I think the reason you get so much anger is because one can slowly see rights and freedoms slowly being taken away, due to a flimsy theory at best, and the dent in our freedoms have just started.

The common person feels it all the time. Government hen pecking them to death and this GW scam is just another step to big government, nanny state. So until they come for my outdoor wood boiler , I will be stuffing it full of perfectly good lumber, so I do not have to buy foreign oil. They way I see, I am doing a much better job at weening ourself off of foreign oil than the average Prius buyer.

Even though I have been editing out some of this content, I have probably let a little too much slide through. For the foreseeable future expect I will have to be a little more stringent on the rules.

I'd like to repeat my request for a publicly-visible "yellow card" tag, applied by Brett, to replace edited material whenever he finds it needed. Those who know soccer know exactly what I mean. I'd like to further suggest that anyone who gets yellow-tagged more frequently than, say, two tags in two days gets some sort of reasonable several-day "penalty timeout".

The advantage of such an approach is that it gives all of us a much better idea of how Brett calls the game -- and therefore makes it easier for all of us to know how to stay within his limits.

Hopefully people will respect this, as this is the only forum which allows open discussion.

In contrast, the realclimate editors control the discussion through manipulative omission, editing, ridicule and censorship. We are fortunate to have one forum where all sides can speak openly.

I was kind of wondering if those issues were going to be addressed. Unfortunatly, the people reading your column seem to feel very strongly about this subject, which is good for a few reasons. 1. It's showing people are thinking for themselves instead of being "brainwashed" by false infromation (media in general). 2. It shows people are now paying attention to this topic, it shows the publicity is making an impact throughout the region, and I believe is a step forward toward solving the problem. Believers or non-believers, people just staying up to date on the subject is moving in a positive direction.
At the same time, personal attacks doesn't make it any easier for anyone and doesn't prove a thing. Public forums are very susceptible to these attacks, unfortunatly, and often ruins an otherwise good thing for others, as well as yourself. I hope you are able to continue this forum in a classy manner so I can continue studying this topic.

Global Warming from Greenhouse Gases is not a scam.

While I can sympathies with people who fear that their right and freedoms MAY be taken away, it is when the truth is attacked that we as a society start to take a step in the wrong direction.

The simple facts are that Global Warming is here to stay. It has been happening for a while and will continue for the foreseeable future. In fact, it will probably get much worse.

Sadly, Roger Pielke is retiring his blog.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/25/climate-science-is-retiring-thank-you-to-everyone-for-your-participation/

Interesting post today though about dust and glacial melt.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/27/new-paper-on-the-role-of-landscape-degradation-and-resultant-dust-on-the-climate-system/

BT - I have been playing and coaching soccer (football) for nearly 40 years. At a coaching organizational meeting last week they remarked that 90% of referees quit. Those "cards" take their toll and no one gets broken ankles around here.

If your goal is just to censor other points of view, then I will suggest that is not a worthy objective.

I'd much prefer that you let people say whatever they want to say as long as it is not profane. Many public figures deserve the slings and arrows aimed at them, and while normal discourse on these subjects can get unruly that's just the way it is. My concern is that you wil begin to censor what people write just because you consider it offensive. That will put an end to any open and honest discussion.

Besides, people can always choose to ignore any poster they want. Just because someone writes something does not mean you have to respond.

And if you are going to edit, then I like Brookline Tom's idea of the yellow card. And I'm sure he will be surprised that we agree on anything.

"I think the reason you get so much anger is because one can slowly see rights and freedoms slowly being taken away, due to a flimsy theory at best, and the dent in our freedoms have just started."

The dent in our freedoms.....LOL. You guys are just hilarious.

I don't think we should put Brett on the spot as he has been carefully neutral throughout.

As usual, people line up in predictable ways. Statements like "flimsy theory", "GW scam", what the "common person" feels are as biased as the assumption that all contrarians drive hummers and aren't interested in conservation. My "rights and freedoms" include survival, so I'd like to see more openness to science and its predictions (which are being confirmed by events on the ground).

Despite contrarians' claims, most highly qualified scientists with experience in objectively analyzing data agree that there is a problem and that we must try to do something about it. Weather trends are different from individual weather events, and have clear implications. Catastrophe is not new; what is new is the increasing scale and frequency in recent history of worldwide weather-related catastrophic events in the time that matters to us, our lives and those of our families. Indicators like the melting of the ice caps are outstripping worst-case scenarios.

Contrarians have kidnapped terms such as "junk science", "sound science", and "peer review", turning them on their heads so that the American public doesn't know what's fact and what is opinion/politics/religion, as well as material directly or indirectly funded by interested parties. Most of us don't have the time or the expertise to track down sources and discover that multiple references lead back to minority views and specialist denial expertise. The media give equal time to points of view which may not have equal weight to be "fair and balanced", thus fueling doubt and controversy.

PH
The posse in this forum have discouraged "open discussion" and I'm grateful to Brett for establishing a few ground rules.

