Brett: Thanks for posting this thread!

It will be interesting to see the reactions of all in this forum. I'm especially interested to see the serious comments (other than the attack, discredit and insult format from the alarmists.

Some more wierd solutions to "help" save us:

"Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert"

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

Wow! That took my breath away! ( hummmmm less CO2 sounds good!)

It's hard to believe everyone on the list is being paid off by the oil industry.

I saw the letter yesterday. I was going to post it, but I see you beat me to it, Brett! I am sure that old Ban Ki and his band of elitest cronies will certainly pu pu it and toss it in the trash. Business as usual at the UN, in Bali, and in the utopian (upside down) world of the political left.

Save the planet from hot air. Muzzle Ban Ki-Moon!!!

I think this should be sent to more media outlets, where someone will notice. How about Washington Post, NY Times and the BBC??

Congratulations, Brett, for giving these folks the only exposure they're likely to get outside of the NP and the denialist blogosphere. I'm sure they greatly appreciated it after they were unable to get any traction at all at the Bali conference. It's interesting that they didn't even try to hold a press conference outside of the official venue. I suspect it's because none of the reporters would have been willing to go even slightly out of their way to cover it.

I see that other than the Arctic sea ice news you managed to miss what happened in connection with the AGU fall meeting. FYI there were a lot of important climate science results, including this.

""The IPCC's Summaries for Policy Makers are the most commonly read IPCC reports among politicians and non-scientists""

If you go to the IPCC's home page, they explain exactly who they are

"The IPCC's role is to assess
literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding
of the risk of human-induced climate change."

Their role is to search scientific literature, and only publish things that are relevant to the

risk of human-induced climate change.

Not natural, volcano, sun, orbits, etc.
and not things that show no risk

.

I have been sayint athat all along. Sadly Al gore and the IPCC belives thsoe who think that are crazy.

A very impressive group!

How can something that goes against the AGW mantra so much possibly be ignored by the media? They will have their blinders on as usual and probably not mention this at all except for Fox which has the scam figured out already and has for quite some time.
These scientist's aren't just guessing here, this is their belief's based on what they know.

Oops, almost forgot: It turns out that there was another Bali letter, this one signed by a couple hundred actual climate scientists. The press release:

WORLD'S TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CALL FOR URGENT,
TOUGH GREENHOUSE GAS LIMITS

More than 200 leading climate scientists have today warned the United Nations Climate Conference of the need to act immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a window of only 10-15 years for global emissions to peak and decline, and a goal of at least a 50% reduction by 2050.

The scientists warn that if immediate action is not taken, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, with coasts and cities threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species in serious danger of extinction.

The researchers, who include many of the world?s most acclaimed climate scientists, have issued the "Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists" in which they call on government negotiators from the 180 nations represented at the meeting to recognize the urgency of taking action now.

They say the world may have as little as 10 years to start reversing the global rise in emissions.

The Bali Declaration emphasises the current scientific consensus that long-term greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450ppm CO2e (450 parts per million measured in carbon dioxide equivalent).

Building on the urgency of the recent Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 17 November in Valencia, Spain, the declaration calls on governments to reduce emissions "by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050".

The Bali Declaration endorses the latest scientific consensus that every effort must be made to keep increases in the globally averaged surface temperature to below 2 degrees C.

The scientists say that "to stay below 2 degrees C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years".

The critical reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases and the atmospheric stabilisation target highlighted in the Bali Declaration places a tremendous responsibility on the Bali United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Negotiations at Bali must start the process of reaching a new global agreement that sets strong and binding targets and includes the vast majority of the nations of the world.

The Bali Declaration concludes: "As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement."

The list of signees is considerably more impressive than the IPCC. But I'm sure that 99% of the news media won't even acknowledge the existence of this letter. I've also noticed that most of the media freely interchange the words "temperature" and "CO2." i.e. "The Bali group is hoping to mandate reduced temperature levels."

Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, US News, Science Daily, and the CIA have taken us through many different warming and ice age panics over the years. Fool me once...but four times?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/scinews.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/expandingartic.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline.gif
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline2.gif
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/FireandIce_10_0001.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/ciareport.jpg

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Hi Steve Bloom,

I see that you love the concept of government "mandating temperature." I also see that you love the fact that most newspapers refuse to print anything other than the official UN party line.

Saving the world from CO2 is the only important concept left for mankind. Freedom, prosperity, democracy - who cares? Thank God for people like you who are going to save all of us kicking and screaming idiots. Locutus has spoken.

Ever read "1984" or "Animal House?"

"The scientists say that "to stay below 2 degrees C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years".
Good luck with that. Our climate is going to do what it's going to do and anybody who thinks or says otherwise has serious delusions of grandeur.
Steve Bloom, concerning your last link to the climate change center: how long do you think they would remain open if they said it's all or mostly natural? Sounds pretty self-serving to me. It also sounds as if they are on the IPCC payroll because all they did was parrot them.

climate science = lottery, guesswork, if's , could be's, etc
physics = science
meteorology = science
geology = science
statistics = science
lol

The earth;s climate is constantly changing. Whether the cause is natural or man-made, those specues who fail to adapt will become extinct. While a reduction in pollution is probably not a bad idea, much of the suffering taking place today is due to man;s incursion into known, highly vulnerable areas where floods and other extreme weather phenomena have been taking place since time immemoriable. Over population is a much more serious threat than environmental changes.

I am very surprised that you believe that THIS global warming does not have much to do with air pollution. Anyway, this is a free country, fortunately, so all the opinions are welcome. Still, I am saddened by your position.

The problem as I see it is we think we can control our climate. We see climate change as a problem that we must solve. Climate change is something that has always happened over long periods of time on our planet, we must learn to adapt. To me this is the central problem with all this debate. The focus is on what we should do to stop the change, that is all wrong. We need to focus on what our needs will be if the planet is warmer / cooler and how we will ensure they are available.

The real scary thing to me is how the global warming "experts" are talking about radical solutions like fertilizing the ocean with iron or putting sulphur into the upper atomsphere. That scares the crap out of me. These "solutions" get publicized on CNN.com or other mainstream news and are presented as information from "scientists" so the general population believes it to be a viable solution. I would like to see ANY data which shows the long term consequences of any of these radical ideas proposed. It is these things that people should be scared of, not global warming. Our planet will heat and cool as normal and, if we are close to as smart as we think we are, we will learn to live with what our planet provides. Spending our energy thinking of half baked ways to control our planet is not only a waste of human effort, it is truly dangerous.

