Oh my. OH MY.

There you go, showing your liberal democrat socialist marxist communist atheist anti-american bias again. How dare you think that "New Scientist" is a viable source -- why, it's just another of tool of the liberal AGW conspiracy, don't you know.

This should be a fun thread. All those talking-points, finally debunked in one place. What a fabulous find.

I strongly encourage you to find a place for it on the "Interesting Links" panel at the right. It will make it so much more convenient when these myths come up here -- as they frequently do.

Yes, I've come across this site too. Very informative. I wonder if deniers will actually read each of those articles and try to educate themselves? It would at least put a halt to such garbage claims that "volcanos produce more CO2 than humans" and other assorted nonsense.

I found this particular article interesting:

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing."

BT and Mark,

A bit smug, aren't we? Let's start with Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, shall we?

From the article, "Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can and has been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century."

I see we are dredging up "consensus" science as proof that the Hockey Stick is correct. There are "thousands" of pages of "well-documented" work done by scientists that continue to debunk the Hockey Stick. Here is one of many:

Newton, A., R. Thunell, and L. Stott (2006), Climate and hydrographic variability in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool during the last millennium, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L19710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027234.

This paper documents a much warmer than present climate in the Indo-Pacific warm pool during the Medieval Warm Period. It also documents the presence of the Little Ice Age. All this in spite of Mann's claim that these two periods were localized to Northern Europe.

I tend to believe peer-reviewed research more than "consensus" science. How about you? BT? Mark?

(Oh, if one research paper is not enough, let me know and I'll post those "thousands" of pages.)

Thank you.

Yes, interesting.. close but no cigar. Some of the info explaining the so-called "myths" were a little strained to say the least and still left doors open for discussion. I have read recently in other scientific journals, i.e., Science, articles that have contrary hypotheses regarding some of these "myths". The global warming discussion is still open. I do agree there is global warming, I just think the solutions proposed by global warming alarmists would be worse than global warming. And quite frankly, the worse case scenarios of global warming are not that bad. You can always build new buildings (we could have a second chance to build cities right this time), move to another location, and if you are concerned about poor people, we rich people can go pick them up in planes and move them to higher ground. Plus in a 100 years, we will have technology we can't even comprehend now. Think back 100 years ago, 1907, when it was predicted because of more people in big cities that horse manure would cover the world if we didn't do something about it. I know we only have 8 years left (Gore said we only had 10 years about 2 years ago) before it is too late, but do we really think we can get enough people, governments, countries, on board soon enough? There are so many people and countries that just aren't buying into global warming. Look at this discussion group. China has said "forget it about it". They have now passed the U.S. in emissions. Plus I would like to see some figures put out detailing out the exact count of countries and the exact number of that countries' population (how many people) and just exactly what would they have to do, a specific number of tasks and the specific detailed task and when that task has to be done, basically we need a specific timeline, a CPM(critical path) chart, so everyone knows what they specifically have to do in order to halt global warming? All I see in the media is just about generalities. For example, would we all be required to junk our cars and buy new hybrids? And exactly how soon will we have to do this? My gas guzzler will probably last another 10 years. What would we do with all the old cars? How would we be able to build an infrastucture fast enough to plant all the corn, grass, etc. for ethanol and then deliver it (via trains?, trucks?)to the proper processing area? Should we just tax the oil companies out of existence? How fast can we create alternative fuel? Should we make people move out of their big houses and move into cities? What if we can't do all this in 8 years? Will we give up or will we keep trying?

I've decided that I'm going to post a reference list of peer-reviewed papers that debunk Mann's Hockey Stick. Let's list them by region.

Antarctica:

Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.

Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.

Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003. Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Holocene 13: 251-263.

Castellano, E., Becagli, S., Hansson, M., Hutterli, M., Petit, J.R., Rampino, M.R., Severi, M., Steffensen, J.P., Traversi, R. and Udisti, R. 2005. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96) ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: Do6114, doi:10.1029/2004JD005259.

