW for many years. Politically he is a Tory; he served in Thatcher's government. He is thoroughly conservative in political outlook and that is clearly evident in the bias he brings to his work on climate theory.

Fox News reported on the controversy that resulted when APS published Monckton's article. I believe this article is "fair and balanced".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,387542,00.html

This is a political hack job and attempted hit piece. Mike has posted too much information in an effort to legitimatize his first sentence. "Osama and Obama on global warming". Pathetic but that's the way of the right. Tell a lie enough times and some will think it's true. Easier than the facts or rational dialogue.

There's nothing to see here. Move along!

A further look at the American Physical Society and global warming finds that there is a physicist and member of the organization who disagrees with the theory of AGW. His name is Laurence Gould of the University of Hartford. Gould frequently references Monckton's work as proof of the "controversy" within the scientific community about the theory of AGW.

A check on Gould at hartford.edu finds that he has published a number of peer-reviewed articles. None of these, though, is on the subject of climate or anything related to climate. A review of his Lectures finds that he has been outspoken against AGW. I wonder why he has not put these concerns into a scholarly article and submitted it to his peers for review? A look at some public dialogue (an exchange of letters) between Gould and Alan Chados, an APS editor, finds that Dr. Chodos has this same question. In his letter Dr. Chodos concludes: "The extensive bibliography at the end of your editorial includes nothing from the peer-reviewed literature. Should that not concern your audience, who are after all mostly practicing scientists, if they want to know whether the material is credible or not?"

http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=133907 letters begin on p. 5.

Back to the Monckton piece. I said it has not been perr reviewed which is true. Moreover, it has been thoroughly discredited:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray

And Mike, it would save you a lot of time to simply post a link to the Wikipedia article that you pasted from in your comments from 6:01 to 6:42 a.m. Oh, never mind. I'll do it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Near the top of the page you will find the following statement:

"For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to the climate. There is no requirement that their views contrary to the global warming mainstream need to have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and the majority have not."

You don't get points for quantity, Mike. Quality counts in science. Your position enjoys abundant quantity; it is abundantly lacking in quality.

Can someone explain this site.....are these intellects out to lunch?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

or this one...

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21923783~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~print:Y~theSitePK:4607,00.html

It's OK to be a skeptic, Mike. No one is begrudging you the right to be wrong (in this case). But you don't get to define right on your own terms. You mentioned in an earlier comment that you are backing the underdog here. As if that's a good reason to take a position on something like this. Backing an underdog is what you do when, for example, you back the New Jersey Nets in basketball this year.

The idea of "backing the underdog" when it comes to science is ridiculous. Over hundreds of years science has developed into a very rigorous discipline. You and others may scoff at "peer review" and in fact it isn't perfect but it is the single best way to ensure that findings in science are tested and sound before they become widely applied toward an objective.

The theory of AGW has endured such rigor and survived. Because the implications are so profound an unprecedented amount of time and money has been spent to attack the science behind the theory. Despite this the theory still stands as the best explanation of the data available. Nothing you have posted undermines this statement. No government - anywhere - objects to the theory. No scientific body - anywhere - objects to the theory.

You say you have no political or economic reason for your denial. Based on your own comments I disagree. You don't like liberals and liberalism and you think this theory is their pet project to push their agenda on the world. Therefore you fight this tooth and nail.

Obewan,

Yeah, the "signature project" is out to lunch. Such a list is meaningless. Once again science has a rigorous method and tested processes. A list doesn't mean anything by itself; have any of these people actually been able to challenge the science scientifically? Back to Bastiat's point. The list identifies opinions of scientists. It is not a scientific opinion. Oh, and only a small handful of people on that list are actually climate scientists. The 31,000 number sounds good until you relaize there are a bunch of petroleum engineers and so forth on the list. And people who were duped into signing by the way the petition was circulated. Here are a few of the many sites that shed some light on this sorry list:

http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/

http://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

The World Bank information looks like people acting on the science of AGW by taking action to increase renewables and reduce carbon output. This is the type of thing we should be seeing in light of the theory.

Thanks for links..interesting

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper

in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm

Start thinking fast on a way to get around this one.....I'm sure you'll find a way

Mike I think your comments call for a new blog, and I completely agree ice fields have an ebb and flow over time, and I also agree CO2 is important for planet earth; however, as to your statement that CO2 trails global warming, that may be true but it is also a potential cause as I posted this link in a different blog recently. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm shows that I am not "spinning carbon".

