STOP! HOLD THE PRESSES!

It's absolutely astonishing, the Hudson Institute has published evidence "refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares."

The right-wing Hudson Institute. The Hudson Institute that receives funding from extremists such as Richard-Mellon Scaife.

The authors of the "paper" are Dennis Avery and Fred Singer. Again, what a surprise. The Dennis Avery that claims that "organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides". The Fred Singer we're already all too familiar with.

Another right-wing group self-publishes another red herring, and anybody treats this as "news"?

You're digging deep again, Brett. This is rubbish.

Reply: BT, I had a feeling you would be one of the first to comment on this, especially when one of your "favorites" Fred Singer was mentioned. I did not initially know anything about the Hudson Institute, so I checked out their website and the "about us" section which states that they are a non-partisan group, but you see that with a lot of "institutes", even though they may have a certain hidden agenda (left or right). I also looked at the list of names associated with the group, and the only one that I recognized was Robert Bork, but that was just one name, and I do not know how much he is involved. I did not check out the funding initially due to time constraints, but after looking, I can confirm the Scaife funding.

"I" am not the one saying this is evidence (Singer and Avery are stating that), nor am I discounting it, since there is a lot I do not know about their study, but I did have some questions about their method, which I included in the initial post. Brett.

Hmmmm these 500 show the facts from climates past. They make no value judgment about AGW and yet they are labeled skeptics! WHY?
So now we see 500 who have published articles explaining other possible causes of a warming planet and yet the AGW could not find the articles when they did a literature search?
Again, the AGW folks prove:
1. They can’t do math all that well,
2. Know how to fudge graphs, and make startling claims with no proof other than their word, ability to use a fudge factor, or belief that goes beyond credible science.
3. Clearly they know how to do a literature search and avoid contrarian articles. (Kudos on that one)

Question: How much proof do you need before you realize AGW has no legs but a big mouth?

Let the games begin.

"Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is
there for all to see."

So, does this mean they have taken statements out of context and or twiested them around?

Also, a link or 2 to some of the better papers would be nice. So far, I have never seen a peer reviewed paper that actually disputes CO2 and CH4s contribution to global warming.

Wow, 500 scientists! Out of the millions of scientists who agree that a significant portion of our warming is anthropogenic, we have 500 who don't. A newsflash to that small minority: They're wrong.

Of course, anyone that believes second-hand smoking isn't bad for you, or UV radiation doesn't cause skin cancer -- as Fred Singer does -- deserves to be ridiculed.

Glad to see he's peddling a book, though. I'm sure there's no motive involved to make a quick buck.

The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank. Robert Bork contributes there.

http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=BorkRob

Mark,

I bet that a good number of scientists go along with AGW because they are afraid of being labeled a "skeptic" "denier". In today's world if you don't believe in AGW you are a "bad person" who doesn't care about the world. That's bull!

Also I bet another large portion support AGW in order to get jobs. If you go to an interview and say "i don't believe in AGW" you better hope your boss believes the same. If not, your not getting the job! Not all jobs in this field are like accuweather where it doesn't matter what your opionon is, and your encouraged not to share it. I want to see a skeptic get a job at NOAA or the weather channel. Wait maybe they do work there and "pretend" as if they believe AGW so they can put food on the table for their family!

Brett, im only in college. You already have gone through job interviews, am I wrong? If I am I would like to know. Darren, its been a long time since I have been in a job interview, 18+ years to be exact. Back then, this subject hardly was discussed, at least from what I remember. Brett

We should expect to hear longwinded moans and creaks as the AGW Titanic sees light for the last time. Although a spectacular Grand Finally is sure to come as "AGW Science" implodes under the pressure of Sound Science.

Like it or not, the AGW ship is sinking. Hansen and Gore are "very highly likely" ;) to go down with the ship, we'll see how many "True Believers" will choose to follow them. Many I suspect will swim back to the HHS "I Hate Bush".

The IPCC will change names and still get funding to provide some other useless activity.

Perhaps a hundred years from now Ripley's "Believe It or Not" will display AGW memorabilia for our grandchildren's amusement.

Like Alchemy before it, AGW will have some lasting positive effects like a better awareness of our environment and new technologies, but a lesson about founding massive projects on conjecture needs to be learned.

I know, I know, the debate is not over. But "The End is Near", and AGW Preachers are likely to get louder and more entertaining. Let's try to enjoy :)

Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow the masses will find other reasons to tax us and ways to waste our money!