With regard to Realclimate, I gave it a visit recently and found that contrarians were given a pretty good hearing; what was different there was that scientific arguments were pursued at length to identify fallacies and blind negativity was not allowed to prevail.

I like the yellow tag idea, but think Brett's position is difficult so it should be his decision if it puts him too much on the spot.

Mark,

I'm curious how Al Gore plans to mandate an 80% reduction in CO2 without making massive dents in our freedom. Please explain.

Also, I see regular comments from third world leaders blaming the US for every dry, wet, hot or cold day in their country. This perception is almost undoubtedly going to become the basis for legal action and/or violence against American citizens - sooner rather than later.

I agree with Brett. “Why can't we just all get along?”
So instead of personally attacking people how about we stick to actual intellectual discussion?
The AGW have made claims.
The deniers have asked that the claims be reviewed and be open to a rational scientific debate.
The AGW as far as I can read actually refuse to comply with this request.
If the deniers question the math and find errors the AGW folks do not reply with science or math but with accusation of being shills for "Big Oil!" Of course that is nonsense...a "Red Herring", designed to obfuscate the issue.
It really doesn't matter who finds the error(s)…….The real question the math or science wrong? Don’t kill the messenger! Check your work before doom and gloom is espoused with such vehemence against doubters.
I would suspect as long as the AGW hide their claims behind dark curtains, there will always be people who ask for proof. Why doesn't the AGW sid Answer these nagging questions with openness and hard reproducible proof? Instead I see Bad math and attacks against the very person(S) you should be thanking. In my science field that behavior is usually proof of a bad theorem.
If you want to stop deniers prove them wrong with evidence.
So far proof on the AGW side is as elusive as their math skills. Note: Make sure it works and have references before you print it. Answer the skeptics questions point by point. If errors are found say thanks and go back and try again
As long as people defend ideas that cannot be held up to scrutiny, there will be people telling you are wrong…..and you know what? You probably are. I fear AGW is one of those ideas.

I wholehartedly agree Brett. If I have crossed the line, I certainly apologize. We can all make good and valid points without lowering ourselves to rudeness. It would be a real loss if we could express our opinions and questions here because it got out of hand.
All we would have left is one sided blogs like realclimate.
I for one will try to state my comments as fact if and only if I can prove them and as opinion otherwise.
It is my opinion that AGW is a socialist scam, I can not at this time prove it any more than the IPCC can it is real.

Global Warming from Greenhouse Gases is not a scam.

Oh boy... YES IT IS!

Carbon Dioxide is A SYMPTOM of THE SUN warming this ball of dirt, NOT THE CAUSE!

P.S. "The facts" in the 70's, according to this same crowd, said that global cooling and a future Ice Age were also inevitable.

Brett,

What is the mission of this blog? Is it to give opinions on articles or is it an attempt to figure out not only what is happening but why it is happening? Perhaps something else?

Have you ever had someone from another religion come to your door trying to convert you? Have you ever had an entire Church attempt to make you tithe their religion without your consent?

There are a few of us, some more than others, that have engaged in "mean spiritedness" for sure, I am certainly guilty of it myself. Perhaps my skin is thicker than others as it does not bother me to have someone make rude comments about me or my beliefs. It is actually humorous on occasion :)

No more personal attacks, got it :)

Andrew,

Global Warming from CO2 and CH4 is a scam.

The simple fact is that GW is on it's way out. GW has been happening since the end of the last Ice Age with some periods of Global Cooling and will continue until the trend is GC with some periods of GW. In fact, it will most likely get much better in the next several years.

Regards,

Steve

Well considering the tone of some of the above comments that are let thru, we should all be aware that

THE SKEPTIC AND DENIAL MOVEMENT IS A SCAM.

Please observe that it run by a bunch of people with no hope of ever getting any of their work into respected PEER reviewed science jornals and others with even lower credentials.

RealClimate.org is about the only place where an intelligent discussion can be aired.

Carbon Dioxide is A SYMPTOM of THE SUN warming this ball of dirt, NOT THE CAUSE!

Im not doubting this as symptom, attribute or leading cause og GW. But, can someone with this argument completely ignore the fact of all the CO2 we put in the atmosphere? I dont see how this can be discredited. Maybe the sun is the main driving force behind GW, but I think you can admit that we certainly aren't helping the cause with our emissions. Personaly, I think our emissions is the main driving force, but I certainly can not discredit the sun. After all, the sun is the energy source of our solar system and by far has the most impact on our planet.

Bob,

I see at the bottom of your post your statements about the global cooling scare ofthe 1970's. I'd like to engage in a little bit of a discussion about that with you.

I don't think that it is completely fair to blame people in the 70's for the their alarmism . Remember, that climatology was less developed then, and interdecadal variability was not well-known. The weather data that was collected was sparser and lower in quality. Tools of data analysis (i.e. powerful computers) were only a shadow of what we have today. It did seem that the worlds was getting cooler.

