I can't seem to understand why everyone writes into this blog from an extremely right-wing perspective. Are all of accuweather.com's fans conservatives, or are they just filtered that way? Slate ran a few stories about accuweather's sweetheart deal with the government, shutting out competition from the public sector, thanks to the extremely right-wing Senator Santorum (thankfully no longer in office). I wonder if that has something to do with it.
Look, global warming is happening, and nothing but man-made gases can account for it. So please, deal with it, and start looking for solutions, instead of selecting a couple wacky flatulance/polar-bear-lawsuit stories just to rally those liberal-haters whose assumptions about Blue States were formed 20 years ago. If you must pander to skeptics who wouldn't know a scientific paper if it smacked them upside the head, start paying attention to the corporations and religious groups that have woken up to the idea of conservation (and there are more than one). And leave the ranting to populist heartland politicians who exploit ancient political stereotypes for their own electoral benefit.

The article didn't purport to be a comprehensive overview, Laura, and a stated focus (in the first sentence of the second paragraph) was on those skeptics (I would say denialists) who hadn't made a shift. The three Americans quoted were the ones you named, but there are certainly more. As with past major shifts in scientific knowledge, some of these folks will go to their graves denying reality. For them the only change will be that as time goes by they will have less and less access to the media. I read the climate-related news every day (via Climate Ark) and from that I have the very strong impression that in the last year there has been much more coverage of climate issues amd that attention to skeptic/denialist views has simultaneously declined sharply.

Given all of the very prominent recent news (e.g.) about big business shifting its attitude toward global warming, I think it was sufficient to note that fact without repeating the details and to focus on the recent conversion of the big fish (ExxonMobil).

In terms of public perception in the U.S., probably Katrina and An Inconvenient Truth have had a much greater impact than the IPCC report. In terms of science reporting, I suspect it's quite the reverse.

One of the reasons why denialists are getting less and less coverage is that so often they say things that are patently incorrect. For instance, in the Globe story Nigel Calder (who I understand is flogging a soon-to-be-released book on Svensmark's stuff) was described as "suggest(ing) that the IPCC's main conclusion -- that there is more than a 90 percent certainty humans are contributing to global warming -- means there's a 10 percent chance that man is blameless, 'a wide-open breach for any latter-day Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.'"

The only problem with that statement is that it's wrong. But of course Nigel isn't a scientist, so I suppose there's no reason to expect him to understand scientific uncertainty or to have understood the IPCC report.

What the report said is: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [= 90%-95% certain] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." So it's not a "contribution," it's "most." While the report goes on to say that it is also very likely that natural causes could not have resulted in the warming, this can't be turned on its head into a positive statement that there is a 10% chance natural causes did it. One reason is that while there is still a small amount of uncertainty associated with our understanding of the warming, there is neither evidence nor a plausible hypothesis for natural causes as the primary factor. Even if one could turn the reasoning around as Calder did, the 10% figure would be a maximum. It should be 1% to 10%, or 5% if a single number.

But there's even more wrong with his claim: Greenhouse gases aren't the only anthropogenic contribution to warming -- there are also land use changes and black soot emissions. While difficult to quantify, they are very much part of that remaining uncertainty range along with any natural factors.

Technicalities aside, what the above actually means is that, as Gerald Meehl put it, "We have it nailed." (Meehl was the one who developed the IPCC certainty nomenclature twenty or so years ago.)

It's very interesting what different people choose to focus on in news stories like the one on the Globe.

As an individual skeptic my opinion will never change on man-made Global Warming.All I need to do is look up in the sky and see the real culprit,The Sun.I wouldn't expect the Suns output to be constant for 1 second let alone a period of decades.That being said I'm all for eliminating pollution but at the same time I'm looking forward to the enormous benefits a warmer climate will bring.

This Scientist just came out with a study debating the accuracy of some computer climate models. Could we then consider him a skeptic?

www.newswise.com/articles/view/527313/

I love the last few sentences of this article:

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Skeptics??
Factor out the U.N.,Al Gore and Hollywood, and there wouldn't be a global warming issue and therefore no more skeptics. The reality is that we have a significant (1 degree with 15mph north wind a blowin) cooling off period upon us.
How would the global warmists suggest a city the size of New York stay warm today. I'm not being skeptical, just curious....Windmills?....Solar panels?...Tide generators...?