Steve

BT,

I agree that following the money is generally the best way to get to the roots of most problems. That is why the $50 billion AGW industry is so suspect. How many scientists, politicians, newspaper reporters, and bureaucrats make their living from AGW these days? Why does every ridiculous idea about the possible effects of global warming make headlines these days?

Your selective concern about people minimally funded from conservative organizations is a bit unbalanced. The vast majority of money in this argument is on the pro-AGW side of the fence.

BT,

Isn't that just what you commented on the other day, shoot the messenger? Why not concentrate on whether the message is true or not?

You seem to think that the pro-AGW wing is entitled to plenty of funding but any denier is supposed to find money falling from the sky.

Naturally, this is perfectly fine with you: "The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer (i.e., Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)."

Brett, Just for balance, could you post an article that confirms AGW?

does anyone else notice the increase in bold print, conspiracy theories and dramatic adjectives used by the AGW scamsters when faced with the reality that many well respected men of science dont believe the computer generated fairytale that the world is boiling over?...real science is proving temperature measurement is suspect because of faulty thermometers and location of these instruments...real science is proving computer generated doomsday prediction is a game of subjective adjustments...my crystal ball prediction for today is the AGW screaming will only get louder, as joe six pack too, begins to laugh at the notion of global meltdown caused by driving his car to the local watering hole...more importantly, when the majority of common sense americans bring to bare their votes, this little AGW thingy will go away...on top of all the cold this winter, cool this summer, and real scientific rebuttal AGW is being exposed for what it really is, a farce invented to make money...have a nice sunny warm day, AGW's winter is fast approaching...

"I" am not the one saying this is evidence (Singer and Avery are stating that), nor am I discounting it, since there is a lot I do not know about their study, but I did have some questions about their method, which I included in the initial post.

I understand that you are only reporting what Avery and Singer allege. I also understand that Accuweather has to pay its bills, controversy builds website traffic, and website traffic means ad revenue.

Nevertheless, what I mean is that when Accuweather publishes rubbish like this (and rubbish is what it is!), it implicitly gives it far more credibility than it otherwise merits.

In addition, you provide yet another bulletin board upon which our contrarians and denialists will attach their relentless stream of distortion, dis-information, half-truths, and canards.

I intend to try very hard to not contribute further to this thread -- it exemplifies the kind of piece that is not worth my time.

Mark, just for my enlightenment: could you please point me to an overview/list of "the millions of scientists who agree that a significant portion of our warming is anthropogenic." Just asking.

I didn't know there were literally "millions" of atmospheric scientists on our cool planet...but I happen to know that 90% out of all the scientists ever active/alive in recorded human history are alive today. Probably good for us.

On the other hand, 90% out of all the species ever active/alive on earth were extinct even before Alfred Albert Gore was diagnosed with AGW.

But maybe you're just implying that Double-A Gore is single-handedly able to make a global list of a couple of thousand atmospheric scientists and their likes look like "millions of scientists." But I know AAG got a D in intro to science (Science 101?) while in college.

By the way and slightly OT, did you know that Gore's been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics? (Over and above his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.)

IPCC 2007 seems to have involved approximately 400 contributors, not all of them experts on atmospheric physics, paleoclimatology, continental drift, and quantum chemistry but many of them selfacclaimed "experts on AGW" even though their real competence would be in demography, sociology, or economics. But I'm not interested in the sociology of GW. I'm just interested in whether it is anthopogenic.

Do you have anything to say on the issue at hand which I take to be AGW/non-AGW?

My mantra: remember the ice cores taken from Dome C, Antarctica.

Why make tree rings, ice core samples, and diatoms choose a political side? It seems the AGW folks are more interested in politics and silencing legitimate questions than science. Come on argue with the papers and the science inside them not the political persuasion of the folks who brought it to your attention. All that does is just weaken the AGW side. One of the first rules in becoming a scientist is to curb your emotions. A lesson still to be learned by many. This should not be about left wing vs. anything, but science vs. nonsense. Read, learn, ask questions, be open to opposing views and think for yourself.
Again the real question is to prove that CO2 is responsible for whatever warming is taking place in the solar system and that humans are responsible. Otherwise this is a natural event and we need to make plans on how to adapt.

Fred Singer really is something else.