Bill

I actually support cleaning up the environment. However the tactics of Gore and UN are in the long run undermining sensible cleanup. Hysteria will only prolong the mess we have now. I think the Republican involvement and conservative Dems will work to clean up in a much more effective manner than radical greens. except in the field of Nuclear. Anyway my two cents.

Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html

I thought Global Warming was a liberal conspericy designed to squeeze the wealthy. Now it is happening and can't be stopped? Perhaps the great expert in the White House will clerify this for us common folk.

I find it really disappointing that so much effort is being expended on the whole global warming issue. Does it really matter if the polar bears have no place to live in 200 years if they are all dead from lead and mercury poisoning anyway.

This whole warming issue has unfortunately turned the worlds focus away from the real problem we have and that is toxic waste. I can guarantee that more humans, animals and plants will have died in a 100 years from toxic waste than will die from a warmer planet.

Carbon dioxide from cars does not kill, carbon monoxide, carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide does. Fish can live in water that is a degree warmer than normal, they will die if it's contaminated with benzene. Waste from millions of cows may cause some polar ice to melt but I guarentee the poorly managed waste of one will kill you if it gets into your untreated water supply.

Its time to stop spending so much time on a warming planet and get back to worrying about the toxic garbage that we spreading across the land. That has much more potential to kill us in a hundred years than the melting polar ice.

Although none of the signers lists their connections to the oil, coal and nuclear industry, just googling their names shows that most of them have these connections, either directly through employment, or indirectly through energy industry funded "think" tanks who have taken great pains to conceal this relationship. Why these individuals and organizations try to conceal these ties might be a good question for "60 Minutes" to dig into.

I'm still waiting for the winter superstorm with super heavy snowfall to develop. Pittsburgh weather, proof that GW is a crock, right Oiz?

By the way, it's baking hot down here.

I agree that we, humans, cannot control the climate. But we can control our contribution to the earth's atmosphere and to the climate.

There is no scientific doubt that a global warming is happening. Whether it's a natural cause or whether it's induced by humans, the discussion has now become purely academic, if not religious.

Maybe the focus should change from our role in so-called climate control to our role in atmosphere pollution control. We would at least reduce our incidence of cancers, lung diseases and the like. I certainly wouldn't mind stepping outside in the summer and not feel chocking in the smog. And, who knows, we may realize in 100 years that in doing so we would have also impacted the causes of global warming.
Nothing to lose either way.

Dr. Ball is a well known spokesman for the oil industry, making well into the 6 figures giving anti-global warming speeches all paid for by Big-Oil and the vast majority of the rest of the experts listed in the linked news story you linked to in your story are predominantly non-climate scientists; don't belive me?

Here's some examples:

Timothy F. Ball, PhD; environmental consultant paid for by big oil, also not a real climate scientist by training

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist; my he's not even a scientist, much less a climate scientist

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering; he's not a scientist, he's an agricultural engineer. I'm sorry but designing irrigation systems and ag. buildings does not qualify him to do climate research.

Ernst-Georg Beck, Biologist; again not a climate scientist

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD; geography, again not a climate scientist

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc; biology; again not a climate scientist

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion; he is an engineer, not climate scientist

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, wow businessman, not even trained in science!

Reply: It was stated that not everyone was a climate scientist. There were a number of people with a wide range of specialties. That is no secret and it was not intended to be a secret.

and so the list goes; if you look hard at the vast majority of each of the so called expert signatorys you'll find the vast majority of them have a ZERO track record of publishing global warming articles into reputable peer-reviewed journals on climatology. In short, they simply are not qualified to pass judgement on global warming as they lack sufficient training and expertise.

""Oops, almost forgot: It turns out that there was another Bali letter, this one signed by a couple hundred actual climate scientists. ""

It does not say that they are actual climate scientists
Very few of them do they list what their field is in

What happened to the link to signatories? The names were they yesterday but today they have been broken.

Reply: I do not know that answer.

Wow, nice thread challenging "consensus"... meanwhile it appears that an old fashioned cold snowy winter is in full swing this last few days.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :)

Steve said
this one signed by a couple hundred actual climate scientists.

Nope, sorry Steve

I did not even get out of the "A"'s
and there were economists, astronomers, chemists etc

It is obvious Carter's letter is political in nature, rather than scientific, and was addressed more to the public than to Ban Ki-Moon. Note the complete absence of any citations to back up the claims made in the letter. Note Carter's failure to refute in any meaningful way the findings of the mainstream scientific community around the world. Carter makes claims; anyone can make claims. Until they are backed up by evidence which the majority of the scientific communities can test and agree on, claims are worthless -- and in this case simply wishful thinking. The problem with wishful thinking is that it very well may destroy everything our societies have accomplished thus far in our human history.

Carter et al. may wish to risk all that our societies have built in the service of their particular brand of economic philosophy; more responsible scientists, citizens, corporations and governments will take off their blinders, stop throwing tantrums, and put their minds to the challenge of assuring that our societies and our creations and accomplishments continue to grow and thrive.

If Carter is wrong and the world follows him, think about the result.

If the majority of the world's scientists are wrong and we have followed their recommendations -- what's the result? Cleaner air? Industrial innovation? A degree of freedom from energy sources that are non-renewable anyway?

Or do Carter et al. think the world's industries/corporations/scientists are just not up to the challenge?

This letter has been reviewed at a number of sites over the last few days.

For a review of the authors see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

The following have received funds from Exxon:
David R. Legates, Richard S. Lindzen,
S. Fred Singer,Clark, Deming, Essex, v. Gray, W. Gray, Hayden, G Idso, S Idso, Priem, Illarianov, Jawarowski, Karlen, Kininmonth, Lupo, McKitrick, Morner, Patterson, Sharp, Singer, Spencer and Wojick

See: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

Some are so extreme that they reject the validity of physical data, such as sea ice levels, ice core samples and temperature data.

For a good discussion see The Oil Drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3378#comments

The five stages of the denialist creed:

1. The earth is not warming
2. If it is warming, it is not man's fault.
3. If it is man's fault, the earth is not warming very much
4. If it is warming very much, a warmer world won't be bad
5. If it is bad, there's nothing you can do about it

Seems we have reached the fifth stage.

If you want to take the the citation-free word of these scientists vs. the two thousand five hundred members of the IPCC go ahead.

Who would I rather put the security of my country in the the hands of? The Defense Dept takes global warming very seriously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/15warm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Another fun fact for you Steve Bloom!

Worldwide sea ice is higher today than it was on this date in 1979 - the first year which satellite records were kept, and the time frame when Science Daily, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and the CIA were warning us of an imminent ice age.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Every school child in America has been told that the "poles are melting" and it is America's fault. Al Gore loves America so much that he wants us all to drink Kool-Aid (after his first 100 million dollars.)

