This is the kind of garbage that those of us who doubt global warming have to deal with. That being: "They disagree with us, so we have to silence them" I wish you luck in trying to silence us. You people out there who have questioned me as to what Marx or Stalin has to do with this issue must think that some of us are pretty stupid. (But of course you do, because we disagree with you!) It's tactics like this that are undoubtedly Stalinist/Marxist in nature. That is why Global Warming is nothing more than a dreamed up political issue. An issue of more controls and regulations thru an agenda that some want implemented. Skeptics beware. If these people get their way, they will have you silenced because they can dish it out, but can't take it in return. How typical!

Speaking of skeptics, The Drudge Report also has a link to the British TV show which aired last week called The Great Global Warming Swindle. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but it looks quite interesting. Here is the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle

Laura, you claim that you want this blog to be less political, and yet, you post this sensationalized news piece. This is an extreme example which does not reflect the character of those who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming. The only purpose this article will serve is to elicit a rise out of the 'skeptics' and give them a crutch in their argument.

Let's stick to the science, right Laura?

Hey Mark,

Take a pill. It is what it is.

BTW, "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

SCIENCE is NOT voted on. It is discovered, analyzed, researched, reviewed, debated...etc. And as technology advances, discoveries that once were thought to be preposterous become the NEW norm. It happens all the time.

Do yourself a favor and quit using a term that contridicts what you are trying to convey.

Good Luck,

Dave

Last Wednesday, less than a week ago, you said you wanted less politics here.

Since then, you've started threads on "Banning Bulbs All Over the World", "PETA Calls Out Gore", "Friday Chuckle - Offset Your Pet", "SI: It Doesn't Stand for Science Illustrated" and now "Death to Skeptics". Is this the "new direction" you're looking for?

If I wanted to blog on the New York Post, I would. This blog is fast becoming a waste of time.

Hey, while we're off-topic (AGW=death threats=Marxism?!), let me mention a recent article I read in The New Yorker about a nifty movement of "skeptics" enabled by the Internet. It all started with a very influential and well-credentialed scientist, Peter Duesberg. He had essentially discovered a class of viruses called the retrovirus, before AIDS was known, and--for helping to advance research toward treating that disease--was mentioned as a possible recipient of the Nobel Prize. But as other scientists were making the link between HIV and AIDS, and developing drugs that would eventually make it a treatable, survivable illness, Duesberg was coming to the conclusion that HIV couldn't POSSIBLY cause AIDS, for a variety of reasons. As he saw it, the only thing that made AIDS (wherever it came from) fatal was poor nutrition and drug use. Thousands of other scientists had definitely proven that HIV causes AIDS, and that AIDS was treatable by antiretroviral drugs. Principal among the proofs was the basic fact that HIV led to AIDS, it was impossible to get AIDS without having HIV, and new drugs were able to stop AIDS from developing.

A movement of "skeptics" has grown around Duesberg--his chief proponents being the government of South Africa, where about 12 percent of the population is infected. Very few of them get treatment because the government thinks AIDS, and antiretroviral medications, are a plot perpetrated by the West (perhaps the CIA) to kill and maim Africans and profit in the process. There is an official-looking Website, virusmyth.net, that links to more than 1,000 "skeptic" Websites. There's a Nobel prize-winning chemist quoted on the Website in support of their "skepticism." Check it out. Looks familiar to me. Defending himself, Dr. Duesberg not long ago said that in "the freest of all countries, as George Bush calls the U.S., noonconformists are excommunicated at all social scientific levels." Well, what do you guys think? Should his theories be given equal weight in the press? Should we "teach the controversy"?

By all means let's avert our gaze from, and certainly do nothing to draw others' attention to, that which threatens to expose an increasingly mainstreamed if nonetheless extremist sect of the movement. Yet, have the more establishment alarmists condemned them? Missed that. Ignore, too, the cartoon books and videos stamped out to scare kids into becoming little lobbyists and pressure group activists, it really serves no purpose to draw public attention to such unpleasantness after all. Why, you're just as bad as the extremists if you refuse to ignore the nastiness and congenital ad hom of the alarmists; in fact, if you make a fuss it just means they win, and you don't want that, do you? Only look their way when they're offering alluring imagery of doom, doom I tell you!
That way, each such example can simply be dismissed as an aberration. Much nicer that way, no?