The Boston Globe recently ran an editorial comparing GW skeptics with holocaust deniers. Why do you think this article title wouldn't be disengenuous? The Boston Globe is a left-wing trash newpaper, and I'm being generous. They have no credibility with anyone interested in the facts and the truth.

"American Enterprise Insitute is showing signs of backing off its attempt to challenge the IPCC report"

The IPCC report has not been released yet, only the summary has. The report is being changed to agree with the summary. This is plain and simple fraud.

Why do you write this nonsense Laura? You know the repost has not been released AND you know it is being changed to agree with the summary.

It hasn't changed my view.
I have serious issues with Human-Induced Global Warming. I find absolutely no reason to believe that this planet has any climatic optimum either. I believe this warming is normal. Although, that doesn't mean I don't totally agree that humans are polluting the water, the air we breathe in our cities, and overrunning the forests, to our detriment; i.e. Mercury-laden fish.

On another note:
I find comments from people like "anonymous" here to be just as deconstructive as what he's trying to bash. And ditto to his opposites. To everyone: It does not help anyone's case to silence an opposing view just because it doesn't coincide with your own beliefs. If everyone will recall, Einstein was dismissed by almost the entire scientific community...so we now know what a mistake was made by not allowing even the smallest minority opinion to speak, and I wish everyone would learn from that mistake and stop repeating it. Science is suppose to be the pursuit for truth, not public office. We've already been through all this with Global Cooling too, BTW; that was the consensus at the time. So just because 99% of everyone agrees with something doesn't make it right. For 100% of the world once believed that the planet was flat, and now we stride blissfully over the horizon.

Laura, you have awakened some truly passionate global warmers with this Boston Globe article. They all thought that global warming skeptics were extinct or at least on the endangered species list; at least that's what they would like. This is great! I needed a laugh today as I gaze out my window at mounds of snow and single digit temps.

Anonymous' post is all about politics, never mind the science. And Bloom is convinced, after all, he reads Climate Ark and counts on the IPCC report (oops, politics again). Bloom, you won't find any opposing views at Climate Ark, they're on the global warming bandwagon. Try World Climate Report to see what the opposition is up to.

Now here's more fuel for the fire. My local weathermen all got together to discuss global warming and guess what? They are all skeptics. Here is the link if anyone is interested:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1171620847309210.xml&coll=2

This world is full of skeptics and on even those that staunch in what they believe in. I'm not saying that I'm a skeptic, nor do I believe 100% in global warming. But what I don't understand is you have all of the Democrats swearing up and down that man is to blame for global warming. But can they prove it 100%? Or is the evidence that's been presented for it circumstantial? And since they don't know what else to blame for it, then it's got to be our fault. What if Global warming is nobody's fault? Most of us haven't been on this planet but a mere 100 years or however old the oldest person is. So we really don't know for sure what kind of cycles the earth has been going through for centuries. I know there has been evidence found that there was at one time a tropical climate at the poles so wouldn't that mean that warming and cooling of the earth is normal in some degree? Before we started recording the weather, we don't really know what was out there we have our ideas, but we just don't know because we weren't there. I'm sure man isn't helping the cause, but whatever the excuse is why is it so hard to say I don't know?

Thank you Laura for trying to present all sides of the idea. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and they shouldn't be shot down just because someone else disagrees with it.

Look, Anonymous shows his face! (Actually that "Anonymous" was just the result of a beginner's error.)
Julie, you have a point. My post was political, not scientific. When it comes to science, I guess I'm just a lemming--I tend to believe the consensus of many, many scientists over the protests of a precious few, many of those funded by the businesses that have the most to lose in the argument.
But I'd also note that this is, and has to be about politics. When items like the "polar-bear-lawsuit" are posted, you know exactly what kind of response you're going to get. "There go those trial lawyers again, making money off false science." And that's by and large the response that came in. I've seen more references to "Hollywood" and "Al Gore" in here than I can count. That's not about politics? Moreover, try and tell me that the Bush administration's stance on climate change has nothing to do with the fact that the president and vice president worked for fossil-fuel companies. I don't think even the most hardened skeptic would be so biased.
What I also see, in these posts, is a lot of conjecture driven by nothing more than "common sense." Surely the sun causes warming! Surely these little creatures only six feet tall can't wreak such havoc on the planet! Surely someone's profiting from all the bogus science promulgated by thousands and thousands of scientists!
By the way, the liberal/conservative divide has less and less to do with these issues as time goes on. Look at every single viable presidential candidate for 2008. They agree with me. John McCain said today:

"The debate is over, my friends. Now the question is what do we do? Do we act, do we care enough about the young people of the next generation to act seriously and meaningfully, or are we going to just continue this debate and this discussion?"