"The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom"
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=%201811&ito=1490

Very uncivil of commenters to preface the thread by accusing scientists of alarmism, as though it were a four letter word and automatically discounted the data. Your ilk would probably accuse Paul Revere of being an alarmist.

There are times when alarm and alacrity are necessary.

Before you take someone's view as gospel, learn about the individual and his sources.

As I wrote to my friend Nick this morning, there are still a few of those [naysayers] out there, making a livibng by selling their professional standing for oil company's six pieces of silver. We don't waste our time with them anymore.

Now having said that, if you would like to sit down for an hour, I can show you peer reviewed scientific data demonstrating how mankind's use of fossil fuels has altered the Earth's climate.

IF you visit http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1557, you'll find that Carter is one of the infamous 60 whose paycheck comes from the oil industries. He sees nothing wrong with their blood money.

If you see nothing wrong with that, then there is something fundamentally wrong.

Carter's area of expertise is studying the layering of rocks. A former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change, and if he has any evidence showing mankind is not responsible, "he should publish through the peer review process."

Which he does not do. He can't publish through the peer review process because he has no data, only innuendo and creative writing funded by the oil companies and a following of the unethical, immoral, or downright stupid.

The deniers and delayers all lack moral fiber and are not worthy of our precious time.

If you buy into the concept of some other cause, then you approve of the deaths and illnesses caused by the burning of fossil fuels. You approve of the destruction of nature by oil and coal companies. And you approve of slaughtering millions of human beings for control of oil. The practice of destroying the Earth and all its creatures to maintain the exorbitant life styles of a few is unconscionable.

So either way, fossil fuels have got to go. It's the only ethical, moral thing to do.

Neurosis is the inability to resolve two or more stimuli. Religion solves the dilemma of dealing with inevitable death and living with it, but in this case, you find resolution and security in science. Or one could elect to wallow in neurosis and denial.

It's better to let people think you are ignorant then to open your mouth and prove it. Gather facts from responsible peer reviewed scientific journals before showing your ignorance.

Which you have done in spades.

If can't help solve the problem, get out of our way.

John Cleveland, President
Global Warming Action Alliance

To Saly:

Recommend you read further than just the homepage. ALL of the natural events have been studied, which is why the IPCC states that "mankind in more than 90% to blame." they leave less than 10% for things like the Sun's output which is normally about 300 watts per square meter, and has increased 0.12 w/m2 in the past 100 years. though the Earth's climate system is sensitive, only increased CO2--a forcing-- can account for the sharp rise in temperatures.

Do a little research, Saly, don't just grab what sounds good to you.

And as I said in the last post, if you can't be part of the solution, get out of the way.

John Cleveland
Global Warming Action Alliance

Steve!
Please.... A letter Sponsored by "The Climate Change Research Center"?
You are seriously offering this to refute the post above?
Without AGW panic they would not even exist.

You are getting desperate aren't you?

Now if this group doesn't show that there is actualy a reason to pause and doubt is not only good but essential!

There is no 'consensus' amoung all 'scientists' only alarmists that are allowed to comment that are not shunned, ignored and shouted down.

those who wish to ignore important statements such as this and push forward in a mad rage need to be stopped and investigated!

Agendas on the alarmist side are clear and this is the present danger to the world and USA not some hypothesis elite club that only allows fellow alarmists to speak, I for one certainly insist that they be held accountable just as they scream we should for actually THINKING, weighing BOTH sides and comming to conclusions...if I may para-phrase a quote "action is the enemy of thought"

Steve Bloom,

You will need to come to the table with more than just 'models' that have been show to not work. I see science is the last thing on your mind. You seem to have missed actual evidence that you and your profit taking Socialist missed.

Climate Models unable to forcast: http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf

Gleenland melt scare by Liberal Left unfounded: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094332.htm

Arctic ice melt wind and cloud cover related not caused by Global Warming: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/844

I know it sucks when actual Science slaps down your weak political scare tacics.

"Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake"

Reply: Yep...

So what is the position of Accuweather.com and the moderator, Brett, on AGW and climate change? Does it exist?

Reply: In the global warming center there is a company statement in regards to global warming. I try to keep my opinions to myself and let the commentators express their views since I am moderating.

The letter states:

"there has been no net global warming since 1998."

...which is about as misleading a statement as you could make in regards to climate.

See Tamino take it down:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

PaulB,
I think the 'good' doctor really want to make an impact on CO2 emmissions he should take it to the next logical step - cull the human race!

just for record
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The NH data has changed again re
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html

Europe is having the best start to the ski season in years, due to lots of snow and cold. The climate models have been universally wrong this year with respect to both temperature and precipitation. This must be Hansen's "Super El Nino!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/sports/snowsports/snownews.shtml#scotland

All but a handful of the Austrian resorts that we report on have well over a metre of snow on their upper slopes, some in excess of two metres; a rarity at this time of year.

Lillehammer (80/80cm) has a great snow base but the bitterly cold conditions mean that the snow is now hard packed. This has also happened at Oppdal (70/70cm) so skiers are advised to watch their speed on the mountain.

Dear Steve Bloom,
I notice that the list in Brett's post has the actual degree and field listed beside the signatories. OTOH, your link has two very prominent qualifications with its signers: "Dr" and "Professor". Dr and Professor of what? Usually, that means that they either have lower degrees and/or they have irrelevant degrees.

I came across and interesting idea. Future news. Here is my attempt:

China shocks the world by revealing the first completely pollution free coal fired power plants are supplying energy to the Olympics. Every gram of carbon the plants produced is trapped and recycled.

In further news it is announced that you may save the environment by getting drunk. Distilled spirits manufacturers finally realized that they could trap and recycle CO2 produced by sour mash fermentation by adding just a little extra plumbing.

And finally, one of the largest sources of waste paper was eliminated as phone books the world over went on an "opt in" system. After it was realized that many people who communicate via cell phone and internet never even open a phone book, it was easy to cut the number of phone books produced in the world by 90%.



This is a great read.
It is a view Bali from Lord Moncton.
Tell is like it is....
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc

Did no one else read the prior article written by Brett?
So, a couple of "scientists" drawn from a few capitalist countries make this announcement and suddenly you are sold? Man, you guys make it easy for a few conglomerations and corporations to sway public consensus. Fascinating!
In other news, a group of scientists held a forum to discuss why the earth is flat and announce the age of the earth: 6,000 years.

Dear Steve Bloom,

Unfortunately, the letter you linked to from "a couple of hundred actual climate scientists" included their qualifications. As someone pointed out here last week, only eight of them included the word "climate" in their description.

