Most of the planets in our solar system, and some of the moons, show evidence of 'warming'.

What did we do to cause that?

I accept. Let's do paypall or something. I am so down to rape some ecotard for his life savings.

Global warming is a religion. Global warming denial is also a religion. Debating religion is a no win proposition.

This is clever, but still not really a great approach. One reason is that even if global warming is occurring (and I feel confident that it is and that anthropogenic emissions are the primary culprit) some regions of the globe will warm while some will cool. If populated areas tend to be tilted in places that are expected to cool (Say all of the British Isles once the oceanic conveyor belt shuts down) Then you're statistics won't be representative.

Another problem is that we're all convinced that global "warming" is the problem when the larger underlying problem is actually more generically "climate change." When you force the climate system the way we're doing with atmospheric CO2 increases, you force a very dynamic change and in some regards an unpredictable change. We may actually end up warming the globe for a while which then results in the shutting down of the ocean conveyor belt (global oceanic currents that establish climate circulation patterns- too many melting glaciers will reduce the salinity of surface water in the North Atlantic and prevent the sinking of that water which drives circulation globally) which may actually trigger substantial cooling either regionally or perhaps even globally...

Either way, warming, cooling, we're changing the climate substantially, throwing things off equilibrium. That's going to results in regional changes that will affect crops, resource distribution, disease, and any of number of other things that could create social, environmental, and financial problems.

So... Even if a large number of people take Nate up on his offer, and even if more of them report a cooling trend, it does not necessarily mean that the globe is cooling or that their isn't still a major problem.

The way this has all been set up is that if we're not warming rapidly, every day, every year, then the skeptics have something to sink their teeth into. Because the narrative is shortsighted. Then again, if you're message isn't simple it's not going to be heard, which is perhaps why we stick with "warming." Not sure how much money is being invested in the marketing of the confidence of climate change science these days, but probably not enough.

Jeff--Didn't you get the memo? It's not GLOBAL WARMING anymore. It's GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. (That is unless I didn't get the memo and they call it something else now)

Anon- behind the religion, there's real scientists grinding it out, creating the guts of the science without the spotlight on them, without any glory, without any politics. Their politics is coming up with the best science possible and competing day in and day out to have the better science, not to see who can come up with scenarios that predict more or less warming.

There are scientists working to determine how absorptive certain types of aerosols are, and plugging new parameterizations into the climate models. In some cases, that may lead to warmer scenarios and others cooler scenarios. But those scientists working to characeterize aerosols don't so much care, they work with each other to determine - within the little niche - who's doing a better job of characterizing aerosols. Add the work being done in the niche fields up, and you have a good part of the science that has become the basis for the science of climate change and the predictions that we are causing change.

It's impossible for me to believe that these scientists (I used to be one) are driven by political motives. In science, those sorts of scientists don't make the cut. They don't get to stick around and influence how the science unfolds. (Unless they're funded by Exxon Mobil of course, which - according to their own documents - spent tens of millions literally on creating confusion on this issue to avoid consensus and avoid the setting of policy that would more rapidly shift us away from oil and more quickly towards other forms of renewable energy.)

If we don't understand that the weather ALWAYS changes and that there are heating and cooling cycles, wet and dry cycles in areas small and large, then we are doomed to be manipulated by those who want to use normal climate change (yes it is normal) to seize control of the economy and impose socialism on the USA.

It has only been in the past few decades that anyone has been able to amass weather data from around the globe.

So to look at a few decades of data and declare 'This isn't normal. We are in a crisis. The global climate is being altered by Man.' is simply an exercise in deception.

Gather at least a thousand years of hard data from all around the globe. Then we'll talk.

When the Norsemen landed in Greenland in 1000, it was warm enough to grow crops in a significant part of that land.

Then came the 'Little Ice Age' a few hundred years later, which we are probably still recovering from.

Don't show me a couple of decades of weather data, (largely from one hemisphere), and declare you've detected a 'crisis'.

Does anyone seriously want to make the case that temperature data from 1900, taken with glass thermometers, is as accurate as data gathered now with advanced digital equipment?

Since the whole debate turns on the swing of a degree or two over the next hundred years, make the case that your early 1900s data is worth looking at first.

Joe White - Ever hear of ice cores? You're the one not looking back far enough, not the scientists.

Pathetic.

I understand that this is an opinion board and the title is meant to be polemic, but even the way this thread is worded is loaded language. You can believe in global warming and still not believe it is anthropogenic. I have not been convinced. Many of you will stop reading at this point and label me a "denier" or as I see it, you will consider me an apostate.

It has been pointed out that this subject does manifest in a religion to some. How else can you explain the vehement personal attacks by some if you do not go along with this belief? Paul Krugman calls those who disagree with him traitors to the planet. Robert Kennedy Jr said the same thing and President Obama's science advisor John Holdren has proposed forced abortions and a global SWAT team to enforce environmental regulations. That fanaticism is equal in intent, if not implementation, to anything Hitler, Torqemada or Abu Nidal said.

Don't tell me about consensus among scientists about anthropogenic climate change. Consensus is not the same as established fact. Hundreds of years ago consensus was that bleeding a person cured illness. 120 years ago, scientific consensus opined that white people were genetically superior. It is likely that 50 years from now the natural cycles of earth's temperature will be shown to have misled a lot of otherwise educated people on this topic. In addition, they will marvel at the hubris of people convincing themselves that they themselves were so important that they could change the earth's temperature.