To Mark - To claim a "scientific consensus" is to anoint your position as above questioning. You want to cite the scientists who advocate your belief system and any scientists who disagree are to be dismissed, hence the "consensus." I reject the label of skeptic just as much as you would reject lemming and suggest that global warming as a religion be replaced by global climate change as a discussion open to all viewpoints.

Mark

Its a pity there is no science.

Mark,

Really? Do we need a crutch? I think there are more skeptics in this country than alarmists. More people doubt that humans are the main reason for global warming, and that the earth is in immediate peril.

Death to skeptics? No big surprise here. There are many in the GW cult who would rather fight their fellow American brothers, than fight Islamic fundamentalist killers who chant Death to America. Nope, no big surprise here.

Dear Readers,

Contrary to what you may see or hear in the media there is anything but a "scientific consensus" on Global Climate Change. There is wayyy to much hype and science falls way short of providing an accounting of ALL the facts.
I've been deeply interested in the sciences since I was a child. I always had a high aptitude for science and placed much confidence in what I had read or learned from peers and teachers/professors. I was also usually very good at disseminating hype from fact. I can say with pride that I tested out of my critical thinking class along with about 2.5% of my classmates. Within the past 10 yrs I've noticed I've become a serious cynic as to what I hear on network/cable news or any media for that matter, especially on the topic of science. I moved to rural Maine 8 yrs ago and run a small computer repair business, and have thus focused my studies, in general, to that field alone. I have my beliefs and ideas as to global climate change. However I would not seek to engage in an intelligent debate lacking the appropriate knowledge. I would like to offer an observation though. It appears to me that within the general population, global warming is as much a political/philosophical debate as a scientific one. On one hand you have people who know only what they hear from the news media accept it as gospel and it becomes their mantra. Others require a deep understanding of the facts and require a more credible truth. Another observation I should like to make right off the top of my head is that the only curricula that is in constant flux would be that of science. In general math books do not change, nor do history books and aside from an occasional new word nor does our language. Why is that? Could it be that what we knew to be true yesterday was not�.hmmm, and what we know today will not be true tomorrow? Of course we would like to think we are so terribly intelligent, we are enculturated to believe we are capable of anything. The more I watch and listen, the more strongly I can assure you that this is far from the truth. We are but mere specks in the grand scheme of things and but mere infants in our knowledge of the world and the universe. A very popular comedian suggested just how self-righteous we had become�and alluded to the fact that the earth has endured far worse calamities in its 4 billion years than us during our reign of about 3 seconds on the geological clock. He went further to say that when the good earth has had enough of us it would shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
Now lets get political...The biggest factor in the last 3 years has been the lopsided movie an "Inconvient Truth".
Say I'm an alholic ...working in a bar as a bartender, yet preaching sobriety to every customer. First I don't think I'll be collecting my first paycheck, the owner is sure to fire me...and second I'll probably get beat up as soon as I step out the door by angry patrons. Hypocrasy is seldom tolerated and reaks of inpropriety. Many people won�t even acknowledge the term global warming. Let�s get down to what these two different phrases really mean. Global Warming and Global Climate change. The former refers to an ideology, based on several of the 7 deadly sins�greed, envy and jealousy. You got it money�.that�s right the almighty dollar�or in this case Euro. The Kyoto Accord is meant to debilitate the only nation in the world that has everything and is capable of more! The only way these other nations can compete with us is to drag us down to their level. Chiefly by placing restrictions on our industries they limit our production and thereby they limit our wealth and power.
Why is there no mention of other causality? Milankovitch cycles? Geomagnetic reversal?Vulcanism and tectonics? The "Sink Effect"? Should I endeavour to dig deeper I would bet on several more as well.

Thank you for your indulgence
Chaz

Mark,
Stick to the science? Maybe if you did, you would like to see what the "skeptics" have to say. What scientific "consensus"? You apparently have not allowed yourself the priviledge of hearing the myriad groups of highly respected scientists that have questioned global warming, are not getting paid for what they say, and have much intriguing science behind their views.

I live in England and I've seen the "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's one of the best program(me)s I've ever seen. If the scientists (some of them American) interviewed in the film are telling the truth (and I can't see why they shouldn't be) then we can all stop wasting our time, money and guilt-ridden hysteria on this greatest political scam of all time. It makes the flat-earthers seem like amiable eccentrics, which perhaps they are.
The whole thing collapses if you accept that, far from showing that carbon emissions cause temperature rises, Al Gore should have realised that it's the other way round: increases in CO2 lag about 800 years behind the temperature rises caused by THE SUN. But most of our public and politicians are now hooked and it's too late for the facts to be of any interest to them. What a bunch of masochists human beings are!