It appears that the "deniers" group is at least as prestigious and qualified. Probably more so.

You should think long and hard before you turn over your freedom as an American to UN jurisdiction. The UN hates America, and Americans - like you.

Scientific evidence can be skewed for political purposes or for those who seek to twist it for their own agenda. Of course the earth has faced a warming period. Duh. After the ice age? But what you dont say is the long term implications should it rise above a certain level. Let's face it, you're in with them. What is your ultimate goal?

I think it is time for the luddites of the world to stop trying to justify their wasteful energy practices.

There are really only two possible outcomes.

1/ If the IPCC is correct,we have only a short time to save humanity and the planet.

2/If they are wrong,then a policy of reduction of wasteful fossil fuel use, would still make this nonrenewable resource last much longer.

It would seem that any action to reduce human generation of greenhouse gases, and move to renewable energy sources, is a win-win game, no matter what theoutcome of the climate change debate.

Time to give up our slovenly habits!

Steve Bloom, what connection does coral bleaching have to do with man-made CO2 emissions? I thought warmer oceans released CO2.

The 200 scientists form an overwhelming consensus in your fantasies for sure. As long as skeptics like us question the half-baked science forcing policies, we will keep you alarmists in the straight and narrow.

Hi John Cleveland,

Thank you for saving us stupid people! Your obvious anger is no doubt justified and I might add quite quite appealing.

I can surmise from the exceptional cold and deep snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere that we are going through a meltdown - a period of unprecedented warming never seen on earth before.

BTW - Who do you get your funding from? No doubt your work is completely philanthropic in nature, and neither you nor Al Gore nor any the IPCC staff have a personal interest in promoting the idea of catastrophic global warming.

Also, it was a particularly clever idea at Bali to exclude the world's largest CO2 producer (China) from any emission restrictions. Made the whole US hate fest seem so serious and legitimate.

Time to give up our slovenly habits!

The US is one of the most efficient countries on earth in terms of carbon intensity (industrial output/CO2 output.) Anyone who believes we can reduce CO2 production by 40% without exporting much of our jobs and industry is simply not aware of the facts.

Please don't confuse personal guilt with science or economics.

So let me get this straight, if a scientist, economist, or any other ist gets money from the dreaded BIG OIL, their fews are so tainted as to be unworthy. BUT, if a scientist, economist, or any other ist gets money from BIG ENVIRONMENT it is only to help pay for their kibble and therefore perfectly acceptable? Seems like a pretty good double standard to me.

Now then, let's take this just a quick step further, the UN in my mere lifetime has done more to continue status quo and unrest across the globe than any other mere country or group. You could go so far as to say that the UN in general, protects those who would do the world harm since they do not call a spade a spade. They, in turn, sponsor and fund many of the reports that the AGWers herein cite so reverently. Does this not taint the reports? Incredibly enough, much of the money the UN gets for its' operation and programs comes from the good 'ole USA. Does that make the reports tainted?

Dear John Cleveland,

I had a look at your site and saw that you are right on top of things.

The recommendations also aimed at reducing emissions to 0% by 2100.

So what exactly is your plan to keep livestock and humans from breathing, belching or flatulating? I'm also looking forward to the CO2 free jet engine, and the CO2 free volcano!

Perhaps we can just beam from place to place like on Star Trek? And make our food in replicators? Beam me up Scotty!

One more little detail - the most prevalent GHG is H20, which comes out of nuclear power plants and hydrogen power cars. Whoops!

I trust those above who demonize the oil industry, don't actually put the filthy stuff in their cars, or heat their homes with it, or use plastics derived from it. Alas, it is too easy to be hypocritical. Like it or not, the Bali delegates had to use fossil fuels to run their conference, just like the rest of the world. Fossil fuels are not so easily replaced. Developing alternatives is obviously a great idea and we are currently trying to do it, but please stop pretending it's easy, and stop pretending to be more moralistic than others just because you don't actually like to face reality.

There is a real consensus to be found in this debate and it is a common desire for renewable, clean fuel but crucially many (I hope most) of us want to get there without causing unnecessary hardship for anyone on the way. That is what the National Post letter is really about.

"It appears that the "deniers" group is at least as prestigious and qualified. Probably more so."

Sadly, no. If you want to know the credentials, Google is your friend. Alternately type the names into the author field of the ISI database. Repeat for skeptics. Taste the difference.

It is too bad the "debate" has fallen into the sluge of arguing credentials. But that was bound to happen when one side of the debate declared the "science is setteled". The rush to remove scientific argument and replace it with policy wonk position papers has created a mess.

As most of you know a physicist can join the debate if one is discussing Black Body radiation curves; likewise a biologist can join the debate if one is discussing Dendroclimatology. The same holds true for statisticians if the main thrust of an argument concerns things like Principle Components Analysis, r2 Verification, or Gaussian curve fits. If a physicist, biologist, or statistician finds significant problems in one corner of the large IPCC corpus of "peer reviewed" science, said scientist isn't a denier, and his concerns should be debated. This certainly has not been the case in recent years. The climate science community has developed a bunker mentality. The scientists who've declared that the "science is over" have inadvertenly gotten themselves embroiled in politics. Thier reputations have suffered, and there is a slow, but steady awareness in the US at least that the public is being served a con-job -perhaps the biggest con in modern scientific history.

A wiseman once quipped that if 2+2=4 became a politica question, it would take no time before half of the population took a contraian side. That man was a prophet.

John Cleveland
Global Warming Action Alliance
"Do a little research, Saly, don't just grab what sounds good to you."

This is a joke, right?

Unless you mean the same thing to the IPCC and the UN.

The UN and the IPCC have declared a consensus and will not even listen to a little research.

Since when have these glorified weathermen nailed down their science to the point that anyone can declare consensus?

In such polarizing issues, with extreme camps at both ends, the true answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. No doubt recent evidence indicates a warming trend, but are human behaviors the major cause? Relative to 4.5 billion years of geologic time, it appears this latest fad may quite possibly represent the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon the human world.

I can show you peer reviewed scientific data demonstrating how mankind's use of fossil fuels has altered the Earth's climate.

John Cleveland,

No one doubts that mankind can alter the earth's climate. The question is a matter of degree. I regularly converse with one of the leading AGW scientists (frequently referenced on this site) and invariably his argument comes down to "CO2, because "we don't know what else could be causing what we are seeing." Not a convincing argument, and essentially an admission that the variables influencing climate are not well understood.

The fact that you are alarmed and want to silence people who disagree with you, is not a convincing argument either. It makes you appear frightened, and closed minded.