By the way, don’t bother attacking me on intelligence. I will be happy to compare IQ’s with anyone on this board.

KenRay, I usually don't bother debating people who boast about their IQ's so I'll keep this short: Today's climate models do a great job of mimicking climate both before we began to alter it with CO2 emissions and other factors and after it. Yeah, climate does vary naturally, and does so dramatically over time. Models capture that. But the cause and effect relationship of our actions is also well understood and we're altering climate in a way (and at a pace) that really hasn't been seen before.

It's staggering that we're not taking this more seriously, given the implications, even if just financial, of what we're doing to our planet and how its going to impact our lives.

If we're going to wait for established fact before doing something, it will be too late. Imagine you're in a dark alley, and some shady looking dude says, I'm 99% sure I'm going to kick your ass and take all your money. Are you going to tell him to "prove it" and wait for the pain, are you going to bank on the 1% option, or do something to fight back?

Jeff,

why use a loaded word such as "denier"?

Is everyone who disagrees with you tied to the Nazi movement?

Is that how liberals aim to extinguish debate?

Is labeling your opponent an un-earned term the only way you can win an arguement?

A better term is the "warming naturalist". This is a term that refers to those that think warming is happening as part of a natural cycle (not man induced) that has been in place over all of history as evidenced by the many past cycles of warming and cooling.

Please be an adult and ease up on the name calling. It make you look juvenile. Sorry for the typos.

I'll answer the analogy with another. If my response to that 99% chance of getting my butt kicked is to pull out a gun and shoot the alleged aggressor, then yes, you wait for him to 'prove it'.

The 'tax and trade' measure pushed by the current administration would be so draconian and hurt working families so much with the giant increases in energy costs, 99% certainty isn't good enough.

On another note, anyone who says they want to eliminate fossil fuel electricity generation but won't consider nuclear generation is not serious about the subject or hasn't studied the law of conservation of matter and energy.

BTW, I didn't brag on IQ. I just said don't attack me on intelligence. I have noticed the usual response on this board to anything challenging liberal orthodoxy is to attack the writer's intelligence. I just served notice that won't work with me. I just ignore those types.

KenRay - you're missing my point. If your ass is already kicked, there's no point having a gun. The "gun" to be metaphorically correct is your ability to win the argument before your ass is kicked. That means you have to engage with some persuasion of your own rather than simply opposing what others say. Yeah, you don't like the advocates of doing something about climate change, and you think adaptation will be too expensive (different debate) but what do you have to say about the scientific basis for climate change? Nothing yet...

So here's my question to you: If climate models are good at predicting natural and historic variations in climate (which they are, based on ice cores and other historic records) and good at modeling the impacts of humans (which they are) and it takes the inclusion of human activity to model that past 100 years accurately (which it does), then why should we argue that in the future, these models, which predict a range of significant temperature increases, should not be taken seriously?

Because you're so intelligent, KenRay, you'll no doubt be able to tell me - with some scientific specificity - either why my assertions about modeling accuracy are not true, or why despite the accuracy of these models, we should not believe what they have to say about the future. If you want to persuade me of anything, you'll have to do it on one of those two points.

So far you don't seem very impressionable, so I'm not gonna try to persuade you. But I am impressionable, so why don't you take a shot...

From Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone...

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated.(emphasis mine) Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

the earth has been cooling since 2001. Government may be able to manipulate ground temperature readings, but not satellite readings. 11% of temperature measurement stations meet government specifications. most, are on top of asphalt. As for the rising sea levels. This is a myth!!. Also don't worry about the polar bears, because glaciers have grown at the fastest pace of record to Pre-global warming levels. It is a scientific FACT that temperature fluctuations is the cause of CO2 fluctuations. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Thats why Al Gore never combined the 2 graphs in his movie. IPCC is a government sponsored organization. They put fear into people to pass legislation that will supposedly protect the environment. What they are really doing is bring us back to the dark ages. And all the bills and legislation is just another tax increase on the consumer, while Al Gore and GE get all the money from the "green projects".

Private - way to elevate the dialog! Got any links for us to back up those assertions?

Funny how both sides of this issue claim to have all the science in their favor. I've read much of what has been printed by many many sources, and have never found anything conclusive to convince me either way. I guess this makes y'all much smarter than me because you were able to come to a definite conclusion from your in depth research, and I was not. In fact, it probably makes me worse than a "denier" or a progressive "eco-nut" because my viewpoint puts me in the middle. Therefore, I am in disagreement with most of the rest of the population.

Oh well, I'll keep on recycling, driving my gas efficient car, and helping the planet whenever I can. But I will also feverishly fight against the spending of untold billions on ridiculous speculative fixes for global warming or climate change. The argument over this issue does seem as endless as the argument over religion, only a bit more frustrating becuase it is so much more expensive.

Roy - not a bad perspective at all. You're doing the right things and skeptical of experts. I'm confident in the science because I used to be a climate scientist. I know that the science isn't perfect and there are disagreements within the field, but overall there is consensus on a range of likely future scenarios, even the most conservative of which present problems for humanity.

On the cost of a fix vs. the cost of climate change, I know far less. I generally believe that if we're creative and adaptive we can find ways of reducing our impact on the climate and prevent the impacts from being too strong, but perhaps that's personal faith or optimism more than anything. (I've seen some dire scenarios on how much doing nothing will cost, say, relating to coastal infrastructure as a result of sea-level rise that have made my jaw drop.) If we're worried purely about the cost of climate change, this is the more important question: how much it costs to avoid it vs. deal with it. Of course, you have to admit that climate change - man made or not - is happening first before you can have that conversation.