Africa

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.

Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60

Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292.

Asia

Liu, Z., Henderson, A.C.G. and Huang, Y. 2006. Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL026151.

Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.

Thompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E., Lin, P.-N., Henderson, K. and Mashiotta, T.A. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales. Climatic Change 59: 137-155.

Adhikari, D.P. and Kumon, F. 2001. Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan. Limnology 2: 157-168.

Li, Z., Saito, Y., Matsumoto, E., Wang, Y., Tanabe, S. and Vu, Q.L. 2006. Climate change and human impact on the Song Hong (Red River) Delta, Vietnam, during the Holocene. Quaternary International 144: 4-28.

That's a start in places well removed from Northern Europe. All of these references document a Medieval Warm Period that is warmer or as warm as the Current Warm Period.

Rats!!

For some reason, the link in my post above did not work. Here's the link.

Ah! Found the problem. Fixed it. It works now.

yep,

bet the pontificators of iminent doom frequent this article...from same paper selling website..."the sun bombards the earth with as much energy in one minute than we use in a year...lets see now, thats 500,000 times more energy effecting the temperature on earth than we lowlife fossil burning humans generate...kinda puts into perspective what the sun is doing everyday to heat the globe doesnt it?... now lets see, what should we believe?...never right weatherman can predict the future weather 100 years from now based on faulty inputted computer programs and circumstantial guesses that state a few hundred parts in a million of a life sustaining cyclic and fluctuating gas is going to destroy the world or is it more likely, fluctuations in the sun's output and its interactions with water vapor that is 900000 parts in a million vs 300 of co2, is the cause of global climatic temperature variance...maybe, just maybe, we should be more vigilant about discounting these chicken littles who bombard us with article after article of what if, could be, might happen for what they really are... Hot air'd enthusiasists spewing their unequal share of HOT AIR in a get rich quick plan that is latest twist of the old ponzio schemes, scam artists, carpet baggers, amway knockoffs and shyster ploys (common everyday words of the English language in which the definition can be found in that ole trusty wikipedia i know some will appreciate...lol) who by the way care little about the discomfort they cause to the innocent victims of their financial ruse...

It will take time for me to digest this, but I have 2 thoughts.

Let it first be said that disproving the arguments against a hypothesis is an extremely useful exercise. I'm glad somebody pulled this together if it gets us closer to truth and consensus (no doubt there will be a "myths about myths about climate change" rebuttal). However, that in itself doesn't prove a hypothesis.

The last thought is about something I know nothing about, the models. Note the plural. It is not as compelling to a laymen like me when the models predict such a wide range of results in the future. Better if everyone came out with approximately the same answer, even if they attached a large margin of uncertainty to the answer.

The referenced articles are anything but a level headed assessment of the �CO2 scare.� They are just weak rebuttals of a few points made by scientists who have not signed onto the scare.

The $50 billion spent so far to prove that man is catastrophically altering the earth�s climate has produced a wealth of similar anecdotes from advocates but no proof that can stand up to any scrutiny.

Even the political IPCC concedes that the global climate has not warmed since 1998 despite a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.

Without measurable global warming, the �CO2 scare� proponents have no case at all. Even if such warming had been observed, there is still the large question of whether man had any part in the warming. Climates have always changed.

If it is all down to the basic physics of CO2, then why do so many of us with academic backgrounds far more than sufficient to assess the quality of the science say that the scare is rubbish? Any first year graduate student in physics can see the fallacy in using computer codes that utilize a vast number of arbitrary parameters to predict future climates. Such codes give the appearance of scientific rigor where there is none. You can get any outcome you want by altering the inputs or the algorithms.