A question for you. What caused the Little Ice Age? If you can't answer that, then please don't bluster.

john Lindsey:
Good because
Climate science = the Lottery

Skeptics unfamiliar with the Independent Summary for Policymakers IPCC Fourth Assessment Report may want to read it as accompaniment to this letter by the consensus of skeptical scientists. Skeptics will find that it presents a much more realistic and balanced picture than the IPCC report summaries. Although I am an independent (see my philosophy below), I can understand how skeptics can look at the fact that Antarctica is not warming substantially, and the fact that tropospheric warming is not driving surface warming, and come to the conclusion that the theory of AGW does not meet its own key criteria.

On another subject...several people make the argument that money corrupts the intellectual capacity of scientists. The accusers didn't use those exact words, but that's what their accusation amounts to. And thus we are to believe that accepting money turns honest souls into shills. Taken to its logical conclusion, ANYONE who accepts money becomes suspect, and the more money they accept they more reason we have to suspect their veracity. But wait a minute. Something on the order of $20B has become available for global warming research since 1980. Have the energy companies paid out $20B since 1980 for supposedly contrived research? Not even close. So by this line of argument, we have more reason to question the conclusions of alarmist research. But we shouldn't.

Obviously this line of reasoning is ridiculous. Though there are people - ON BOTH SIDES - who violate integrity, we should assume they are few and far between. If the science is wrong, you don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks to prove it. Use a science counter-argument, for Pete's sake!

******** Independent Philosophy ***************
Even though there is no indisputable physical evidence for AGW, we should keep looking.
Even though AGW alarmists haven't made the case for AGW, we should keep listening.

I'm tired of people with NO knowledge of atmospheric science saying, "I don't believe it! We can't have an effect!" I'm equally tired of people like Al Gore who don't understand the science screaming the alarm. We need to all pipe down and let the people who understand the climate figure out what the deal is, then we can debate it. Until then, it's like a bunch of blind men arguing about rainbows.

JP,

The science is settled in regards to the existence of an anthropogenic signal in our current warming trend. The only debate is how much warmer we will get in the future. We're currently conducting a science experiment which has never occurred; namely, emitting hundreds of millions of years worth of fossilized CO2 in a span of 100 years. Anyone who claims this will have no effect puts the "nut" in the term right-wing nutcase.

If you believe our recent warming trend is completely explained away with "natural cycles," then it's clear that you're the one who believes 2+2 = 5, JP.

Good question TH

I've got another one for Mr. Cleveland...

Can you please tell me how the apparently factually based (as reported by a consensus of leading scientists), 6,000 foot or so deep glacier covering the northern part of the midwest melted well before humans populated this part of the world?

Being a skeptic, and not an elitist from the NE US, I would appreciate it if you would induldge me in an answer.

Thanks, and have a warm and fuzzy day.

Like so many denialists, saly just says whatever feels good at the time. For instance, from above, her(?) claim that the press release I copied doesn't say that the statement signers are climate scientists. Except it does, first in the headline ("top climate scientists") and then in the first sentence ("leading climate scientists"). Learn to read, Saly.

Saly later claims to have checked and found that just in the A's there are some signers who aren't climate scientists. Just making stuff up again, Saly?

Oh, and Brett: Later it appears that the worst insult Saly could come up with for climate scientists was "glorified weathermen." Ouch.

TH,
Well said, succinct and to the point.
Unfortunately this debate has become visceral, dealing more with emotion rather than real fact. This results in nobody listening to the science on either side. Citing reproducible factual science will fall on deaf ears as rational thought no longer has a place in the world of AGW.
"CO2 must be the culprit because we can't think of anything else"
Is that the non-science we want to spend trillions on????
Attack bad science where ever you find it! Nonsense is still nonsense even if you have a PhD after your name. For those claiming to speak for the earth, please see your closest health care professional. Argue with the science and the methodology, not who or where you find it. Be critical and think for yourself. If you don’t understand the issues read, learn, ask questions and think. Politicians are alway exempt from this rule but for the rest of us......This is way too important to let someone else tell you what to do.

This is like a breath of fresh air - scientists speaking out against the highly inaccurate, model-based anthropogenic global warming hypothesis which blames a trace gas, CO2, for all manner of global catastrophes. The Pied Pipers of the AGW movement who want the world to follow them to economic disaster based on their pseudo-science and scare tactics have met a formidable adversary - common sense. It's ironic that the AGWers call those who disagree with their view "deniers" when it is they who are in denial, of science, that is.

And despite the size of their movement, complicity from the MSM, and the obvious political agenda on which it is based, it isn't working. The Daily Mail ran a poll in Great Britain asking: Is climate change a real threat to the world or is it over-hyped? The latest results show "over-hyped" leading 2-1. A German publication, Deutsche Welle reports that their readers too are skeptical about the human role in global warming. So, where's this consensus we keep hearing about?

Concerning the just ended Bali climate conference Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph reports, "The reality of Bali, however, was that all this vilification of America as the "world's worst polluter" was only displacement activity - to disguise the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, no one is really prepared to step off the bandwagon of economic growth, by making the unthinkable sacrifices which would be required if any of them actually meant what they said."

The result of Bali was an "agreement to negotiate an agreement." And, while neither Bill Clinton nor his vice president, Al Gore, could get Kyoto passed (the Senate voted unanimously to reject it in 1998), it appears that despite all the political posturing and rhetoric, no one is willing to send their economy into a tailspin over alleged catastrophic man-made warming. In a world where common sense is, well, uncommon, it is nice to see reason overcome fearmongering.

Trying to stop global warming is futile and it kills....
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/green-tires-cou.html

I be damned before I would put those on my family car.

FYI I have translated the Letter in Italian:

Il Clima, la CO2 e i Piu' Deboli: Lettera Aperta al Segretario Generale ONU

Getting Warm:

You claimed and listed certain scientist were funded by Exxon. I know for a fact you are a liar. Not all that you listed were ever paid by Exxon. You ought to be sued!!!

A quote from my older brother:

"If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you."