Observer- Global Warming is not real. There is Not a scientific consensus on it. I is used as a weapon by politicians to raise taxes. We are about to pass the bill that would be the largest tax increase in history. Obama even said your energy bills would "skyrocket". By the way cap and trade has FAILED in Europe.

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

Well Willie Soon, Phd, Chief Science Advisor at Science and Public Policy Institute thinks the global warming theory is false. Watch this video before you make another comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEXe4y1d8Q

Ok. Like most comment threads about climate change, this one is starting to come unglued. Score another one for Exxon Mobil, I guess. Money well spent.

https://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2006/10/senators-tell-exxonmobil-stop-funding-climate-change-deniers-story-mother-jones-broke

Wow, it amazes me that you came up with an article that was published in 2006. Who are you too say what Exxon Mobil can spend their money on? It was none of the senators business to prohibit the company form endorsing Climate Change Deniers.

Observer, I think that I made my point. Global/climate/warming/change is a religion and my point is I am agnostic in this area. I am not a 'denier', but I am not sold on it either.

The fanatics consider agnosticism and atheism to be the same deviancy; so it is with climate change believers.

I don’t expect to change your mind. Once you accept something on faith, proof is no longer needed and people don’t usually go back and re-examine the most current evidence once they believe something on faith.

You’re the believer; I’m the agnostic. You’re the one who needs to proselytize, not me. I accept that you believe in modeling and I don’t see that it is 100% proof. The models get more and more inaccurate the farther out you go. Then, to predict what will happen, they are extrapolated out into the future. The problem with extrapolation is that variables come into play. Robert A. Heinlein in an article in 1970 used the average speed of travel from ancient times and made a curve incorporating the moon landing. The curve extrapolated out showed that transportation would be averaging faster than light by the year 2000.

If anyone who is reading this and believes in Global Warming. I urge you to look at this article that debunks Global Warming.

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

If you find any part of this study to be false. please post a comment, with a counterexample & link too it. It must not be from the IPCC or Government sponsored organization.

KenRay - you don't seem to understand models very well. And your 100% standard is a pretty tough one. I doubt it's a standard that you demand for everything in your life, but if you do, you're likely to be one very disappointed human being.

Good luck working that out.

I'm a believer in science, not in global warming. Science.

For Observer...

excerpt from USA Today's 7/14/09 Science Fair:

Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?

Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

"Anyone taking Nate's bet"

Cump change! If we can turn this into a cap-n-trade we can spit out as many carbon emissions as before adn make more money for the govt.

Jeff, thanks for using the word "denier." Overuse of the word "denier" by the AGW industry has actually contributed to the skepticism the masses have for this "settled science." And the more the masses dig, the more reason they have to be skepticle. Only from a "denier" can they learn that none of the IPCC climate models predicted the current period of global cooling since 1998...and that the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.

‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’ - Ian Plimer, author, Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science

Sorry Jeff, but this one rates as one of the more stupid posts I've read here.

Only a true full-blown 'global warming' convert would 'sound-bite' a much longer blog posting and characterize it out-of-context as "See, this cold snap is prima facie evidence that Al Gore is a dirty, rotten liar."

I suspect the reason 'global warming deniers' have not picked up this meaningless nonsensical bet has more to do with people having better things to do with their time and money - and nothing to do with people quaking in their boots at the 'look at me' proclamations of the great and powerful Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight. Anyone trying to credibly claim 'global warming' is or isn't happening based on data for one year vs some average has no credibility.

KenRay - So your doctor tells you your appendics is infected and unless you have it removed you're going to die. Now, you're a science agnostic (unless you limit your agnosticism to climate science) (and this doctor does stand to make a bit of money excising your your putrid organ), so you've already received 2 other diagnoses, and they concur. But here's the rub: none of these doc's have been able to declare, with 100% certainty, that you will die without the surgery. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that, without 100% certainty you're not getting cut, then I call BS on your claim to scientific "agnosticsm".

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

Hey David, is that you?

J

DJ:

Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?

Bob T:

Well, the models didn't predict melting ice caps (or at least at the South Pole). The models had rising temps over most of the planet creating more water evaporating which would make its way to the poles where it comes down as snow (becoming ice) despite any rise in temps there because the temps will still be well below freezing.

But that didn't happen. So we hear that the melting ice caps are a sign of global warming even though the models called for the opposite (so should we believe them?), rather than possibly being a regional condition with no relationship to what's happening elsewhere (i.e. could be melting even with general cooling going on).

This, by the way, was put forth by Richard Muller, a top scientist who happens to accept the view that the globe is warming and may go up another 10 F in a hundred years, so I needed to point that out before someone smears him with the "denier" label.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Scott J:

why use a loaded word such as "denier"?

Is everyone who disagrees with you tied to the Nazi movement?

Is that how liberals aim to extinguish debate?