I think Laura has a valid point in highlighting the absurdity of this whole debate. It seems that to argue your point by threating life, limb, career and or reputation is counter productive. It also points out the desperation of a person who cannot prove what they think is true and instead tries to make a point valid by siffling criticism. Funny, I don't see this behavior from the anti-AGW argument.

If I am not mistaken her "stay on topic" post had more to do with just that, staying on topic whithin the comment stream for a particular post and showing some civility.

"I think there are more skeptics in this country than alarmists. More people doubt that humans are the main reason for global warming, and that the earth is in immediate peril."

Please back this up with evidence. And by evidence, I don't mean the unscientific polls from Fox News or Drudge.

Yes, Rich, when your side has to reference anastheologists and astrologists as credentialed 'skeptics', then your argument needs crutches.

And yes, as much as the skeptics hate to admit it, there is a scientific consensus that humans are contributing signifigantly towards global warming. With the top ten warmest years on record occuring in the past eleven years, this is also backed up with real-world observation. Now, IF the data reverses itself and we see cooling, then it will be time to re-examine the theories. However, as it stands right now, we see no evidence of this occuring, and this is not the type of problem that we can sit around and 'study' forever. That's why you see politicans and corporations starting to act now.

George Bush claimed we needed to further study this problem back in 2000. Guess what? Even he agrees with the consensus.

As John McCain has said: "The debate is over."

Mark:

Bet it makes you wither writing that Bush agrees with you. Poses a bit of a conundrum though: my guess is that you generally do not see Bush as a much of a leader and probably feel he is wrong more than right....so.... if Bush wants to study the problem, doesn't that make it the wrong thing to do?

Besides, as intelligent people frequenting this blog, can't we all just agree that all politicians, no matter of their politics, are generally just sucking up to whoever then can suck up to. In other words, their opinions are worth as much as the electrons of this post weigh.

Stop worrying about how many "non-scientists" agree or disagree on AGW. There are as many "non-scientists" on the AGW bandwagon as there are off the bandwagon. It makes no difference who believes what and the fact that AGW proponents spend a significant amount of time telling us how many scientists are in consensus tells me that the real issue is political not scientific. The goal of a political party, the VERY essence of politics, is to persuade a majority of people into agreeing with them by using the majority numbers game. If "most" people agree with "X", then you, the uninformed person on the street, should agree as well since "most" people couldn't be wrong on "X", right?

As far as the top ten warmest years on record, by that I am presuming you mean since we have been keeping records, you might be right. But consider that recording stations are no longer in similar surroundings as they were ten years ago. Also, consider that recorded history only goes back several hundred years, and if you want accurate data, you can only go back maybe a 150 years. If you want real accurate, global analysis of the climate, you can only go back 20 years. Not much considering the epoch over which modern earth has appeared as it does now. And if you consider the age of the earth in the penultimate (sp) review, recorded history accounts for practically nothing. Not that that is any sort of a real comparison, but I thought I would just throw that out.

Mark,

You: As John McCain has said: "The debate is over."

Reply: John McCain feels that the earth is getting warmer. How it is caused, how drastic will any changes be and what can be done are still up for debate.

You: With the top ten warmest years on record occuring in the past eleven years...

Reply: Has it never been warmer before your 300 year old records? Of course it has. How was that warmth created? Once the questions about the past are answered, then perhaps this new data will better explain the future.

You: George Bush claimed we needed to further study this problem back in 2000. Guess what? Even he agrees with the consensus.

Reply: What is he admitting to by stating that we need to study this? Guess what. We are still studying this. Also, there is no consensus. Too many people from too many sides are on too many different pages.

You: That's why you see politicans and corporations starting to act now.

Reply: Are you serious? Politicians see votes. Some corporations see a market and profits to be made from this hype, son.

You: Please back this up with evidence. And by evidence, I don't mean the unscientific polls from Fox News or Drudge.

Reply: What makes Fox and Drudge polls less scientific than ABC and NY Times polls? I didn't require any evidence when I said that I think. I think there are more skeptics in this country than alarmists. I think more people doubt that humans are the main reason for global warming, and that the earth is in immediate peril.