The climate prognosticators have been eating serious crow for the last 24 month's with antarctic sea ice maxima reaching record extents and some serious cold snaps, like last winter's record cold in the Middle East and India, while Oklahoma had high snows and freezing temps causing the losses of whole herds of cattle. The remarkable lack of Atlantic Hurricane Season killer hurricanes for two summers now and now we have a serious winter occurring on time in North America. New York City has measurable snow now and it is COLD presently. I can go on and on but the point is, go outside and experience the weather, look at the clouds and make observations for yourselves. Pollution is always a bad idea, but TRUTH is what we need to expose.
As soon as someone tells me to shut up because I dissagree with them and labels me as something , like say ahh "denier" red lights flash "warning warning supression of information" go off. I continue to suggest all of you look into weather modification and cloud forcing and weather weapons. Study up on scaler wave technologies and jet stream manipulation. There is more going on here than plain old random pollution, which should be reduced anyway... Stay warm everyone in the North East USA :)

my oh my, been gone for awhile and this blog has become infested with AGW cultists...i see some of my old friends must still be on the payroll promoting the scam as well...others have formed alliances trying to legitimize alarm and panick invoking the morality card because their pseudo-science is being ripped apart at the seams by real science and the silent majority is taking exception to their dubious scheme...AGW continues to be exposed daily as bad science propped only by politics, faulty crystal ball future predicting computer programs while a whole chorus of government paid self serving folks with no conscience scream as loud as they can that our lifestyle will result in dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, just so they can get more of your tax dollars...i kinda get a kick out of watching these dudes wail and gnash their teeth realizing their gig is about done...

"I continue to suggest all of you look into weather modification and cloud forcing and weather weapons."

This is sound advice I'd say.

Mark,
You fit precisely what I formerly described to a T. Instead of answering valid critiques of AGW theory, the alarmists attack and/or ignore. There are plenty of valid problems with various points in AGW theory and analyis. From Mann's famous temperature reconstruction (the Hockey Stick), to the way organizations like NOAA and NASA collect and present raw temperture readings (Anthony Watts has documented serious problems with at least a 1/3 of our Co-op network), to the total lack of a AGW signal in the tropical tropesphere (where a large portion of our atmosphere exit), the members of the Climate Science community either ignore or attack the person or organization who completed the study.

Like I stated earlier, climate science risks falling below the other "dismal science" -economics. Like economics, climate science is fast becoming a place where idealogues reside. Only politicians and used car salemen have lower reputations. Climate science is fast approaching such a low stature.

John Cleveland, President
Global Warming Action Alliance

A question John.
If AGW was determined to me natural, would not your Global Warming Action Alliance end?
And would not that end your income?

Do you really think you have credibility with that kind of money bias?

I think the CEO of Exxon would be more credibel than that.

Sorry..... Just cant buy what you are selling.

Too many people try to make the argument too simple by picking convenient statistics and sound-bytes. Rarely does anybody look at the complete argument.

We recently wrote a blog post on this topic with reference to this letter where we tried to look at both sides of the story: http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2007/12/17/climate-change-who-is-right-and-we-are-wrong/

Following in the footsteps of the posts made by Fred & Ted, I believe 'Global warming' is a serious concern that needs to dealt at global as well as individual level, else there seems to be no way to combat the aftermath. The general masses have distributed opinions on the root cause and after effects, it could bring in. By & large, the opinion is widely distributed on the culprits on 'global warming' from minor climatic changes, green house gases, human effected ozone layer & more. Moreover, the danger it poses is not even seriously rated by many considering it's either too minor a concern or too late to be dealt with. I was surprised to see the cold reactions, from people around the globe on such a vital issue: http://www.infodoro.com/fivewords/user/others/t/46

See for yourself & say, if or not it needs general awareness & educating masses to control, regulate & combat the disaster it involves.

"Fred",when I can find someone who actually does understand the climate I will listen.At this point in time,AGW believers and skeptics including the ones on this blog are about as qualified as any of the climate scientists out there.Until I can find one,I'll continue to read the links posted on here and do my own research and base my opinions on what I read.I am a skeptic and until I can find a reason not to be, I will be, since the science is far from settled.

I'm still waiting for the winter superstorm with super heavy snowfall to develop. Pittsburgh weather, proof that GW is a crock, right Oiz?

REPLY: Just what are you trying to say, E? Hate to tell ya, but it's been bitter cold up here, and it's been HORRIBLE!!! Just because we were spared the brunt of the massive bombardment of snow that other parts of the midwest and northeast received, doesn't mean Pittsburgh hasn't been spared of the same brutal cold. Just so you know, it did snow enough to irritate and make for dangerous conditions. And besides, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, Upstate New York, and a pretty fair chunck of New England, well let's just say I would NOT want to be in any of those places the last few days. So again, I ask, what's your point????

By the way, it's baking hot down here.

REPLY: Really?? I am jealous. After all it is SUMMER where your at! Can I come down for Christmas????? Please?????

Brett, I have a question for you regarding the site policy (pasted below for reference). It contains exactly one affirmative statement regarding global warming: "There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate."

In this post, you wrote (quoting the letter under discussion): "(I)t is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

The conflict seems crystal clear, so now I'm a bit confused as to the extent to which the position statement guides the contents of your posts. Comment?

Reply: I am just relaying what was said in the letter according to the National Post. That's all. Those are not mine or Accuweather's words.

-------------------------------

"Global Climate Change

"AccuWeather.com Position Statement

"Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.

"Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method. Thus, we urge all scientists and members of the public to engage in the global warming discussion, including AccuWeather.com's experts. We encourage our scientists to express their personal views without the constraint of a corporate position they must follow. We are pleased to offer a major forum on AccuWeather.com for the wide-ranging consideration of this topic.

"In the AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center, you will find links to the latest research, commentary by experts with various points of view on all aspects of climate change, and a forum for you to share your own thoughts, ask questions, and interact with the best scientific minds and knowledge in this area. From time to time, we may post questions about climate change for general consideration and to further stimulate debate. We welcome your contributions to the discussion.

"We encourage you to visit global-warming.accuweather.com often to keep abreast of the discussion."

John Cleavland,

I can't believe you respond, "Get out of our way." Yikes! It doesn't seem very peace-loving, and I don't much think the world will be a better place if ruled by people with your attitude.

What will happen if someone stands up to you and states, "No. You get out of OUR way." ???

Good idea for a Clint Eastwood movie.

Or a Dr. Suess tale. Dr. Suess wrote one where a north-going creature meets a south-going creature, and both say, "GET OUT OF MY WAY." Because neither will move east or west, they remain stuck, and a highway has to be built around them.

I've known some big shots in my time, and I have learned not to measure a man by his degrees, or his looks, or his status. I look at results. The main problem with the people who want to change the world to change the climate lies in the area of results. When they predict, the result is incorrect predictions. Shall we go on from there?

FOX NEWS IS A SHAM, PERIOD. Read "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery and "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. Educate yourselfs before you go spouting out your POLITICAL SPINS. You need to worry about this a lot more then you want to admit. The science backs it up dude and if you think this is B.S. you're a fool and you will find out soon enough. It's BIG OIL that is being protected not you.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Why do you think it is important to silence dissent?