Bob T:

Fortunately, in this country, that's all they do. In other places and times they (Lenin, Che, etc) would have people shot in the back of the neck or head for not going along with the full program. People who wear Che T-shirts know nothing about the real Che (firing squads, stupidity, cowardice etc), only that he looks "cool" in the beret and was supposedly a "champion of the downtrodden" or something.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Jeff Alworth: Actually, the science of global warming is ... science. The data speak volumes to those who wish to listen. J: Are you listening? Here are a few things to listen to: 1. The Antarctic ice cores show temperature rising first, then later, the CO2 rises. (23:49)

1. The monthly mean surface temperature peaked in 1998 at 0.45 deg C, followed by a big dip and rise to a several year flat (well below the peak) then a drop to about 0.1deg C, we are now about 0.25 deg C above the average since 1950 and dropping. The uptrend has been broken. (12:08)

2. The Antarctic ice cores show current temperature at least 4 deg. C BELOW the peak interglacial temperature of 320,000 years ago. (19:17)

My observation: this proves: a) Today’s temperature is not unusual, in fact far cooler than in the past. B) The temperature did not run away then, why would it now.

1. Deep ocean temperature is about 4 Deg C cooler than 30,000 years ago, 13-14 Deg C cooler than 50,000 years ago, and at least three degrees cooler than 5000 years ago. (30:50)

2. Past CO2 levels were about triple today’s level . (30:50)

All of the above facts are currently mainstream and were mentioned by Jim Hensen or clearly visible on the graphs he presented, so please don’t argue these facts. The numbers in () are the time into the presentation where these were presented.

He also had ONLY TWO arguments that CO2 causes warming: gases & orbital changes are sufficient to explain the past and the models only work when CO2 is added.

That is a logical fallacy: assuming that we know ALL POSSIBLE causes of warming. If there is just one factor we don’t know about, or more likely have the magnitude of its effect incorrect, the model will produce false predictions, while fitting the past. If you don’t understand this, you need to study basic logic and models.

Hansen is the best the true believing warmers have and even he could not even produce real evidence that CO2 causes warming.

Of course he didn’t mention the fact that solar cycles correlate better with earth temperature than CO2 levels.

Jeff Alworth: For ScottJ and others, read the post again. It's Hinderaker who thinks global warming isn't happening. J: Considering that the satellite instruments show no warming and the ground stations are absolute crap for quality, why do you think we are warming? Just because that great scientists, Al says so?

Much more realism at SustainableOregon.com

Jeff Alworth: Despite what some folks on the right still maintain, the scientific consensus among climate scientists is clear. J: What consensus? Show us the evidence that there is a consensus. (Please don’t try to pawn off Naomi’s non-peer reviewed opinion piece in Nature or Science - she couldn’t even get the search terms she used right in the article.)

Don’t forget to explain the several Nobel laureates and IPCC scientists that have recently become skeptics.

Jeff Alworth: The "skeptics" are bogus. J: Why don’t you cite some of that science you keep mentioning? Start by citing some evidence that man is the cause of global warming. To do this you must prove each of the following. (If you cannot prove this you have no basis for your belief.): * Prove that observed temperature increases are real. * Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context. * Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming * Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature * Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is. * Prove that man's CO2 is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

Before you rush off to prove these, you probably should know these facts: 1. CO2 only causes about 1/3 of the warming. The rest is caused by water. 2. Of the total CO2 emissions, man only contributes about 3% 3. CO2's effect is logarithmic and we are near the plateau.

All of the cute polar bears, melting glaciers and (non) rising seas DON’T MATTER if you cannot show that man is the cause.

BTW, how does someone ignorant of basic science become so convinced of something, based on science that he does not understand?

Much more realism at SustainableOregon.com

I just found this - they said it better than I did:

Here’s the line of reasoning Team-AGW used: “The world has warmed since 1700 or 1800, and carbon dioxide levels have gone up. We’ve ruled out all the other factors, therefore all the extra warming is due to CO2.”

This is technically argument from ignorance—or in common terms: “It must be carbon because we can’t think of anything else.” It’s flawed reasoning from the start. Worse, Team-AGW want us to believe they can “rule out all the other forces”, and at the same time accept the idea that it’s OK that they got the last eight years wrong because of… er …”unexplained forces”.

They can’t have it both ways: either they can explain what drives the climate, and predict what happens next, or they can’t explain what drives the climate, and so they can’t calculate carbon dioxides effect. Above is from: joannenova.com.au/2009/07/19/the-unwarming-world/

while you are there be sure to download the skeptics handbook from the main page.

This is yet another example of the left's stunning naivity and lack of skeptisism.

Thye global warming movement is riddled with so many assinine claims and observations only true blue fools and a few other slackers would accept the science that supposes more than substantiates.

BlueOregon can't even grasp the fabrications here on their own blog where the nonexistent link between ocean dead zones and global warming was distributed to the duped. Gee all it takes is for a liberal OSU professor to ponder and suppose a possible link and the Blues run with it.

Just like MANY other tall tales about global warming.

Such as that Professor, Jane Lubchenco, now head of NOAA, claiming climate models are robust enough to predict wind paterns 100 years from now. Again not a shed of science or truth behind that claim.

And when experts such as the polar bear expert is denied access to AGW conferences because he rejects that other tall tale about decliing polar bear populations from AGW Blues recognize no problem.

On and on and on.

Seems to me that the sun's activity and magnetic field and cosmic rays are responsible for temperature changes on the earth and the light bulbs I use have no effect. The computer models however take my lightbulbs into consideration and not the sun, cosmic rays and cloud cover. Perhaps primitive man who thought the sun was important is closer to the truth than the politically programmed computers.

This somewhat speaks to Roy's comment. What saddens me about the global warming craze is that all this enviornmental energy could be put into something actually useful, like cleaning up Mercury deposits, lowering pollution, etc.