However, today, we have more data, better data, and more powerful computers, and an overall better understanding of weather and climate. I just do not think that it is reasonable to ignore claims of global warmign made today because of bad predictions made in the past. If you think that AGW is not a problem, then think so because you believe that either the earth is not warming at a dangerous rate, or that the warming is not caused by human action, or both.

No one was trying to "fool" you back then. (At least among serious scientists, of course there wasa healthy dose of sensationalism) It was just ignorance. We are much less ignorant today.

-Brandon

first off- i takes alot of guts for the people who where mean to appologize-and i wanted to applaud you for appolozing- while i am skeptic of global warming- that there could be so many things that we as a society can do to make the enviorment cleaner-everytime i go fishing- i fish a texas-rigged lizard or worm-or what not- i almost always drag a big old plastic bag back to the shoreline and toss it- but throwing bags and other crap like that is unexceptable.

I question all the versions of the following (unedited) statements, which I believe are false.

"The simple fact is that GW is on it's way out"
-With regard to my "rights and freedoms", I find this statement scary: a recent surge of denial appears to me to be part of the "kill the messenger" (phrase typically borrowed and switched by contrarians) strategy provoked by recent growth in knowledge and evidence that GW is increasing.

"AGW hide their claims behind dark curtains, there will always be people who ask for proof. Why doesn't the AGW sid Answer these nagging questions with openness and hard reproducible proof?".
-Scientists and others have repeatedly and continuously responded with "openness and hard reproducible proof". An ordinary perusal of topflight scientific literature will reveal that deniers are in the minority. Even easier, check this blog. Here's one:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
The assertion that the whistleblower and recently ungagged Dr. Hansen is discredited reflects more on those who make it than on him; graphs are straightforward and available elsewhere.

Amongst many news items about arctic melting with graphic comparisons, here's one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm
with recent observational confirmation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6944401.stm

Lately evidence has been presented on centrist organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, Newsweek, Time, and lately Fox News. The most easily accessible source (not hidden) is "An Inconvenient Truth" and Oprah is also not hidden. Despite Al Gore contributing his profits to research/solutions and using carbon offsets, contrarians portray him as getting wealthy off all this and not practicing what he preaches in order to discredit his information. My guess is it's because his presentation is so complete, effective, and powerful.

Contrarians love to work "global cooling". Evidence/press for it were not comparable; it was a theory and it has been discredited, which should be the end of the story. The solar source stuff has been investigated and proven wrong.

A literature search in the late 90s revealed over 900 articles pro-AGW and none con; recently a few expert contrarians have emerged. Among these I kind of like Dr. Singer, since as a holocaust survivor he stands up for the underdog, but that doesn't make his science dominate.
http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2007/04/dr-singer-meet-mr-michaels.asp

Contrarians have also found ways to cast doubt and confusion on existing science and scientific methods. It is easier to destroy than to build.

Today, we have more data, better data, and more powerful computers, and an overall better understanding of weather and climate.

cmbclean,

Every generation believes they are smarter than the previous generation, and have achieved some pinnacle of science.

Thirty years from now, scientists will say exactly the same thing about the current global warming scare, and those in charge of the propaganda will try to rewrite AGW as a minor aberration of a couple of misinformed Newsweek writers.

They will also think our computers were a joke.....

Scott,

I believe that man is responsible for less that 1% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am sure Mark and Andrew will do so with pleasure.

There is a reason that AGW is labeled a scam by many. Here is a small sample of things that make me suspicious aside from the obvious lack of proof and questionable evidence.
There is a long history of attempts to use this GHG theory to shame societies into accepting socialist reforms. The first attempts in the late 1800s and 1930s failed partly because of slow communications. The attempt in the late fifties was an non-starter and we all know how well the 70s attempt worked. So this latest attempt, while much better organized is really nothing new.
Early on Margaret Thatcher; faced with coal miners on strike, identified a burning need for a reason to move from coal to nuclear power. It was her government that provide the initial funding to research the affects of CO2 on global temperatures. Many from those early teams eventually ended up on the IPCC.
Then there is the famous quote from Maurice Strong, one of the principal instigators of the early 90s conferences that led to Kyoto. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Then we got the Kyoto Protocol.
Later there was the German minister of the environment that stated the Kyoto protocol was meant to hobble the economy of the US to allow socialist Europe to compete. Interesting observation.
It always seemed a large stretch to blame such a minor atmospheric component such as CO2 for the whole problem. That is until it is pointed out that it is the only possible component that can be blamed on man. No other item can be used to shame mankind into repentance.
All other causes can only be deemed natural and thus useless as a socialist revolution tool.
Even now we are beginning to see third world countries begin the inevitable demands for money to be stripped from rich polluting nations and given to them.
Indeed the shifting of the cause from a scientific one to a �moral issue� Al Gore) is intended specifically to prepare us for the huge wealth redistribution to come. (from out pockets)
And since many are beginning to see through the plan, the supporters and getting more and more frantic to make the social shift before the scam is revealed.
Thus it is critical that we do all we can to ensure the AGW promoters are held to a high standard of accountability. To do less would be reckless and immoral.
There is way too much at stake to accept anyt