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort, UK Telegraph

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/un_climate_change_panel_based_claims_on_student_dissertation_and_magazine_a/

Wow.

Peer review at its best......HARD SCIENCE THERE.

Skimammoth,

I'll check it out....thanks.

A Short History of the Polluted Peer Review Process

WSJ article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703483604574630422996247910.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

I find it hard to believe scientists would treat other scientists in this manner.....

I thought all scientist were good, open minded, men and women of high standards.....alas.

Here's Mike's source for his "peer-reviewed paper" info (see his 12:55 p.m. comment):

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

This "news" report from SPPI linked to the Monckton piece I talked about above and that Mike linked to in his comment above. Lord Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor to SPPI.

An APS member took issue with APS for publishing the Monckton piece in its Forum on Physics and society (FPS), specifically because the piece was being touted in places like SPPI as an indication that an organization such as APS actually supports Monckton's theories. See:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/shore.cfm

The FPS Editor responded to this letter (see the bottom of this page) by saying that "The newsletter of the Forum on Physics & Society is not, and never has been, peer-reviewed."

And, in fact, the Monckton paper published in the APS journal has never been peer reviewed. As indicated in my link above (repeated below for your convenience) Monckton's work has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray

Mike, you are being led by the nose. In effect You find what you want to believe and post it without even checking to see if it's true or not. This is just the latest example of something you took for proof positive that is in fact anything but. Once again I suggest you drop it. You just continue to embarass yourself.

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

By Patrick J. Michaels

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there’s something much, much worse going on - a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”

The bible I’m referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It’s our canon, and it’s all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.

read more..... http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/how_to_manufacture_a_climate_consensus1/

The WSJ link? It takes you to three LTEs which complain about the peer review process. But none offers a better way to ensure scientific work is vetted before publication and application. And none offers proof that any specific paper was swept under the carpet because of "polluted peer review". The WSJ has a certain bias on this subject, as well. Duh.

I wonder Mike: What would you have science do instead of peer review? Have you thought that through? Shall we just instead take whatever rolls in and accept it as legitimate science? If you think that makes sense I wonder if you are affiliated with the tobacco industry.

Along with the force one must use light szablyas,,trouble is brewing in DC.

http://www.heartland.org/

http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/2010/sec-issues-guidance-regarding-potential-climate-change-legislation

Patrick J. Michaels

Formerly of the University of Virginia then George Mason University.

He's now a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

I'm sorry, Mike. Does Michaels have any science to offer on this subject? Or just opinions?

Miuwtant,

This is how it was written on the website:

"WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper

in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports."

Those aren't my words of introduction....

But if you think that was an error for them to introduce it as such the internet is full of them....

and then you will throw a tantrum that they aren't real scientist....and I didn't provide the raw data of a 10 year study

of a specific coral reef therefore it's not scientific proof......a summary of the conclusions just won't due from a

PhD.....no I have to show the math huh?

Well tough sh*t pal.

I loved your attempt to tag me as politically motivated......nice try,

even Chuxx chimed in on it, Osama/Obama agree on AGW and Miuwtant/ChuxxR agree that

I am doing this for political reasons........those are two great pairings.

This is not political for me.....how about you?

Or are we back to that "unspecified" aspect you admitted to?

But do what you can....attack me some more, attack published scientists who don't count in your book some more.....

It does wonders for your smoke screen.

Miuwtant,

Patrick J. Michaels wrote an article about how corners are being cut in science and how consensus is manufactured.

Is that inadmissible, not relevant to the issue at hand?

What science is involved in the article in the first place that he needs to support/

It's not applied science.......it is his experience with flawed science....nothing to prove.

And flawed science IS the issue here.....

Time to take a break......always rest the mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_d-aH3GSVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywMPtwM8avs&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Good idea Obewan.

But I owe skimammoth this:

skimammoth,

I watched the demonstration and see what you are getting at.

To show the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the global greenhouse effect they would only

place 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent CO2 in the bottle. That will not create the temperatures Miuwtant

and Al Gore were counting on.

Put 10,000 pennies on your kitchen table.

Now take away 12 pennies.

What you have in your hand is man's contribution to CO2 levels.

Now, look back at the table, your hand, table, hand, table.

The other 9,988 pennies on the table represent the remainder of our atmospere,

water vapor, etc...

When biophysical elements on earth are affected by increase solar energy CO2 is released,

this is essential, not pollution.

12 cents out of 10000 pennies.......o.12%.

So I think I'm gonna look toward that other....what, 99.88%, for a bit before

I let Al Gore take me to the Promise Land.