That's not to say that this won't change. There is definitely indoctrination going on. Let both sides be heard, fairly.

Mark,

You say that the warmest ten years on record are in the past 11 years. The key words there are "On record." Records strecth go back only a couple hundred years, and on the backdrop of the millions of years of earth's history 10 years is insignificant.

Mark,

You pick a convenient period of a few years and make an irrelevant statement about the temperature during that period: "the top ten warmest years on record occuring in the past eleven years." I can do the same thing. How about this: Global temperatures have not increased since 1998. This is a fact. Here are the anomalies from the WMO:
1998 0.526
1999 0.302
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.422

Is it possible that there has been a reversal? Is it possible that global temperatures have reached their apex and are on the way down? I don't know, you don't know and the scientists don't know. What we do know is that CO2 has been increasing during this period and also between 1940 and 1975 but the temperature has not increased during those periods. In fact, after 1940 it went down.

So what do we know? We know that when CO2 goes up the temperature sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. What does that do to the theory of AGW? All the models assume increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature. But the temperature record does not show that. So how do you and other AGW proponents explain this disparity? Why don't you take a break from the incessant assertions that there is scientific consensus and enlighten those of us who are struggling with these problems. I await your response.

Seems that the Timothy Ball editorial I commented on here in early February got picked up by the Drudge Report, and the readership there combined with Ball's overall visibility as a skeptic has resulted in him receiving five death threats by e-mail.

The readership at the Drudge Report is responsible for these threats? So I guess the pupils of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are a bunch of environmental extremist terrorists huh? Fishy...

The Drudge Report looks like a legit news service compared to where you got the source article from. I scroll down and I see an article from a few months ago comparing evolution to a "religion". Gee, where have I heard similar comparisons lately. This is the kinda attitude towards science we are dealing with here from the "skeptic" crowd.

Ross - Drudge increased the exposure of the editorial. That's the point this new article was making. Ball's a fairly well-known skeptic, who has gotten "outed" consistently by sources like http://exxonsecrets.org/

Jordan, are you kidding me? 1998 was the warmest year. Since then, we've had the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th warmest years. This is a classic case of cherry picking data to fit whatever your position is. How desperate can one be if their position is that, for example, if last year was the warmest year on record, and this year was the second warmest, this we are experiencing "global cooling." Unbelievablly ludicruous.

But if you want an explanation for this disparity, it's actually quite easy. We had a gigantic El Nino in 1998, which added a "spike" in global temperatures as El Ninos often do. Since then, we've had gigantic La Ninas (1999), weak El Ninos and neutral conditions. And guess what? The global temperatures are still anomalously high, albeit slightly lower than the year with the huge El Nino.

The Earth is a highly non-linear system. A linear increase in CO2 does not mean there will be a linear increase in temperature; however, the data are clear in showing a trend towards an unprecedented rate of warmth right now.

Rich, Jordan, etc -- please find me some evidence that shows that our rate of warming during the past 30 years ISN'T un precedented. The fact of the matter is that our historical record, including observed records, tree rings, ice cores, etc, shows that the rate of warming we've experienced over the last 30 years has never happened on this scale.

Skeptics,

You are right on. According to the GW science, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have increased in the past 150 years from 270 ppm to 380 ppm, approximately 35 percent.

A 35 percent increase of CO2, yet the earths average temperatures has only increased by .4 degree. Is this apocolyptic? How much of this .4 degree increase is directly attributed to mankind and CO2? What about other factors such as cyclical variations or solar energy? Has it never been warm before? Basically, how much is nature responsible for? We don't know. Therefore, the study continues.

Those in the cult make it seem that mankind is solely to blame and that we are all doomed, unless we act now. I just don't get it? I feel that they are intentionally scared into believing the worst to help push the agenda. Their hearts may be in the right place, but jumping to conclusions based on inconclusive science is not smart.

It is all over now...the lawyers think that GW is "third grade" science.

We are all in DEEP trouble now...

KEYSTONE - Summit Daily
Global warming is the hottest story of our time, and it will get even bigger as the full implications of melting ice caps and rising sea levels percolate through the media pipeline and into general public awareness, a panel of journalists said last weekend during the American Bar Association's environmental law conference.

The discussion was focused on how the media has covered the story and whether or not public perception of global warming has changed in recent months and years. Among the questions the panelists tried to answer is why it has taken so long for the story to reach critical mass.