Freedom of speech and dissent is exactly what makes America great, and much of the rest of the world poor and miserable. Is your belief system so important that other viewpoints must be eliminated? That is basically the mentality of suicide bombers, or social revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao.

People who believe they are saving the world, are either severely deluded or lacking in intelligence.

Steve Bloom;

Why don't you just state you objective Steve. You want Accuweather to drink the cool aid and get on the band wagon as an advocate for the AGW mythology.
Or are you looking for active censorship on Brett'w part?

Feeling a bit desperate are We?

Brett, let me try again: AW has a position, which is "There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate." What's the reasoning behind posting material that directly conflicts with it?

Reply: Just presenting the different viewpoints on climate change, whether it agrees with the above statement or not isn't the issue. Why does it have to agree with that part of the AW position?

"And besides, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, Upstate New York, and a pretty fair chunck of New England"

Wow, Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit...getting snow in late December? Stop the presses! LOL

This type of argument sound familiar?

Yeah Oiz, you're more than welcome to come. But please, bring some of the cold from the US with you cuz the heat is not going to go any time soon... I'm baking with a high of 36 C ...

perhaps mr bloom, good ole brett recognizes that a good portion of the Accuweather viewership isnt a bunch of Bloom-ing idiots the AGW cult so desperately wants to deceive...perhaps he recognizes that the consensus scam, so highly touted by the U.nited N.incompoops invention (I.nternational P.anel of C.limate C.onspiracy) isnt a consensus, as the headline of this story so blatantly suggests...have a nice day dude, the more your try to quell the dissent, the more apparent the AGW lie becomes...

Hi emiliano,

I'm baking with a high of 36 C

Glad to hear you are having some warmer weather finally, with summer two days away. The highest temperature so far this month in Buenos Aires is 30C. You are running about one degree below normal for the month, and well below normal for the year.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/SABE/2007/12/18/MonthlyHistory.html

Enjoy the warm weather because it is supposed to turn cold again on Saturday!
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-34.57,-58.42

Isn't the availability of information on the Internet wonderful?

PATRICK HENRY, Read the books I suggested and your mixed up mind will be enriched because right now your ignorance is peaking. The big old "new world order"(didn't Bush say that?) is coming for your family and you are really scared aren't you? LOL Oh yea everybodys out to get you! Like all the pacific islanders whos homes are flooding. They're coming after us! Destroy them! LOL :)Or you could use less energy....

Brett, I'll respond with a question: What is the purpose of posting material that is so far out of the mainstream that it conflicts with even AW's very timid position? lOW. (Reply: How, do you that the material is so far out of mainstream?)IOW, how is it informative about the science? You know, there are still plenty of people out there who argue against relativity, believe it or not including people with physics PhDs. Should a physics blog feel obligated to give them attention?

There's a practical aspect, too. You only do a limited number of posts (understandably), and making space for material that lacks scientific credibility means that much more deserving material will lose out. Pushing aside the science in favor of political attacks on it seems even more at odds with the AW statement, which it properly puts the emphasis on education about the science. Obviously some judgment on your part is required as to what is and isn't legitimate science, but you seem reluctant to exercise it.

For example, this week you missed the coral story and the sea level rise story, both of which are of vast importance. (Reply: I saw the coral story Steve, but there are a lot of stories that I check on a daily basis and obviously many do not get posted. I cannot cover them all due to limited time, as this blog is just a part of my six day-a-week workload)

Even if the Carter letter really was important, had you checked things out a bit you would have found out it was a response to the other letter from the 200+ climate scientists. Instead your post lacked that context.

BTW, I notice that you have taken material from the National Post on several occasions, and IIRC the Canadian Free Press as well. What you might want to consider next time you see something interesting in an obscure publication of that sort is to check Google News to see if the story has been picked up elsewhere. If not, fair to say that it's just propaganda. Notice, BTW, that the Wall Street Journal editorial pages used to be the venue of choice for such things, but a switch has had to be made to the likes of the National Post?

(Reply: Steve, based on your several comments to me it seems that you act like there is some big conspiracy here at the AccuWeather.com global warming center and within this blog. Let me reassure you that there is none. We try to provide balance, and no one is looking over my shoulder and telling me what to post and from what source. There never has been since I was asked to moderate this blog after Laura left. I look for articles of interest that relate to global warming, whether it supports the idea of AGW or not. Sometimes they are scientific, political, humerous etc... I care greatly about my job and this blog and trying to support some type of agenda is the last thing on my mind. My hope is that this blog through the posts and the comments can help further educate people, including myself, about climate change. Unfortunately, it seems that this blog is not up to your standard.

Hi Steve Bloom,

I guess when you are busy saving the world, debate and discussion really has no place. Global warming is too urgent a problem, and the debate is over - the science settled. Time is short. If we don't act this year, CO2 levels will spiral out of control leading to unimaginable tragedy. Sea level will rise 25 meters and desertification, war, famine and mosquito borne infectious diseases will spread through the world. Civilizational will collapse and monster hurricanes will roam the planet. The Arctic will melt and peat bogs will belch methane. The oceans will turn into a lifeless, acidic stew and temperatures will become unbearably hot south of 60 degrees latitude.

All because of this blog! But then again, maybe that is completely wrong! Perhaps the AGW police are using this site to collect names and IP numbers of "dangerous dissidents."

Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life for all species. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You will become one with the Borg. You will all become one with the borg.

Locutus

Steve Bloom,

I know we've had our go arounds. I was kind of wondering a while back if maybe I over reacted to some of your comments. That said I only have one question for you here: Are you serious?
I'm not sure you're hearing yourself.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that there is no room for discussion on this issue. I find it equally hard to believe that you think anyone who questions AGW is either an idiot or part of some global, petroleum based, right winged conspiracy. Global.
You've made comments to me about being "unscientific". I think you might want to step back from the science part of this and take a look at what you're saying. It doesn't sound good.
I guess if I try to understand what your saying, I come up with the idea that you must see this issue as so desperate, so dire, that there can be no room, no time for discussion. Like declaring martial law on dissent. If this is the case I'm sorry you feel that way.

Steve Bloom,

What makes this blog different is that all sides are allowed to speak. The local dummies here were predicting a mild hurricane season, record Antarctic sea ice, and a cold winter - long before the experts. In fact the experts still haven't figured it out.

By many measures, this blog has been one of the most accurate sources of information. Compared to the constant mispredictions of Hansen, Gore and Real Climate - we dummies are batting 1.000 How is that "Super El Nino" coming along, and the one inch per month sea level rise Hansen predicted?

To paraphrase Mr. Hillary Clinton
"It's the sun, stupid"

or The Who
"we won't get fooled again"

second law,

Thank you for bringing clarity to my confused world with your rambling diatribe.