(not trying to be sarcastic here....I'm very tired at the moment)

Is Mike Gruber really Robert Wahl?

http://auburnjournal.com/detail/133201.html?content_source=archive&category_id=&search_filter=robert+wahl&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=

On 10/30/09 at 12:16 PM, RobertWahl wrote:

Bastiat;

Your failure to answer my question is telling.

My 3% of 3% theory has been given scientific support.

I know that the believers in AGW will never admit that I am correct.

In fact the believers in AGW will never admit they are wrong even if our rivers freeze up.

On a serious note (I don't really believe Mike and Robert are the same people - I just think they read the same stuff from the same people), Mike, how has Michael's shown that the science is flawed? Short answer: He hasn't. He is just complaining because, like you, he doesn't have real facts and real science to back up his counter-theories. Instead he uses PR devices to try to make his case - as you do.

The SPPI website you cited, Mike. They lied. Monckton's article was NOT peer reviewed. If you can show me proof positive that hi paper was peer-reviewed amd published in an appropriate perr-review journal I will post a blog apologizing to you. Further, the Forum on Physics and Society published by the American Physical Society is NOT a "learned journal" that publishes only peer-reviewed items. Here is what FPS says is its objective:

Forum on Physics & Society

The Forum on Physics and Society (FPS) is a division of the American Physical Society, organized in 1971 to address issues related to the interface of physics and society as a whole. The support of APS members is vital to the work of the Forum, both because Forum activities are coordinated by its active members and the financial support the Forum receives from the APS depends on its membership. All APS members may join two Forums free of charge.

Oh, I found this on the FPS web site:

"Physics and Society is the non-peer-reviewed quarterly newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. Contributed articles (up to 2500 words, technicalities are encouraged), letters (500 words), commentary (1000 words), reviews (1000 words) and brief news articles are welcome. Send them to the relevant editor by e-mail (preferred) or regular mail."

and the following caveat appeared before the Monckton piece published in July 2008 in FPS:

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Monckton's long article follows in all its glory.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Miuwtant,

Concerning your long winded post on 2/10/10 at 11:39AM....

Wikipedia could have easily put together a list of only scientists that meet even your convenient standards and then Wikipedia’s statement about the majority not having been published in your slanted and highly political peer-previewed literature would not have been called for.

I wasn’t surprised by it....were you?

Your “consensus” all over the world claim still dropped like a rock.

What is really incredible is that it is this very thing that has the IPCC in such hot water. The integrity of their data and they are using is to support their flawed AGW usage. You don’t seem to realize what you have you back turned to and are protecting with such desperation. If you would just apply the same offensive critique to what you are defending you might agree that based on their “science” we should hold off on launching world wide agenda driven policies.

You claim to be a man of science and objectivity...and if that is true you should have no trouble at all finding flaw after flaw and misconduct beyond comprehension.

But that might not be in your best “unspecified” interest.....

Miuwtant,

Concerning your 2/10/10, 10:10AM &10:53 posts....

I am fully aware of the material at the American Physical Society web site.

I know there are competing views....and the article you picked out to try and illustrate my inept behavior with was not the one I was noting. Perhaps this is contrary to where you get your information where everyone just shines each others boots and a different approach is locked out.

Which is the essence of my entire stance against the IPCC and what they have done with your precious AGW Theory. Locked the doors and have been caught red handed obstructing independent “peer review” and breaching scientific procedure with apparent in-house immunity. This whole dish is less about your AGW Theory that you realize but you appear blinded by frustration to see that.

Every time you bring up “peer review” to toss an astrophysicist entire life’s work into the alley I find it ironic because that is actually what I am asking you to do considering what has been taking place at the IPCC.

Muiwtant,

Concerning your 2/10/10 11:27AM post....

I see you hung out a bit at the APS site to hunt down some more of your fellow scientists (The Enemy) and drag them through your dungeon and pull Mr. Gould’s peer reviewed and published articles from his desk and dismiss their merit. You claim they had nothing to do with climate science....which I must point out is interesting because you are raising the bar as this continues for higher and high criteria needed to be a respected scientist in any way, shape, or form. I’ve gone from being asked to find a real scientist in my hapless brood of hacks under one set on classification and now that they are showing the specific areas of study that count has narrowed.

You go on here to point out that Monckton’s work is discredited crap and though I have shown where it was peer reviewed you say it was not.

Nothing new here....head hunting and “sneer preview”.

Miuwtant,

Concerning your 2/10/10 11:56AM post.....