But sure, let's leave politics behind. John McCain is not a scientist, and neither am I. I cede the floor to those who actually understand what "probability" and "scientific consensus" actually mean, and who can put aside their biases and try to understand what on earth is going on--why the earth is getting warmer every year, why climates are changing and glaciers are melting at alarming rates--and how to fix it.

Exxon-Mobil is a corporation whose primary purpose is to keep shareholders happy and supply oil to its
customers. If changing its position achieves this purpose they will. Whether it is valid science means nothing to them. If their profits continue to rise, politicization of the issue is unimportant.
To those interested in the truth, skepticism is important. What Al Gore thinks is irrelevant since his training was not in the sciences and his grades were below President Bush's....another person with little science background.

Exxon-Mobil is a corporation whose primary purpose is to keep shareholders happy and supply oil to its
customers. If changing its position achieves this purpose they will. Whether it is valid science means nothing to them. If their profits continue to rise, politicization of the issue is unimportant.
To those interested in the truth, skepticism is important. What Al Gore thinks is irrelevant since his training was not in the sciences and his grades were below President Bush's....another person with little science background.

FYI, Rick, while Climate Ark does have a blog and other material with a definite POV, they also have a very convenient web crawler news feed service (on the left of the page) that links comprehensively to global warming media coverage (including known denialist outlets such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page).

I read the story you linked, and of course it just goes to demonstrate the lack of climate science knowledge on the part of many meteorologists, mainly older ones who haven't been educated in it and chose not to educate themseleves subsequently. Fortunately the American Meteorological Society is well-informed on the science, as you can see here.

I do read the World Climate Report blog, although afterwards I find that I have to blink a lot to get the coal dust out of my eyes.

The rate of this warmth is unprecedented. The Earth may or may not have some cold or warm periods, but those changes took place gradually over tens of thousands of years. Warming up 0.74 degrees Celsius in 30 years is unprecedented. And it may not sounds like much, but that is a huge surge in heat energy in a short time within such a large system such as Earth.

You guys can now return to your scheduled Rush Limbaugh programming.

-Mark

It has been interesting as someone who has attended meetings on climate change since 1981 to here scientists such as Singer and Lindzen slowly alter their tune, from no warming, to there has to be a warming but it will be negligible, to warming is not bad it will be small and okay. on the other had I have heard little change in the story of Schnieder, Hansen, Trenberth etc through the years, indicating that there original positions remain supported by the data. The sun is clearly a key climate player, but we have for sometime measured its output carefully and there has not been an appreciable change to account for our recent warming. This is well documented. In the science community this is not a democrat or repbulican issue, because it is not a political issue.

Steve, I'm glad you are reading articles that question the hypothesis of catastrophic human-induced global warming even if you remain unconvinced. As for the meteorologists, well, these guys have been studying the climate all of their working lives and they are credible sources because of their many years of experience in the field. I'll take their views before I will buy Al Gore's.

I was aware that the AMS put out their statement affirming global warming. Did you happen to notice the disclaimer, "despite uncertainties?" In other words, they acknowledge the evidence, agree that humans are contributing but it's not a slam dunk. We skeptics get suspicious, though, when The Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen wants all skeptical meteorologists decertified by the AMS. There is no place for Gestapo tactics in a scientific debate and yet there they are. People like Cullen promote sketicism, although I'm sure that was not her intent. The catastrophic global warmers have developed a "herd" mentality and they ridicule opposing views and that, in itself, makes me skeptical.

As for the coal dust over at the World Climate Report, well, I'm in favor of going nuclear but the same people who attribute global warming to the burning of fossil fuels are against that too and that adds to my suspicions about their real agenda.

I dont see how one can be a skeptic given the universal agreement of the greenhouse effect, if it's a matter of qualifying this warming as modest versus a disaster, that is another matter.
Anthropognic warming is an inescapable deduction or conclusion. That there are dogmatic statements such as "nothing but manmade gases can account for it" ( see anonymous above ) should not confuse us. Of course there are stupid people that by nature can be confused easily. As an aside, this so-called GW debate is a study in human nature.