If we want to talk the generalities of climate we would first have to discuss the sun as the (variable) energy source, atmospheric water vapor as the primary regulator of the sun�s energy reaching the earth, the oceans as the primary reservoir of mobile heat on the planet, orbital variations changing the solar energy reaching the earth, galactic cosmic rays modulated by the supersonic solar wind playing a role in cloud formation, and last (and certainly least) carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas AND as the basic material for photosynthesis. To put only the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide first, then admit that its greenhouse effect is minor, and then invoke a huge amplification from atmospheric water vapor is ludicrous. It shows the extent to which the CO2 folks go to hold on to a theory.

More than 17,000 American scientists signed a petition in 1998 backing a peer-reviewed, level- headed scientific paper on the environmental effects of CO2 available at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm. More than two thirds had advanced degrees, and thousands were Ph.D. physicists (or related) like me who receive no money to promote the theory.

Of course, science is never settled by �paid experts,� �independent experts,� or a majority vote of all experts. It is settled by real evidence that can stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists. It is not a debating game played out in the media with one deception after another.

Global Warming is such a great topic.

I'm serious; there probably hasn't been a similar issue since Christopher Columbus and the old flat vs round earth debate.

There were all types of myths associated with the round earth "theory" and I'm sure that there were plenty of people that were never convinced it was true. People had their reasons and their "experts" and essentially chose what they wanted to believe.

However, the true scientist of the day knew the earth was round just as they now know that global warming is due to human activity (carbon dioxide emissions and land use).

I really get a kick out of reading some of the critics comments. They are really hilarious and have become so predictable that it's no surprise they are starting to become cataloged as in the Climate Myths link.

Interesting and a good read. What bugs me about it is that after starting every article saying how they are debunking something, they end with leaving wiggle room in case they are wrong because the mechanisms are not understood.

Other "Myths" I would've liked to see addressed:
1. Cores show a dependence on the solar activity (as was recently published); cores DO explain the current rise as well as past rises without recourse to CO2. How does this jive with AGW?
2. Why is is that CO2 lagging is acceptable even though we are not totally confident in the mechansim but when it was thought there was no lag, it was acceptable as well?
3. We don't know the true impact of aerosols and clouds so we ASSUME they are negligible.

Brett,

Isn't it amazing how none of the climate "myths" supportive of AGW are addressed? What a balanced piece this is!! By now, I am used to the sanctimony of BT, SB, and Mark and their dismissal of any arguments contrary to the new AGW religion. However, I did expect more balance from you. Do you believe that there are no merits to any of the discussion points countering AGW?

Buzz,
The goal of the blog is to highlight a wide variety of information related to global warming, including information from skeptics, those who believe in AGW, and those in between. The links that I choose to highlight do not necessarily represent my views but are links that I think might be interesting.
Brett

Mark

"many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change"

How odd that people who don't believe in AGW are not making careers out of studying something they don't believe is a problem.

Also odd that people feeding their families by studying AGW tend to believe that it is real.

BTW - anyone who doesn't believe that the press is generally biased towards the left should read this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

Seems to me,IF CO2 is the problem. And If the sun reaching ever increasing areas of blacktop are the culprits of global warming.
Then maybe answer is quite simple.

Use solar power and windmills to operate equipment to freeze CO2 and ship to Greenland to keep the glaciers frozen.

Not enough you say?

Well then, paint all blacktop white so suns rays are reflected back into outer space where they belong.

What the heck, plant some trees for Petes' sake. They ABSORB CO2 don't they? At least they did the last time I studied trees. That's NOT a new idea and it is proven to work.

Still not enough? Blow up some volcanoes. The dust cloud from Mount ST Helens explosion cooled the weather for about two years IF I (a rank amateur) remember correctly.

There you have it. No theories, no biased opinion, just ideas that have some practical application in the real world of science.

You know, I miss the "Old Scientist", the one for whom science really mattered.

We, as humans, tend to think of ourselves as a separate entity from the natural state of the planet. Humans, and everything that humans do, whether right or wrong, is as natural an occurance on the planet as any other force of nature. Our evolution is merely a short cycle in the planets existance.