This is where your arrogance shines through.

You give me permission to be wrong (gee, is that it then? Does that really mean I am wrong?)

I guess the only polite thing for me to do is offer you the same accommodation.

You make it clear than only you are allowed to define what is right here, on your terms. I am somehow stripped of this capability....I must fight without a sword? Then why am I still standing here unblemished and holding it firmly? That was easy.

I was surprised at your lack of maturity concerning my admission of acknowledging that I was siding with the underdog on the issue you still think this is about...Weather Theory. Then your best statement to date:

“The idea of ‘backing the underdog’ when it comes to science is ridiculous.”

That is a Blog in and of itself. That might even be a book.

There was a time when the universe revolved around the earth...a flat earth, and whole cultures of people where enslaved and “witches” were drowned, crude anthropology draped over human beings to justify murdering them by the millions and using disease to wipe out indigenous people in our divine path....it is a bloody soaked story where along the way a few convinced the many to change their ways...history is full of underdogs and science has one of the bigger Halls of Fame.

(cont...)

cont....

(cont...)

Who was the underdog in 1939? England or Nazi Germany? Who was the underdog? The Atlantic Ocean or Lindbergh? Darwin or the Church? The Moon or mankind? A brilliant poor independent meteorologist or Big State Sponsored Agenda Driven Science?

The idea that you can say the underdog, the independent, has no place in science is very telling as to why we are doing all this. I find that repulsive.

You finish this wonderful post by telling me I am against the UN’s IPCC because I don’t like liberals. Well you are half right, I don’t care for the majority of their preferences but this issue transcends all the political junk. I’ll walk with anyone if the goal is to remove the UN’s IPCC from all authority regarding this issue. And that issue is a Weather Theory that has been created into means to distribute wealth by highjacking your AGW Theory and stirring the pot with bogus alarmism, urgency, and fear.

The only reason to be fine with that circumstance in my opinion to is apathy, stupidity, insanity, blind faith, or a vested interest in seeing it through, specified or not. The ol’ money trail...

Miuwtant,

Concerning your 2/10/10 1:39PM & 2:01PM posts....

You bring up Monckton again and say the same things you already said over and over...that you believe that it was listed as peer reviewed in error. Like the references in Report #4 of the IPCC from observations made by mountain climbers....I understand, there has to be a scientific method in place as functioning.

You shoot down my WSJ article because in only points out the systemic problem around the Global Warming issue with the negligent peer review practices that have been exposed because the article fails to offer a solution, a better way to proceed. Well, I think that is because it is not in need of a new way, just the old way done correctly and not compromised by political agendas and greed..

But I guess the baby is already on the front lawn in a puddle of freshly thrown bath water.

Miuwtant,

I forgot to mention at the end of your 2:01PM post....

You ask me what I would have science do instead of peer review? Then for some reason continue on to ask me if science should just let chaos rule the roost, as if I guess to make it appear that it is within the realm of Mike Gruber’s possible answers to the first question. Only to continue on to wonder out loud if I am affiliated with Big Tobacco.....

(How old are you anyway?)

My only complaint regarding peer review in this entire debate was in the manner it has taken place at the IPCC. Access to publication and the peer review process itself has been obstructed by those protecting the interest of their agenda following through. Billions of dollars are up for grabs and that is last environment upon which in-house bought and paid for scientists and policy makers are going to allow refutation to sneak in the back door. Of course I am all for independent confirmation and reproduction (retesting). It is not science I’m upset with....it is the method by which this science is being influence and appears beyond the grasp of the checks and balances that are designed to keep it pure.......

It’s not just in science upon this one issue....look at the open distrust Americans have formed against their representatives in Government, and rightly so.

That will be another arena an underdog might come along and I’ll make an *ss of myself supporting tooth and nail.

Enough.

It would appear your Jedi battle has gone national on google..

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13834&t=Scientist+says+Earth+could+soon+face+new+Ice+Age

Nope. This Russian scientist has not been able to convince his peers that his theory is sound. His theory has been widely panned by the climate science community.

I suppose you could say that this man's good work has been rejected because of the big conspiracy. Or you could say its because his science sucks and doesn't make the cut. More PR - more hot air - and no substance. Again.

Is this information correct...he is portrayed as an activist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

I've been watching this back and forth for some time. How about a layman's take.

The earth can take care of itself, given all things being equal and as designed. Those that give off oxygen and take in CO2 work harmoniously in conjunction with those that take in CO2 and give off oxygen. So far so good.