Instead, the big bad guy is the harmless little Co2 molecule, something I just can't bring myself to call a "pollutant" by any stretch of the imagination.

I support recycling. I refuse to drive an inefficient car. I take better care of the environment than nearly everybody I know. I also think global climate change, at least as it's being sold in the media, is bunk.

Roy McAvoy wrote:

Funny how both sides of this issue claim to have all the science in their favor.

Ya, it's funny, Roy. That doesn't mean that both sides are wrong or that the truth lies half-way between. In this case there is a clear scientific consensus supporting human-caused climate change resulting from fossil fuel oxidation and some other facets of human economy. Yes, there are scientists who disagree with the consensus. Consensus does not suggest unanimity. The reason Krugman and others are so tough on those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus is the severity of the consequences of ignoring climate change. Economic losses could be many times the cost of taking reasonable action to deal with the problem. Then there are the risks beyond economic value, such as mass extinction of species and massive loss of human life.

It is quite difficult to make the case that increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming. This can be observed in simple closed systems, and the preponderance of climatic data suggests it works alike in earth's atmosphere.

And...even if present climate change were not human caused, that does not mean that humanity should not act to alter the trend. Humans do not create all the diseases we work so hard to prevent and cure. If a large asteroid is found to be on a collision course with earth, that would not be a human-caused problem. I would hope this would not stop us from trying to avert the collision.

Denier ?? People don't have to deny the earth is warming, because it isn't. It has been cooling for nearly a decade..

how many of those vaunted computer models predicted a cooling trend to begin this century????

I'm no scientist .. but i believe CO2 is about 600 ppm.

PPM = PARTS PER MILLION!!!!! And mans contribution is a fraction of that .. 5% or so i believe .. its difficult to imagine CO2 being a strong enough force to raise ocean temps or atmospheric temps .. the numbers don't make sense.

You can piss in the ocean and tell me the sea levels are going to rise .. but don't try to get into my wallet to build a wall to stop it.

Still no reply...

<hr/>

If anyone who is reading this and believes in Global Warming. I urge you to look at this article that debunks Global Warming.

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

If you find any part of this study to be false. please post a comment, with a counterexample & link too it. It must not be from the IPCC or Government sponsored organization.

upstate,

That little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere along with a small amount dissolved in surface water is responsible for all the photosynthesis that happens on our planet - and therefore for your life. It makes no sense to talk about scientific measurements without understanding how the amounts measured affect systems. That you think a number is small is not very meaningful.

Speaking of small numbers and your life, one teaspoon of botulinum toxin can kill 1.2 billion people.

Private wrote:

It must not be from the IPCC or Government sponsored organization.

WTF? Who are you to decide that what IPCC says is not relevant? Let me guess: they are all part of Al Gore's conspiracy to end capitalism.

Hee Hee. This ended up being a fun thread. Not a slam dunk at all for the acolytes of human-caused global warming.

Jake Leander, you need to start to think for yourself and not let politicians make up your mind. If you take the time to look at this study, it will clearly show that Global Warming is false. (http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html) I think the reason you are mad is becausebeacue you looked and couldn't find a counterexample. By the way, if CO2 was not here, we would not be here!!.

Joe White,

Accurate thermometers (to better than 0.1º F) have been available since the middle 1700's or before. When measuring temperature trends the consistency of the thermometer is more important than the absolute accuracy because you're measuring the relative change in temperature. It's not particularly more meaningful to measure temperature as 60.354765 rather than 60.35. When thermometers are replaced at a weather station there is generally an overlap of using both the old and new instrument so they can calibrate the relation between the old and new record.

Climate scientists generally start their modern temperature record in 1880 when there were enough stations distributed worldwide to calculate a reasonable global temperature. Arguments could be made for starting in the 1860's or 1870's.

Dave

Private, The Friends of Science aren't!

Ok how the hell can you discard all those years. even though we only have a small fraction of recorded temperature, we can still find how the temperature was from the trees or glaciers. IT IS VERY ARROGANT TO THINK WE CAN CONTROL THE WEATHER. AND IGNORANT TO CALL THE TEMPERATURE RISE FROM 1979 TO 2001 THE END OF THE WORLD. I don't know what the weathers been like near you, but the majority of the world's been breaking records for record cold temperature.

Jeff Alworth: Despite what some folks on the right still maintain, the scientific consensus among climate scientists is clear. J: Hey, Jeff we are still waiting for your evidence of a consensus.

Jeff Alworth: The "skeptics" are bogus. J: Hey, Jeff we are still waiting for your evidence that: * observed temperature increases are real. * temperature increases are unusual in a historical context. * CO2 actually can cause warming * man's CO2 is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. * the amount of warming will be more harmful that helpful.

Hey, Jeff Hey, Jeff we are still waiting for you to tell us how someone ignorant of basic science can become so convinced of something, based on science that he does not understand?

Just casting my vote as a skeptic, realist, denier, whatever.

These posts follow the same theme I have noticed in other threads;

Believers like the 'solutions' to global warming regardless of any actual problem, so have no motive to scrutinize the science. They are comfertable referring to an imaginery 'scientific consensus'.

Skeptics do not like the 'solutions' and are hence invariably better versed in the details of the science.

Ironically skeptics are far more in line with the actual scientists (not the politicians). The scientists, even the politically institutionalised ones in the IPCC express a lot of doubt and uncertainty in this soft science which is ignored in the 'summaries/interpretations' or media stories.