He brings portraits of Einstein and Galileo when holding press releases. Then he draws comparisons between his work and theirs to try to prove his points.

Somebody would have to be pretty stupid to fall for such a cheap stunt, but my impression is that it just goes to show what kind of guy Singer is.

That's funny- they review peer-reviewed studies but their study is not peer-reviewed. How convenient.

Simon,

could you post an article that confirms AGW?

Great concept. I'd like to see that too.

Unfortunately in the meantime we will have to debate the evidence.

I understand that the last several cycles of global warming where as a result of Neandertahl Man's, primitive by today's standards and highly combustion inefficient, industrial revolution...prior to that the Dinosaurs where done in by the onslaught of their huge CO2 generating power and a less than normal ratio of plant life combined with their tendency to fart often and with great volume...

Andrew:
Fred Singer really is something else.
He brings portraits of Einstein and Galileo when holding press releases. Then he draws comparisons between his work and theirs to try to prove his points.
Somebody would have to be pretty stupid to fall for such a cheap stunt, but my impression is that it just goes to show what kind of guy Singer is.

Argue the crux of the points Andrew. It makes you look stupid and intellectually impotent when you can't and rely on character assassination. Are you a liberal?

More scary news. Southern Hemisphere sea ice again broke the all time maximum record today. With the cold temps forecast for Antarctica this could go on for another week or so.

Mankind has never, ever, ever seen so much ice in the southern hemisphere (in the massive 30 year long records of polar ice.) Surely this must mean we are headed into another ice age.

BTW - since the good folks of Siberia are making such a mess out of their ice, maybe they should move their polar bears to the Antarctic Peninsula? Lots of tasty penguins down there to feed on.

Let's see Dr. Singer next to pictures of scientists or Mr. Al Gore next to pictures of swimming (not drowning) polar bears.
A cheap trick is a cheap trick. At least Dr. Singer seems to be trying to align himself with science while Mr. Gore is using pure emotion. Which trick is cheaper????
Again why resort to calling opponents names instead of refuting them with science that is reproducible and can be authenticated?
AGW crowds really must be frustrated for any criticism must be met with loud denunciations and personal attacks against those that disagree.
Does everybody on the AGW side subscribe to and has become a devotee of the Dr. Joseph Goebbels view of scientific peer review?
Psst! That only works for a while.

Even more scary news. Northern hemisphere sea ice again broke the all time 30 year record for minimum extent today!!!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Clearly we are tumbling headlong into a period of unbearably hot temperatures, massive hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and rising oceans drowning our cities.

...maybe they should move their polar bears to the Antarctic Peninsula? Lots of tasty penguins down there to feed on.

Patrick, that has to be one of the best ideas I have ever heard. Start moving them today before all the Arctic ice melts.

"I bet that a good number of scientists go along with AGW because they are afraid of being labeled a "skeptic" "denier". In today's world if you don't believe in AGW you are a "bad person" who doesn't care about the world. That's bull!"

I'd be careful of making claims like this without evidence to back it up, Darren.

What makes you think Lindzen, Singer, et all, aren't in it for money and self-promotion? I know this: If those guys agreed with the scientific consensus on AGW, you would have never heard of them. Instead, they've become celebrities amongst corporate apologist crowd, regularly making appearances on newscasts, selling books, giving speeches, and making millions.

If you're going to question the motives of scientists across the world, why don't you question the motives of these select minority of deniers, Darren?

By the way, you do know that Bush's appointed panel to study climate change agreed with the IPCC's conclusions, don't you? If it was all about agreeing with your boss, then why would Bush's own panel agree with the IPCC?

Another thing that you probably don't know, but should. The former chair of the IPCC left in part due to intense lobbying from the Bush administration and the energy industry. They put their support to the man who is now the current chair of the IPCC. He was an oil man, with degrees in industrial engineering and economics, so the belief was that he'd look out for corporate interests. Oops, I guess that ploy didn't work. He agrees with the overwhelming scientific evidence on AGW too.

Have not counted all the names in the reference sections, but there are many more than a 1000 scientist contained in the physical science basis of climate change from the IPCC.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

It has all passed peer review multiple times.

Honestly, believe skeptics have greatly underestimated the ability of humans.

Face it, we rule the planet, including part of the climate.

Weather is another matter.

Patrick:
The amount of antartic sea ice doesn't mean we are headed for another ice age. what matters is the grand scheme of everything. the global average temperature. which is been way above average. its not the