But things are not equal and as designed. Look at what happens when man uses his ability to create tools. In the past, we have created situations where certain species have become extinct by over utilization, harvesting or through not understanding the implications of our actions. Until we modify our actions or regulate our actions we keep things from being equal or as designed. The California Condor, the plains buffalo, certain whale species and other populations are simple examples.

So here we are. We have created tools that have changed the level of CO2 emissions. While the planet has the means to handle CO2, our tools have changed the balance and things are not equal and as designed. Something has got to give.

It seems we need to modify and/or regulate our use or we are about to repeat what we have history of, have caused in the past.

It's not scientific. It's not political. It's not anything but my perspective and opinion. It's like that old commercial..."you can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

You are probably correct...but I think the question is.. who do we pay and why are we payng them...if these people have presented manipulated and flawed science or computer models based on theory. Net increase in C02 may mean more organic vegetation growth...which in turn that may mean more water vapor caught by and expelled by all plant life forms.. from increased C02 stimulated organic growth. Water vapor is larger heat sink than C02 and now research indicates plays a huge role in upper atmosphere temperature patterns. I have heard the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less pores in the leaves to absorb the C02...thus plant survival and balance. However this does not mean the seed and or spore increased out put would decease...this may instead mean an increase in growth seed and spore rates to absorb excess CO2 noted in atmosphere concentrations by the organic plants etc themselves.

This increased water vapor and decomposition would in turn increase greenhouse gas potentials in atmosphere...garden of eden stuff. So yes pollution is bad and we must do better. Then of course the Russians say we are going freeze....so either way retrofitting homes for better insulation efficiencies is a win win formula. However if we turn cold...we may have to then burn the vegetation increase via wood...which I think gets a bad rap....we have breathed this wood smoke for millions of years. We have however not breathed burning petroleum products... for millions of years. DNA knows difference.

Roland,

Right on. I am no scientist. I am a layman. You have hit this on the head.

If you've followed this string you probably say Mike's 10,000 pennies analogy (2/10, 3:52). That if man has contributed an incremental .12% to the earth's CO2 imagine 10,000 pennies. .12% = 12 pennies out of 10,000. A trifle!

Now imagine a scale in perfect balance and with no friction with 10,000 pennies on each side that weigh exactly the same amount apiece. Take away twelve pennies from one side. What happens? Does the scale stay in balance? One of my children is currently studying physics. I'll have to ask her but I bet there's a formula for this that would tell you how fast and how far the scale will tip depending on the length of the arms that extend from the balance point and other variables. But it WILL tip.

So if additional CO2 will cause warming then what? Well, warming begets more CO2 production in nature and more warming. A vicious cycle. In climate science that's what happens when the ice packs recede due to warming. Less ice pack = less reflective surface = more absorption of the sun's energy into the earth's system = more warming. This is the kind of effect that has scientists most concerned and is of course one big reason why predicting the rate of warming and its impacts is so challenging. There are a multitude of variables and they interact with each other. Some even go down while others go up.

To me it's just common sense. (cont'd

We have a lot of knowledge, as you alluded to, about man's ability to impact nature and the earth. There is no doubt we have contributed to species extinctions, for example. Or that we have created environmental disasters, some on a very large scale. There's a coal mine fire in Centralia, PA, that has been burning for almost fifty years, for example. Man can't put it out.

But we also don't know a great deal more than we know. Your discussion of the ability of plants to absorb CO2 as levels increase, for example. Will it increase or decrease? Some of these questions require years of research to definitively answer. And they matter.

Climate science is inexact. But overall the earth's recognized climate scientists and key organizations agree that:

1) The earth is warming faster than historically, and

2) The actions of man are an important cause

That leaves us with the questions that are really important: How fast is it warming? What impacts will that cause? And what can we do about it?

Again, common sense. If we don't know enough and there's a very real chance that we could be reaching a critical tipping point we should not fool around. The downside of not acting is much greater than the downside of acting and finding out we had more time than we thought. Plus acting on this has lots of side benefits. Like improved U.S. national security and a better environment.

(cont'd)

Obewan - let's be careful about stating that the Russians say we are going to freeze...a couple of Russians have said this...the vast majority of Russian climate scientists believe in and support the Scientific evidence of AGW.

That's why I find this "debate" so frustrating. People refuse to accept the results of established scientific processes. I am not saying these processes are infallible but they are what we have and they work. If we learn new things then that information gets rolled into the total and eventually, if enough changes, the theory has to be set aside in favor of another explanation of the data. That's how it works.