To believe we can fix everything that we "think" is wrong, to try and maintain the present environment is ludicrous. We always blame ourselves for it's state, as though we created the planet. There are "naturally occurring", gargantuan internal and external forces acting on this planet that makes man's total impact extremely trivial.

We are going through a "natural" progression of evolution, from knuckle dragging, to the use of fire, to building cities, to space travel. Our existance, which has always been held together by a thread, will eventually be determined by these huge forces of nature, of which we are a "natural" part and have no real control over.

Perhaps evolution will see us knuckle dragging again. How quickly we have forgotten that the planet created us and not visa versa.

I read the article with interest but failed to find any conclusive de-bunking, as there are lots of counter arguments already flying around, if anything the evidence presented suggested alternate explanations to AGW as more and more variables are discovered and refined.
What was relevant though was the recognition that it, Climate Change has become primarily a political issue so you all might enjoy this link from a highly respectable source the Financial Times from the "Old Country"(that's the UK)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e9df7200-19c7-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

Here is a more readable version of what I submitted earlier.

The �New Scientist� articles are anything but level headed assessments of the �CO2 scare.� They are just weak rebuttals of the excellent documentary, �The Great Global Warming Swindle.�

The $50 billion spent so far to prove that man is catastrophically altering the earth�s climate has produced a wealth of anecdotes from advocates but no proof that can stand up to any scrutiny.

Even the political IPCC concedes that the global climate has not warmed since 1998 despite a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.

Without measurable global warming, the �CO2 scare� proponents have no case at all. Even if such warming had been observed, there is still the large question of whether man had any part in the warming. Climates have always changed.

If it is all down to the basic physics of CO2, then why do so many of us with academic backgrounds far more than sufficient to assess the quality of the science say that the scare is rubbish? Any first year graduate student in physics can see the fallacy in using computer codes that utilize a vast number of arbitrary parameters to predict future climates. Such codes give the appearance of scientific rigor where there is none. You can get any outcome you want by altering the inputs or the algorithms.

If we want to talk the generalities of climate we would first have to discuss the sun as the (variable) energy source, atmospheric water vapor as the primary regulator of the sun�s energy reaching the earth, the oceans as the primary reservoir of mobile heat on the planet, orbital variations changing the solar energy reaching the earth, galactic cosmic rays modulated by the supersonic solar wind playing a role in cloud formation, and last (and certainly least) carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas AND as the basic material for photosynthesis. To put the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide first, then admit that its greenhouse effect is minor, and then invoke a huge amplification from atmospheric water vapor is ludicrous. It shows the extent to which the CO2 folks go to hold on to a theory.

More than 17,000 American scientists signed a petition in 1998 backing a peer-reviewed, level- headed scientific paper on the environmental effects of CO2 available at http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm More than two thirds had advanced degrees, and thousands were Ph.D. physicists (or related) like me who receive no money to promote the theory.

Of course, science is never settled by paid experts, independent experts, or a majority vote of all experts. It is settled by real evidence that can stand up to the scrutiny of other scientists. It is not a debating game played out in the media with one deception after another.

It also includes my personal favorite, it's too cold where I live--a little warming will be great, since that one allows for the possibility of a personal belief in global warming and its potential disasters, but as long as I'm more comfortable, it's fine with me.

REPLY: Brett, I am under the impression that you being from the great white north, are no fan of warmth of any kind. Being the complete antithesis of this, I feel I must comment that you assume too much with this comment. In case you hadn't noticed, yours truly has no personal belief in Global Warming other that the fact that it's a farce brought on for political purposes and goverment control. I would also be very intereseted to know what New Scientist magazine's "affiliations" are (as if I didn't know). We wouldn't want to think that our "friends" at New Scientist Magazine are one sided in their reasearch now, would we? But then again, we have a concensus. Oh, I forgot, that's right everyone agrees!

Forever the DENIER!