BTW - You might be interested in this story. There must be some way to blame the last 120 feet of sea level rise on American SUV's, GWB, evil oil companies, and intransigent Christian Republicans - don't you think?

Lost city 'could rewrite history'
By BBC News Online's Tom Housden

The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

Hi, Patric Henry

Actually your ideas of the European weather are a bit incomplete.

The World Alpine competition first event was moved from Northern Finland (well north of the Polar Circle) for the good reason of there being no snow. Neither was it cold enough for the snow guns to operate.

A few days ago, the airport of Ivalo, at the same latitude reported an all time high temperature of 7,5 degC. It is some 17 degC above the day's climatological (30 year) average.

Had you gone to the trouble of checking Accuweather temperatures for Lillehammer, Norway, you might have seen a daily minimum of -2 degC and maximum of +2 degC. If anyone chooses to describe this as "bitterly cold" is his/her own rather eccentric opinion.

More truth in reporting, please. Even if the matters are not too relevant.

Yeah Oiz, you're more than welcome to come. But please, bring some of the cold from the US with you cuz the heat is not going to go any time soon... I'm baking with a high of 36 C ...

REPLY: E: Are you digging out??? Are you slipping on it??? Are you scraping it off of your vehicle's windshield??? You will not get any sympathy from me! If you wish to swap locales I am more that willing. Because another 4.5 months of this, and I am going to go completely stark raving mad!!!!

I'd rather sweat & swelter than shovel, shiver, slip, slide and scrape! BRING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!

If AGW was determined to me natural, would not your Global Warming Action Alliance end?
And would not that end your income?

REPLY: Not only would that end his income, but it would end any utopian leftist anti-capitalist leve the playing field Marxist dreams Mr. Cleveland and his organization have. But make sure you get out of his way, because Mr. Cleveland and is group know better how to run your life than you do!

Save the planet (especially the USA) from hot air. MUZZLE THE ENVIRO-ZEALOTS!!!!!!

Steve Bloom:

Stop being such a sanctimonious (sp) blogger and just comment upon the articles and other commenters. I mean geez, some sort of conspriracy on the part of AW? I thought the only conspiracies out there involved Bush trying to take over the world or something like that LOL.

Besides, there is no way that any of us (including Brett) who have real jobs can keep up with all of junk written about GW both for and against.

Steve Bloom:
So, let me understand your position regarding Brett and this blog. You want to censor (cherry pick) the news items Brett posts on this blog and intimidate him into selecting only those which are in sympathy with the AGW hypothesis. And you support your position by claiming that all the news items which challenge the AGW theory are flawed either scientifically or based on politics. And you know this because you are smarter than everyone else or because you are delusional?

This blog is not about crowning you king. I have read many of your posts, and, quite frankly, your high opinion of yourself and your self-proclaimed scientific expertise is unjustified. The fact that the science of climate change is in its infancy conflicts with your "science is settled" mindset. You will never solve anything scientifically with a closed mind and yours is airtight.

So, back off your whining about the topics which Brett chooses to post or be prepared to be humiliated by those on this blog who treat this topic objectively and scientifically by challenging everything as real scientific discipline demands. If you want to contribute your ideas then I am sure Brett will welcome them and post them but leave your arrogance at the door because you are no wiser than anyone else when it comes to the AGW hypothesis.

As I mentioned at the top of this thread:
"It will be interesting to see the reactions of all in this forum. I'm especially interested to see the serious comments (other than the attack, discredit and insult format from the alarmists."
It appears we have seriously re-energized the attack, discredit and insult format.
Again, instead of debating the merits of AGW or indeed the complete waste of time witnessed at Bali, alarmists seem to be intensifying their attacks to eliminate debate, discussion and alternatives! We all know that science is settled and the world is flat.
Brett: I regret that you were the latest victim of such an attack but you should be commended for your (and AW) philosophy to allow exploration of a subject which appears to be changing direction as we speak.
i.e. Bali's result; agree to meet again to discuss, negotiate and agree to explore again potential solutions that never seem to occur. Curiously, Hawaii is the new location for these "get aways" for the politicians and bureaucrats. With all the money and pollution wasted on these meetings and reports, how much COULD have been done to reduce REAL pollution and reduce our dependence of natural resources in the same time frame? (10yrs+).
The current fad is CO2 and appears to be the best bet for global wealth redistribution to the poorer and corrupt nations. The fight against real pollution and abuse of natural resources is clearly the victim and does not have the public support that it deserves. CO2 is alot easier to spin. It's invisible, natural and necessary for us to survive ........what a great scam to try to "control" our miniscule contribution of CO2 to the planet.

Steve Blooms Standard?????

Steve is attempting to push AW into becomming yet another propoganda site for AGW mythology.

Censorship is the domain of socialist totalitarian politics, not science.

Start your own blog if you don't like unbiased discussion.

Oh SB,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

"By many measures, this blog has been one of the most accurate sources of information. Compared to the constant mispredictions of Hansen, Gore and Real Climate - we dummies are batting 1.000"

Joe Bastardi called for an active hurricane season and a very warm winter. Are you calling him a dummy, Patrick?

You people who are so convinced that this whole global warming thing is a farce are truly delusional. The science is there. The earth has warmed up before due to natural fluctuations of the sun and various plant and algee blooms in combination with varying amounts of snow and ice cover in the Andies mountains as well as varying ocean salt densities. It correlates with concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's totally documented in ice cores. Read the science. We are introducing stored carbon from underground back into the system. We have overloaded the atmosphere with CO2. That's a fact. We will heat up. Look into the rearview mirror. It's all there for you to see but you're blinded by your ignorance and politics and are making a fool of yourselfs because greater minds then yours have researched the subject and are vastly ahead of your limited perception of the subject. Read "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery or "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. You need to advance your primitive understanding of how the planet operates. I'm really sorry for you. You need some guidance you poor ignorant self-centered resource wasting over fed self-righteous pathetic little humans.:) Merry Christmas.

Second Law!!!!

Whew! Good one.
Feel Better now? :)

We have overloaded the atmosphere with CO2!!!.
At 385 ppm? LOL.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

Man on the spot,

If you disagree with the BBC's ski report, please take it up with them. You are arguing with a quote from their web site.

Mark,

Anyone who predicted an active hurricane season was incorrect. That includes Gray, Bastardi and the NOAA.

second law,

I totally believe in the scientific community's global warming hysteria, and global cooling hysteria. Having lived through both I see them as being equally valid. They were less obnoxious last time around though, probably because more of them still went to church and didn't believe they had to try to play God.