How it DOESN'T work is for people to publish or promote ideas that have not been subjected to hard scrutiny. This would be like a car manufacturer putting a an important part into a brake system that they have never tested and "hoping" the brakes will still work. That's nonsense.

How it DOESN'T work is for people to knowingly promote opinions as hard science, or non-scientific surveys (such as the list Obewan was wondering about) as evidence that there is more doubt than the scientific organizations are admitting.

How it DOESN'T work is for people to expect it to be perfect. There will be errors. There will be humans who get carried away. It will be messy.

The internet has been a great enabler of science. But misused it can be an albatross. The amount of wasted time devoted to the efforts of people who are motivated by politics, economics or pride to attack AGW using unscientific methods is tremendous. Stop it already. Do the hard work. Do the science. Don't make excuses. If your views don't hold water then try something else.

As a final point I say to the people who have a lot of questions about this but can't seem to arrive at a conclusion despite all of the discussion posted here and, of course, all over the internet. If you cannot decide that this theory is sound because you are confused by all the contradictory information - and you really care about this subject - then get informed. You can't just do a quick Google search and compare notes. You have to understand the sources of the information and the methods used to produce it.

I encourage all who doubt to spend eight hours (you can do this an hour at a time over your coffee!) at RealClimate.org. Pick a string and read through not only the post itself but go to the embedded links to check the source or reference information. Then read the comments and follow the links provided there, as well. You will find a rich mix of the whole shebang. People who seriously doubt the theory will be engaged in the commentary and their publications are referenced - but they are also analyszed. So are the papers and articles that support the theory. This is science in public as good as you will find anywhere.

Here's a good start: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/good-news-for-the-earths-climate-system/ This is the current headline article on RC. AGW denialists are saying the study undercuts the overall theory. Climate scientists welcome the information because it closes gaps in their knowledge. Take a look!

Or,

http://climateaudit.org/

Beware of ClimateAudit.

This is precisely the kind of site where you are going to get only one point of view...period. An agenda-driven point of view. And one that is backed by...who knows? You know you are dealing with a questionable site when you cannot tell who is behind it. Or why.

CA is published by Stephen McIntyre and he has a "tip jar" but any other financial backing is a secret. But here's a tip: Stephen McIntyre was a strategic advisor to CGX Energy. Don't know who they are? Perhaps this from their corporate website will help: "About Us | Profile CGX Energy Inc. is a Canadian-based oil and gas company focused on exploring for oil in the Guyana-Suriname basin. Our Licences in Guyana cover 9.5 million gross acres, 7.2 million net"

And this from the CGX Energy 2001 Annual report:

"Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc., B.A.

Position Strategic Advisor

Age 54

Experience Steve has more than 26 years of experience in the mineral business. He is the President and a Director of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President

of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. During his career, Steve has been the President

and Chairman of a number of other resource companies."

Mr. McIntyre (note: He is not a Doctor because he does not have a PhD) has published no peer-reviewed documents on climate.

None.

He's an energy-industry PR guy. And a very good one, at that.

Next time you see him, Mike, ask him about his stock holdings.

I don't have a problem with the oil industry funding climate research. I do have a problem when they fund climate PR designed to cause fear, uncertainty and discontent around real climate research.

PR designed fear sounds more like Alfred Gore's m.o.

M. Gruber,

Look into MBH98, 1998 Mann/Bradley/Hughes. The Russian tree data, Yamal, in complete form. Also, NASA recently corrected the warmest year in the contenental US to 1934, not 1998. Ask yourself why?

The EPA is going to use the backdoor and Executive Branch to regulate and control our lives.

Hmmm...JohnL50...Member since February 2010.

Troll. And a conspiracy theorist, to boot. Great.

JohnL50,

Thanks.

Good papers on the M.Mann's discredited "hockey stick" graph:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

and

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf .

If you have some expertise in the field you should join the debate for yourself.

I'm done with all this.

Trolls don't join. They troll.

McIntyre & McKitrick 2005. Not peer reviewed. Discredited. Faulty. You need to let that one go. It's a dead horse that has been beaten to a total pulp.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Note the title of this guide, Mike. Yep, just for you :)

Wegman. If you look into Wegman you'll see that it's an extremely narrow finding and does not challenge Mann's underlying temperature pattern. In other words, a nit pick. Here's a dissection of Wegman:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

Really, Mike. Spend eight hours on Real Climate with an open mind. You will be amazed at how deceived you have been by your sources.