Iwant Jeff orsome other Blue to explain how it is that the left is so uniformly accepting of AGW. There's no sign of any skeptisism at all.

That's not a good sign.

It's foolish and naive.

Especially when so many established examples of nonsensicle observations by warmers have surfaced.

It's as if the left is unaffected by anything shown to be counter to claims made.

For instance, here the blues have no problem with Jane Lubchenco making up science and links to global warming.

How is it that yo can ignore fabrication and proceed as if it was not?

The normal and needed response is skeptisism, curiosity and questions demanding answers.

You blue sheep have NONE.

That leaves me and many others viewing you as hobbled by blind partisanship and ideology.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUTemps.jpg

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2088

Global Warming’s Missing Link: EPA Whistleblower Exposes Agenda’s Fatal Flaw

The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing the greatest regulatory intervention in US history, seeking to declare that carbon dioxide poses an “endangerment” under the Clean Air Act, threatening human health and the environment. To hear the EPA tell it, CO2 – which nonetheless remains indispensible to life on earth and without which plants die, more of which produces higher crop yields, etc. – will kill us all.

, as the whistleblower Dr. Alan Carlin learned, facts have little weight in this debate. Still, one key truth that Carlin brought to the fore exposes how – assuming that sanity prevails in the Senate and Congress is unable to impose “cap-and-trade” energy rationing – his exposé will carry the day in court.

This is man-made warming theory’s missing link. The global warming industry and its political enablers have been getting away with an amazing stunt of backing out from the equation inconvenient things which your lying eyes might tell you. Amid the cries of “warming proceeding even faster than predicted” – an actual, common claim among alarmists, politicians and the media – observations reveal that the recent cooling has brought us to the average of the entire 30-year history of the satellite temperature record.

Climate changes and temperatures go up and down,

Here's some info on the group whose website Private believes contains the truth on global warming. Friends of Science is funded by the petroleum industry [as most denier groups are]:

Friends of Science

Calgary based astroturf group with a long history of engaging in climate science disinformation

So, we are asked to dismiss the worldwide consensus of trained climatologists as propaganda of the "global warming industry", and accept the decidedly minority view of oil industry funded groups.

If my brain worked that way, I'd be a Republican.

It's obvious that this topic is hotly debated. I don't think we have enough information yet to completely understand climate change. For instance, it seems that global temperatures have indeed been flat or declining since 1998 (UAH MSU results - http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/prediction-of-the-may-2009-uah-msu-global-temperature-result/). At the same time, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased substantially (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/science/earth/24brfs-GASESINATMOS_BRF.html) while the sun has fallen to its dimmest point in nearly 100 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm) and sunspot activity is at a prolonged minimum (http://spaceweather.com/). Wouldn't common sense at least suggest that the sun may have more effect on temperature, and ultimately, climate, than CO2? We've been warned that increasing CO2 levels could raise the Earth's temperature by several degrees by the end of this century, but temperatures have in fact been declining this decade. I don't think we understand climate change at all. There is still much work to be done.

Mark,

Look here:

Global warming is accelerating, as predicted

Scientists have been discussing all this for quite some time and are quite aware of the limits of our understanding. STILL, organizations representing real climate scientists have been calling for strong action to reduce CO2 emissions. That should not be too difficult to understand.

Jake Leander: Friends of Science is funded by the petroleum industry [as most denier groups are]: JK: It is really sad to see someone so utterly unable to think that they have to look at the messenger instead of the message. Why don’t you tell us where to find proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming. Then follow up with proof that man’s 3% of the total annual CO2 emissions is causing the increase in the atmosphere. Then you can show us that the CO2 increase will actually be harmful.

Jake Leander: So, we are asked to dismiss the worldwide consensus of trained climatologists as propaganda of the "global warming industry", and accept the decidedly minority view of oil industry funded groups. JK: It is sad to see you get suckered by Al Gore’s profit machine and his wall street buddies. For an introduction to the BILLIONS the warmers hope to make see: sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html You should probable spend some time browsing that site to help de-program yourself.

Jake Leander: If my brain worked that way, I'd be a Republican. JK: Please just try to get it working.

Thanks JK

JK,

So why not make some easy money and take Nate Silver up on his bet?

Jake Leander: Look here: Global warming is accelerating, as predicted J: I did. There are a couple of the respected temperature records that are outliers - you choose one of them. The rest of the well respected temperature records show a decade of stasis or cooling. The most respected, the satellite record never has shown much warming.

But the bigger question is: how is warming relevant if you cannot show that man is the cause?

BTW, I hope you noticed the graph (down the page a bit) titled: Global air temperature Temperature relative to 1961-1990 average, C

look at the rise between 1910 and 1940 - that occurred before most of man’s CO2 emissions. It was natural. Now look at the slope (rate of change) and compare to the rise from 1970 to 2000. Do you see any difference in slope? Not really - thus the argument that the rate of temperature increase is increasing is falsified as just another Al Gore lie.

Now look at the period from 1940 to 1960 - temperature dropping during a time that CO2 was increasing. This tends to falsify the CO2 caused temperature claim.

Now look at the far right - the temperature is flat again (putting the lie to your claim of the hottest year) and looks much like 1940. And again tends to falsify the CO2 caused temperature postulate.

BTW, do you have any evidence that man is actually the cause of any warming that may be occurring?

Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide. methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

The coveted list of skeptic’s are-

George C. Marshall Institute Heartland Institute American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Enterprise Institute Competitive Enterprise Institute National Center for Policy Analysis Cato Institute American Petroleum Institute

A small sample of anthropogenic global climate change supporters-

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

Statements by concurring organizations

*Academies of Science European Academy of Sciences and Arts InterAcademy Council International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences Joint science academies' statements Network of African Science Academies Royal Society of New Zealand

• General science American Association for the Advancement of Science European Science Foundation National Research Council (US)

• Biology and life sciences American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians American Society for Microbiology Australian Coral Reef Society Institute of Biology (UK) Society of American Foresters The Wildlife Society (international)

• Earth sciences American Geophysical Union European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union Geological Society of America International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

*Human health American Academy of Pediatrics American College of Preventive Medicine American Medical Association American Public Health Association Australian Medical Association European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control World Federation of Public Health Associations

*Meteorology/oceanography American Meteorological Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) World Meteorological Organization

*Paleoclimatology American Quaternary Association International Union for Quaternary Research

• Miscellaneous American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society American Statistical Association Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

*Noncommittal statements American Association of State Climatologists American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Geological Institute American Institute of Professional Geologists Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Not counting "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment" the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

So there is 51 scientific groups, name one, just one that opposes the scientific consensus?

Game over...

Joe M: Game over... JK: Not until someone comes up with actual evidence that man's CO2 is and will cause dangerous warming.

Since you are so convinced, do you care to share your evidence with us?

PS: Argument from authority is the home of illiterate people and those too lazy to actually look at the evidence. It brought us eugenics and Lysenkoism. Both of which got millions of people killed. Is that the company you want to keep?

Thanks J

Jake: I appreciate the information provided by ClimateProgress.org, but I have to point out that the temperature graph they're using displays temperatures up to the year 2000, but their assertion is that this decade was hotter than the 90s. They failed to show the temperature trend from 2000 to present. If you compare the most current temperature readings from UAH MSU (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/prediction-of-the-may-2009-uah-msu-global-temperature-result/) they clearly show that temperatures have been flat to declining since the overheated 90s. We are, in fact, cooling. Arctic ice has been increasing, despite claims that is would virtually vanish in 2008 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/). Antarctic ice has also been increasing, despite claims to the contrary (http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/antarctic-ice-increasing.html). But I don't need to look at scientific graphs to know that this has been one of the coolest summers in my lifetime. If fact, it was reported in the local news this morning that this has been the coolest July in this region since the 1890s. This comes after a cooler than normal June and follows an unusually cool spring. Recall that numerous cities of the world experienced record cold temperatures and rare snowfalls the past two winters, including Buenos Aires, London, and Baghdad. It seems that we are beginning to slip back into the climate pattern that brought the unusually harsh winters of the 1970s. This is not warming, and it contradicts the assertion that CO2 is causing (and will continue to cause) the Earth to warm. It really isn't too difficult to understand.

This is such a heated dispute with so many ridiculous claims on both sides and I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

J: The Jeff Alworth: wait, day 2. Hey Jeff, we are still waiting for your evidence that man caused global warming is real and actually dangerous as requested above.

jamie writes: "J: What consensus? Show us the evidence that there is a consensus. (Please don’t try to pawn off Naomi’s non-peer reviewed opinion piece in Nature or Science - she couldn’t even get the search terms she used right in the article.)"

Answer: this consensus: Most Cited Authors on Climate Science

After Joe M gave a huge list of organizations agreeing to the global warming theory in reply to Jamie's challenge of "what consensus?", Jamie then replied: Not until someone comes up with actual evidence that man's CO2 is and will cause dangerous warming.

I love how skeptics change their arguments when they are proven wrong!

I want to congratulate Blue Oregon for coming down firmly on the side of big money, Wall Street Bankers and International Corporation as this quote shows:

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. (from CLIMATE MONEY by Joanne Nova, July 21, 2009 scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf)

There you have it -- CO2 control is now a $126 BILLION market making hundreds of corporations, bankers and Al Gore rich.

Done Williams: Answer: this consensus: Most Cited Authors on Climate Science JK: What does that prove? How is that evidence of a consensus? The reality is that only scientific illiterates (probably like yourself) speak of a scientific consensus. That is an Al Gore bullshit term. Just like his emphasis on “peer-reviewed.”

Done Williams: Jamie then replied: Not until someone comes up with actual evidence that man's CO2 is and will cause dangerous warming. I love how skeptics change their arguments when they are proven wrong! JK: I have been asking that question for months now and no one – NOT ONE person -- has answered it (well David Appell threw out some BS.) . All they do is change the subject or throw out “there is a consensus.”

Where is the evidence?

BTW, which name did you use previously?

Italics off!

Off damn italics, off

Done:

Just to stir the pot a little (and lend my moral support to those who claim there is a consensus on this matter), below is a link to a list -- a growing list, mind you -- of international scientists who have publicly registered their dissent with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This is part of a U.S. Senate report that was originally compiled late last year. At present, more than 700 scientists have added their names to this report, including James Hansen's former NASA supervisor. As an example of the report's contents, this is a quote from one of the scientists that helped assemble the UN's IPCC report:

"Warming fears are the 'worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.'” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

The entire report can be found here:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Oops. Correction: the first line on my previous post should have read, "Just to stir the pot a little (and lend my moral support to those who claim there is NO consensus on this matter)..."

You know, JK, I am really not David Appell. It's the same sort of BS as the rest of your stuff to continue to imply that I am.