Most of the panelists credited Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," with helping to generate attention. The Democratic takeover in Congress has also advanced public debate, the panelists said. And even though the basic global warming science heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is "third-grade" stuff, according the Wall Street Journal's John Fialka, the issues have been clouded by a massive, industry funded propaganda and disinformation campaign aimed at creating uncertainty.

Don't ya love it!!!

Dave

mark,

if i read your rebuttal correctly, you are convinced that oceanic currents and temperatures play an important role in earth's atmospheric temperatures...congratulations, you are beginning to understand the complexity of the environment we live in...now look to solar output over that hot period you described and you will see a direct correlation...there are many more variables as well, like the earths orbit and wobble to name a few if you want to understand historical glacial advances and retreats...hopefully, you may begin to realize that in order to explain disparities in the scientific record that co2 causes temperature rises, you will discover that manmade co2 is a miniscule, if any, contributor to global temperature fluctuations because co2 makes up less than .ooo4 of all the molecules in the air that hold heat...have a nice day and welcome to the skeptic side...

Speaking for myself solely, I have no evidence to show that the rate of current warming is commonplace. But, that would be because I know that there is no method by which to tell this. More over, your assertions cannot be proven either, so there. This could have happened in the past but we don't know because, scientifically, the AGW proponents are comparing temp. data sets that are composed of apples and rutabagas. Humans did not, nor cared, about global average temps until the last thirty years or so, therefore, not a whole lot of effort was put into accurate studies outside of the relatively small areas in which we live. Consequently, we have only small pockets of data that are greatly altered by the microclimates that we induce by our normal living.

Example, for those of you who like watching present weather as the sign of impending AGW, tell me this, how many verifiable recorded waterspouts were there in the Atlantic last year? Were there more than the year before? Do you think that a bunch happened and were just not seen? Probably. What about rainfall in the Ocean? More or less? Is the Ocean undergoing drought conditions? Bet you never thought about that. I hope it isn't, think of all of the poor fish.

Mark: You are so confused you actually made my point. You apparently have trouble with logic. It should have been clear to you that I was castigating you for picking a short time period and drawing conclusions from it. I illustrated it by doing the same thing in the opposite direction. I was being facetious. I mistakenly assumed you would get it.

Let me be specific. You cannot draw any conclusions about climate based on 10, 20 or 30 years. The global cooling crowd in the 70's can attest to this. The doom and gloomers warning us that 2006 was going to be a bad year for hurricanes now know how silly such predictions are. We know from proxy records that warmer periods than we are now experiencing have occurred in the past. By making a statement that we are now in the warmest period on record is absolutely meaningless because the record of direct temperature measurements is such a short period of time.

So what if we are warming. Is that necessarily bad . Maybe it is good. If you can tell me what the optimum global temperature should be then maybe I could decide whether I should be worried or be doing all I can to make the planet warmer.

I agree with you that a linear increase in CO2 does not not cause a linear increase in temperature. It causes no increase. It is the other way round. The temperature increase causes an increase in CO2. At least that is what the ice core samples show. It is a head scratcher to be sure.

BY the way, I love it when you discuss El Ninos and El Ninas. They sure do wreak havoc with the models' predictions. Just screws them up no end. All that CO2 cannot overcome those natural affects on climate. Keep ypour chin up. It is bound to warm up some time. Even a blind hog can find an acorn sometimes.

George Bush claimed we needed to further study this problem back in 2000. Guess what? Even he agrees with the consensus.

REPLY: Really Mark??....And who, may I ask, did you vote for in 2000???.....I wonder!

Mark,

You: A linear increase in CO2 does not mean there will be a linear increase in temperature;

Reply: I know it takes time to reach 35 percent, over 150 years, cause and effect, but come on! If CO2 is trapping heat, an increase in this gas by 35 percent over 150 years has only increased temperature by .4 degree. How much of this .4 degree is directly attributed to mankind. What about cyclical changes, solar energy, nature? Can't this effect temerature as well? I have yet to receive an answer on this. Why not? One must deduct that the earth could easily survive another 100 years of mankind with little climate change. New technology will be replacing old technology in 100 years anyway. Chill out.

REPLY: Really Mark??....And who, may I ask, did you vote for in 2000???.....I wonder!

Oh, this must be one of those "non-political" comments that Laura said she wanted.

BrooklineTom - you should see the things I don't publish.