Muitwit: You are so ignorant about the corruption in science. Everything has a price and now the EPA is going to regulate and tax us to death. You stand on a soapbox yelling about the integrity of this colossal rip off because you are on the hockey team. Let us peer review you, if you are so hot on the idea. This is about redistribution of global wealth, world bank power grab, and socialism. You have missed the big picture and what this entire stategy is for: control. I say snap out of it, or, enjoy your bounty. Jerk.

You are a conspiracy theorist. Snap out of it, indeed. People like you used to live behind us when I grew up. They had a bomb shelter built under their back yard. The guy was always talking about commie spies. My father told my brother and me to stay away. Good advice and I will do so now. Good bye.

Y’all failed Palin’s and Limbaugh’s retarded tests. But, you can still work for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and run LSU to destroy the rest of La and the world.

~Wasted minds are terrible things ~ Danny Quayle“. Proving global warming limits freedom to search in google: On 2/9/10 at 06:02 AM, loomisresident wrote: ozonator, since you want to fall back to insults ... You are a proponent of voodoo science. ... Let me know when you find the lost city of Atlantis or Noah's Ark will you. Thanks”, “On 2/9/10 at 06:26 AM, Deja_View wrote: Ozo; Do you adjust your tinfoil hat before or after you write these letters?”, “On 2/9/10 at 07:14 AM, JonGreen wrote: I nominate Ozonator for the Loomis Flying Jackass award.”, “On 2/10/10 at 06:42 AM, loomisresident wrote: Hey, where did ozonator go? Flying around maybe?”, and “On 2/10/10 at 07:02 AM, MikeGruber wrote: I think ozonator is laying in his backyard with his ear to the ground waiting for that distant rumble of Global Rumbling.”

In just this blog alone, due to ExxomMobil’s global warming, the following quake makes 1 correct predictions in this blog for both region and strength out of 21 (4.8%) that each has the actual odds of 1/21 (region) times 1/21 (intensity) from random chance. This quake is well within the 2-week model, the 4.5 Richter minimum, and the Kermadec region predicted under 2/7 - 13/10. The good people with bad web maps at the USGS reported - Magnitude Richters ... Date …

This quake is well within the 2-week model, the 4.5 Richter minimum, and the Kermadec region predicted under 2/7 - 13/10. The good people with bad web maps at the USGS reported - Magnitude Richters ... Date ... Region: “5.2 ... 2010/02/14 ... SOUTH OF THE KERMADEC ISLANDS” (earthquake.usgs.gov).

Since ExxonMassingill owns all the geologists, “"There is currently no scientifically accepted method or theory of earthquake prediction," said David Oglesby, an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside” (“Haiti quake could not have been predicted: experts”; Dan Whitcomb and Ed Stoddard; reuters.com, 1/15/10).

Miuwtant...ouch!...this does not help the cause...now the English are in on it..?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

Obe - The English or one guy who happens to be from England...didn't we already cover this ground?

Hard to lie about, it turns out that ~5.0 global warming quake in the Kermadec Islands region equals as much heat in the planetary ecosystem as a Hiroshima atomic bomb! (Approximate Magnitude 5.0 Richter, Seismic Energy Yield -Approximate TNT for 32 kilotons ... Hiroshima atomic bomb was 15 kilotons; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale). I had the “launch codes” for at least 1 nuke given to me from extremist Republicans and Christians who sold me the hangman’s noose in the guise of free CO2 enemas, other piles of planet choking waste, and toxic chemicals regulated by Jindalstan - ExxonMobil’s state congressmen/women. All of which proves WT’s Tony Blankley is still a plagiarist, pig, and idiot - “Global Warming Theory Sidelined By MikeGruber ... Osama and Obama on global warming ... Washington Times Editorial... man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead ... Evidence is emerging that the data had been rigged all along. ... Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming ... and even the Haiti earthquake”.

“MikeGruber you have wasted space and copied the flotsam from a Skeptic Tank.

Danny Glover was right and you are wrong. 3 of 5 of my ExxonMobil's global warming earthquake predictions for Haiti were seen to be correct in front of God and everybody:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/pentagons-haiti-mission-a-model-for-new-security-role/”

Did you read the original BBC article linked from the Fox article you cited, Obewan?

If you read the two you wonder if the Fox article was even about the same thing. I have seen selective use of quotes before but this Fox article takes the cake. I recommend you follow the link and read the original BBC article which contains this Q&A exchange with Phil Jones, former director of the UK's Climate Research Unit (and the subject of the Fox piece), among others:

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones' answer: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Jones answers many more questions, answers that dispel a lot of the misunderstandings and myths. The BBC interview of Jones is worth a read. the Fox article isn't. It's a POS.