Rod wrote:

This is such a heated dispute with so many ridiculous claims on both sides and I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

This is just what the G.W. denial campaign hopes for: that calling into question the imperative of quick, decisive action will destroy our political will. Talking about "ridiculous claims on both sides" suggests you are not researching the issue seriously.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone without an extremely fringe view of established science that the organizations and websites that furnish the information that "jamie" and others use in their arguments are frigging ludicrous. All "jamie"'s queries have been adequately answered in more than one post here on BlueOregon. That he refuses to accept research supported by almost all recognized authoritative scientific bodies and instead pushes interpretations and data that have been discredited by the same authoritative bodies puts him in a credibility bind. Blaming Wall Street and Al Gore for a conspiracy in NO WAY makes it reasonable to reject the preponderance of peer reviewed research while accepting the research of a few questionably qualified and dubiously connected people.

Hey Jake, we are still waiting for you to show us evidence that man's CO2 is actually warming then planet and that it can be dangerous.

That is what you refuse to do, instead you keep points to supposed authority, none of which has the evidence either. This is the same mentality that found witches everywhere in earlier times.

JK, as Jake said you've been answered before and any answer we give will be rejected by you because your mind is made up. Maybe you'll live long enough to see how wrong you are but I suspect you'd just find another way to deny it.

BTW, maybe I'm flattered you think I'm David Appell. His CV is much more impressive than mine.

Dave

From Wikipedia, source of all truth and knowledge:

Argo is an observation system for the Earth's oceans that provides real-time data for use in climate, weather, oceanographic and fisheries research. Argo consists of a large collection of small, drifting oceanic robotic probes deployed worldwide. The probes float as deep as 2 km. Once every 10 days, the probes surface, measuring conductivity and temperature profiles to the surface.

Not from Wikipedia:

Apparently, the data collected from Argo shows that there is a cooling trend that is occurring since 2003 in the oceans' water. I figure that this means that global warming is true, then it must only be heating up land and not the water, but that would be rather silly to say.

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism

Update from: agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July 2009.

see SustainableOregon.com for more climate reality

Jake wrote: "This is just what the G.W. denial campaign hopes for: that calling into question the imperative of quick, decisive action will destroy our political will."

Mark wrote: Jake, there's an interesting article by respected meteorolgist Richard Lindzen that posted today. I think this addresses the rush to "quick, decisive action" by the global warming supporters.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/27/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

Mark,

I don't find Lindzen's argument persuasive. He dismisses large observed changes as localized events. He mentions the shrinkage in arctic ice, as one of these. There also has been worldwide loss of alpine glaciers [not so local] and extensive melting of permafrost. Besides these being evidence of warming, they are powerful contributors to warming in themselves. Snow and ice reflect light back into space, reducing solar gain. Tundra is a huge CO2 and methane reservoir, both powerful greenhouse gases that are liberated by soil melting.

...and yet, the temperature record--and the expansion of polar ice--shows unmistakable cooling this decade. Certainly, only time will tell if global warming is an overblown farce or a serious threat, but current evidence seems to be punching holes in the theory that increased CO2 levels will destroy the planet (as many would have us believe). There is more and more evidence supporting the theory that global warming and cooling is a cyclical process that has been occuring with and without humans since the beginning of time. I say we learn to adapt to the changing environment rather than spend trillions of dollars in the futile attempt to keep temperatures from increasing 1 degree C in the next hundred years. THAT is the true farce of the global warming movement.

Late edition: Here's an interesting bit of news for today...

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

from SourceWatch

Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming:

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."[16]

On Tobacco:

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[17]

A critique of Lindzen's climate change views:

... it is a series of strawman arguments, red-herrings and out and out errors.

Just a sampling of comments from scientists who are not part of the consensus:

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)

And this, from yesterday's NY Times online:

"Californians’ eagerness to battle global warming seems to be cooling a bit: The latest survey on the state’s environmental attitudes, released on Wednesday, showed that 47 percent consider the threat of global warming very serious, a decline of seven percentage points from two years ago.

Two-thirds of Californians now support the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, the landmark 2006 legislation requiring the state to slash its greenhouse gas emissions — down from 78 percent two years ago."

The "overwhelming consensus" seems to be eroding...

Jake: Your link to A Critique of Lindzen's Climate Change Views is commentary from April 2007. It doesn't address anything in his latest piece of work which was released several days ago. So far as I can tell, the AGW crowd has had no response.

Nice blog, its great article informative post, thanks for sharing it.......... term papers Thanks for the information!

Hey Jake Lender, Ive tried to give you a website that has a different viewpoint than you do, and u immediately go to news articles that say it was funded by gas companies instead of disproving the study. I know arguing with you is futile because your so close minded. I encourage you too look at climate at a different prospective, instead of belittling yourself into thinking we are causing the climate fluctuations and theres no hope.

Private,

I am not a climatologist. Are you?

Although I am trained in science, I am not able to judge the value of interpretations made of a few of the hundreds of studies and data sets concerning climate. Instead, I accept the scientific consensus on climate change - a consensus which is, at this point, quite strong.

Those who devalue concern over climate change often suggest that climate scientists, governments, and, in particular, Al Gore, have monetary motivations for promoting the concept of human-caused climate change. Yet, you and others consider it unfair when fossil-fuel connections of climate-change skeptics are mentioned - even though NO group has greater vested interest in the climate issue than do oil companies and related industries.

Sorry, but I will not heed your request to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.