Rick, if you really think TV weathermen who have never taken a single course on climate science understand climate behavior better than climate scientists (who include, BTW, the people who develop the forecasting models the TV weathermen used to impress you with their capabilities), there's not much else I can say other than to point out that it's a bit like relying on someone who has only mastered arithmetic to solve a calculus problem.

I should note for the record, though, that you misrepresented what Heidi Cullen actually said. What you are instead representing is what Rush Limbaugh said she said, which is a rather different thing. But don't let little things like facts change your thinking.

TO: Boris Kachka & like-minded participants

Pol McCain says “debate’s over”? John knows he’d raise Cain & would be duncified as well as demonized by folks bent not on debating, but goring & character-assassinating (“..like holocaust deniers”) any & all failing to genuflect before “Kyoto.”

Russian Academy of Sciences Director Kyrill Kondratiev, meanwhile, (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13693) has mauled the “Kyoto=consensus!” myth,

..as have 14,000-plus real scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Top)
who all signed a post-Kyoto petition calling on leaders (mostly in vain, given what the pols expect to gain) to challenge Kyoto’s wannabe dogma, which makes..

..MIT’s Richard Lindzen’s endorsement of Kondratiev (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13693 anything but the cry of a “lonely skeptic” who “just doesn’t get it”!

The head of the Russian Academy of Science’s Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Yuri Izrael (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/refutes.htm), has debunked disingenuous “It’s the CO2, stupid!” babble.

Exxon doesn’t need my exoneration: Earth has seen aeons of glacial advances & recessions, so it SHOULD be obvious the trigger for both is EXOGENOUS, hence it’s ludicrous to try to tie them to you ‘n me: “It’s the Mylankovich cycles,..!”
http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html
and, no, I won't stoop to the demeaning "Stupid!"

Not Exxon, but “mainstream” PBS’s “Nova” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3307_arctic.html) is on record as corroborating that the early 1970’s brought the Arctic several “years without a summer.” They set an ABNORMALLY ice-choked stage for the 1977 start-up of satellite pix of the Arctic. Nonetheless, “we-started-it-so-we-gotta- stop-it!” hysteria-mongers claim (ignorantly or deceptively) that those late-‘70’s pix show us the “norm”!

There's MUCH more here, Boris, but too many "lemmings," as you so aptly put it, wouldn't let mere facts put forth by real scientists in their thousands get in the way of their prejudices. A propos of myths, finally, please check out http://suvorov.com , the site of former GRU agent V. Rezun, a.k.a. V. Suvorov (nom de plume), who has unmasked yet another carefully cultivated "consensus" - he calls it "Poslyednii Mif"!

Hank

While there seems to be a lot of controversy on the GW subject, I get the feeling that we are now being herded towards a conclusion by consensus rather than scientific facts. Maybe if we got a consensus that the world is flat that would make it so. Maybe if we got a consensus that the world is doomed that would make it so. So here are my observations that I've read by scientists.
1. The ice caps on Mars are melting. That wasn't a consensus just facts based on the observations of the Mars Orbitor as reported by NASA. Last time I checked mars is 4 million miles FURTHER from the Sun than we are...
2. I heard a scientist (female) wax eloquent about how Greenland's ice covering is shrinking. She was actually quite alarmed. Does anyone stop to ask themselve's a small question? Why is Greenland called "Greenland"? Well here is the answer, over 1,000 years ago the Vikings settled in Greenland and they are the ones who named it Greenland BECAUSE it WAS GREEN! Obviously, if it had been covered in ice and snow all the time they never would've settled there. Obviously, if Greenalnd was once Green then the Earth was warmer at that time. I wonder how many SUVs they were driving?
3. If the Earth is getting warmer then why is the Antarctic ice cap growing in thickness and size?? That was the stated conclusion by a scientist who has been observing and studying the South Pole for more than 20 years. He stated the ice cap is growing by .81 inches a year. That's growth not shrinkage!
Final observation. IS anyone counting the cost that we are being called to pay to "cool" the planet. I read an estimation from one scientist who said that we will pay over the next century about 551 TRILLION dollars and only affect the temperature by .5 of 1 degree!! That's not a lot to show for 551 Trillion dollars.
This is what happens when people get suckered by a third rate politician who thinks the rest of us are just plain stupid!