Miuwtant...I went to the original interview... and the theory is in trouble. I will lead again with some help for you...pollution is bad. "Climate Change Pollution" seems more likely the solution. If I draw up a couple of graphs...can I get a nobel prize for leading these scientific teams out of the darkness? Man made...Global Warming... if it exists... is a bi-product of human activity and is purely based.... on environmental pollution in all forms. I asked a scientist once this question...if there is excess nitrogen and fertilizers present in the water of dead zones...what would be the effect ..if any... created by a hurricane traveling directly over this massive dead zone? I have my thoughts...but he could not answer it for me. Would the dead zone be warmer or colder since no life existed in this water to absorb the sun's energy? Would plankton decomposition raise any methane levels in this water? Would the hurricane increase in strength when passing over this water and why or why not? Maybe you might know these answers...

Late in from the USGS:

More from ExxomMobil’s global warming, this quake makes 2 correct predictions in this blog for both region and strength out of 21 (9.5%) that each has the actual odds of 1/21 (region) times 1/21 (intensity) from random chance. This quake is just at the end of the 2-week model, the 3.5 Richter minimum, and the Poland region predicted under 2/7 - 13/10. The good people with bad web maps at the USGS reported - Magnitude Richters ... Date ... Region: “4.7 2010/02/20 16:36:06 ... POLAND” (earthquake.usgs.gov).

Global warming is also war by other means by those running ExxonMobil and willing accomplice investors. GBRWE predictions have led to ~1 to 2.5 million dead and dying from violent global warming catastrophes. “Global Warming ... the whole concept is silly! ... We have had continental plate shifts ... just the latest ... that we are causing a catastrophe” (“The Warming Tax!”; 4/12/05) and “Haiti earthquake ... another crisis simply too good to waste” (“Obama Leaps into Action on Haiti”; 1/13/10) (rushlimbaugh.com). Home of Roy ’d-rage’ Spencer, “Alabama college professor ... killing three colleagues ... is insane ... Amy Bishop ... said the shootings "didn't happen. There's no way ... They're still alive”” (“Lawyer: Prof. accused in slayings likely insane”; By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer; news.yahoo.com, 2/21/10).

A lazy dittohead bathroom wall writer for LABI Limbaugh steals from Auburn and Ozonator to sell: cash for gold rip-offs, hair growing on billiard balls, and Boehner pills -

“CALLER:  ... we love you ... libs have been so angry about man-made global warming ... link between global warming and Iran. ... a nuclear weapon is the ultimate example of man-made global warming.  ... RUSH: ... man-made global warming or any other ill ... people ... blame the United States for it all. ... these people ... get caught up in all this fairness ... CALLER: ... President Reagan passed on that title to you as the leading voice of conservatism ... RUSH:  ... Scott, you have made my day” (“Iran's Nukes and Global Warming”; 2/23/10) and “I love to predict things. That's what being on the cutting” edge “of societal evolution is all about” (“Doom and Gloom Liberals Will Use Hurricane To Advance Their Agenda”; 8/29/05) (the old, ugly and evil Rush “LABI” Limbaugh with Hannity/Noory extremist Republican and Christian outlets for legally killing thy neighbors, SS - Storm Soldier, plagiarism, and stealing their stuff - baby monitor for Planet-Star Wormwoody Jenkins from a 80 cat feces-filled mansion - pro-life as any other Missouri mule who screws anything non-female into the ground like the US military - Toyota gas pedal template of mass murder, toxic Chinese drywall seller, trying to harvest more Americans than ExxonMobil - aka Dr. "Jeff ‘Gannon’ Christie"; …

; rushlimbaugh.com).

MikeGruber: I just went back and read this entire blog and the other one: Climate Change is National Security Threat. You really have done a great job handling Miuwtants evasive game-play and sticking to the argument at hand. According to my notes he rarely even answers your direct questions. I think "JeanClaudeDepilatory" was referring to you when he wrote: " If I remember correctly another member of this forum presented almost every aspect of this thing in exquisite detail and the response to his post was a lot of double talk and extremely long-winded retorts that basically resulted in nothing." I have been trying to not use your exact words but many of the posts you have made on this topic and dead on, in my opinion. Anyway, fight the good fight and come back and join us. I think your battles have lit a fuse on some people and they are getting involved. You inspired me to jump in. Looking forward to more of your posts should you return to this venue.