The UK press have been overwhelmingly AGW proponents. It is amusing when the Hysterics go into reverse psychology.

Yes, the 'threads' have been overwhelmingly contrarian, why not, the 'consensus' has been wrong time and again even when the claimed scientific evidence is 'overwhelming'. Why should this be any different. Scientists feel that the unwashed public should, by fiat, go along with their views.

The public is not as stupid as the 'academics' would like to believe.

The term "Quality Press" is an oxymoron. The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, etc. ARE tabloids. Collectively, they are known here as the "mainstream media." Their liberal bias has been well documented and since AGW is a liberal cause you won't find much objective reporting in these rags. People are moving away from print media in favor of the internet and these former news monopolies are losing their ability to manipulate public opinion. Their circulation is down dramatically along with revenues and their influence is waning.

I find it interesting that even with the full cooperation of these liberal information moguls, AGW has not been embraced by the majority in either the UK or the USA. Now, researchers are forced to do studies on the newspapers themselves and "grade" the level of scientific accuracy which only they, in their liberal arrogance, are qualified to judge. Al Gore is launching a $300 million dollar media blitz to "sell" AGW whose "science" has been widely reported to be "settled."

It's desperation time for the climate hustlers who have failed to convince us that we are responsible for catastrophic global warming. Their irresponsible promotion of biofuels as a solution has already caused the deaths of people who were just barely surviving. Add the millions who died from their demonization of DDT and these ignorant fools have a track record only Hitler or Stalin would envy.

They even admit it's all about influencing people's perception:
"There is a really deliberately contrarian tone to threads, and though this is part of the irony and cynicism - to the extent that this influences the public understanding and perception it is detrimental," said co-author Max Boykoff.

So, it's not a search for scientific truth, it's a campaign to control public perceptions.

There is no 'scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change'. The consensus is a much the fallacy as 'humans contribute to climate change'.

See:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx
&
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704

In a democracy, it is the role of the press to report all sides of a story - not just the official government consensus. The press in the UK, Canada and Australia have done a much better job than here in the US. Unfortunately, the US press has behaved more like Pravda - refusing to even mention that another point of view exists.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong

If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.

Richard Feynman

American Newspapers are trying desperately to sell newspapers.

Stories about people walking around the block do no sell newspapers.

Weather "forecasts" that say the weather will be about what it always is this time of year do not sell newspapers.

Stories abut life in the future that will be about like it was in the recent past do not sell newspapers.

By the way, when did words like "belief", "faith", and "consensus" become part of the mathematical lexicon, or is mathematics no longer the lingua franca of science?

If it turns out that a global cooling period began in 1998 and will last at least until 2015 or until the end of the natural 30 year cooling period about 2030 then the so-called quality press are the irresponsible ones for keeping us in the dark about these 30 year warm-cold natural cycles.

Epicycles!

Of course!

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2008/04/30/global-warming-goes-ptolemaic/

I would say pretty much that all media coverage of global warming has been in support of any measures to stop the climate from negatively changing. I guess you could then argue the other side of the coin and ask if the climate changes for the positive under these same global changes. I spoke with a person who's profession is working for an environmental arm of the government about global change. He absolutely believes the climate is changing rapidly as compared to any levels he has seen in the past 20 years or so. I was able to pin him down to the last 5 years of considerable change. When I asked him to be specific he pointed to some plant life that they monitor and have seen some of these plants stressed and altering the way the plant actually looks. So I made the argument that even if that is so there are many variables why some of these plants could be changing so much. We have been in a drought for a number of years, some plants/trees that have survived and done well have perhaps become too dominant in the area thus shading other plants or even the opposite dying and leaving the plants to get too much sunlight. During a drought bug infestation can get very out of control and also end up hurting the plant/tree population. An example in our area would be the Elm that use to be prolific and now is pretty much gone from this area. I would also point to oak wilt that has severely damaged the oak population. I respect this person's POV and the agency's observation, but I am still left believing that nature will adapt perhaps with plant species that can survive the global changes we are seeing. As long as man is living, we will be negatively impacting the environment. At this point, it would seem to me that focusing on population control would be better served since the perceived root cause of most environmental problems is directly related to people and their numbers and how they may stress the planet.

wrong again you tenured eggheads, its not the Tabloids, its the truth and the science that is convincing people AGW is a hoax...people arent buying into an agenda whereby the chief spokesmen are selling flawed movies, flawed data, wont debate publicly, and base all their theory on a faulty crystal ball computer generated fairytale that time after time proves it cannot predict the future three months down the road...its not hard to understand when people look out the window and find out that what Accuweather said about tomorrow fits better than what mr AGW said...just exactly who is going to believe a politician, while sitting on a couch holding hands with someone on the other side professing their new found AGW enlightenment then the next day scream and whine that the Saudi's and the president flood the market with bad co2 expelling oil...AGW is a house of cards without any scientific Ace of Spades supporting its foundation and the public recognizes there is no scientific consensus as purported...one can only conclude the blogosphere is doing a better job presenting the facts than the AGW pontificators...good job brett and tell mr big cheese at Accuweather i said hey!...have a nice day, bros...

Well isn't that a shame. Up to date most of the half-ass AGW studies and articles have been printed in "Prestige" (whatever) sources of "news" and Journals when they should have been printed in the tabloids where they actually belong.

I can see it now on the front page of "The Sun".

Elvis caught Shagging Madonna at Neverland Ranch
Human Induced Climate Change is Real, No really it is, Seriously
GW contributes to AIDS epidemic

The taboids would be a great place to have AGW studies "Peer Reviewed". Sadly I think more would be properly rejected by the "dumb masses" than the supposed experts in the field who pass them quid pro quo.

The AGW Method

1. CO2 causes Global Warming.
2. Humans create lots of CO2.
3. Write a paper about the Effects of Global Warming.
4. See Step 1.
5. Present your paper to one of the many groups created by Gub-ment or that are Gub-ment funded that follow the AGW Method.
5a. AGW Method Group signs off on paper.
6. Paper conclusively shows CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.
7. Apply for or more Funding.
8. Repeat procedure.

What does Brittany think about GW?

Does she think?

Who cares? The AGW Method was created to be fair so everyone can contribute to saving the planet.

There is a difference? Who knew. The whole of the coverage is mostly BS -- Relying on the fact that not many understand physics and chemistry.

Just today, 'scientists say' warming will take a hike while cooling takes center stage. As with the ice age scare of the 70s, which ended when the PDO shift occurred, the current warming alarmism will end now that the PDO has swung back.

No way to hide the cold.

It appears that my dissenting view with documented support did not make it past the Censors. Another dissenting argument in the ongoing debate is squelched.

GOOD!

"Do you think the "quality press" in the U.S. has accurately represented the scientific consensus?"

I'd say they've represented the consensus of their corporate masters who just happen to not only have a strangle hold on American media but also on American energy corporations.

Do you think the "quality press" in the U.S. has accurately represented the scientific consensus? I know many will argue that there is no real scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.

I will split it up to show how in my humble, well not so humble :) opinion.

Definitions:

Scientific: systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

Consensus: majority of opinion.

Wiki definition: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time."
"Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method;"

I wonder what it is by itself? Obviously a scientist defined this :)

Wow, so it is a spacio-temporal judgment and/or opinion :) I can see why so many people are fond of it :) Teenage girls especially.

I love how it states "at a particular time" similarly to how Piltdown Man was the human missing link until 40 years later when the scientific consensus that held it so high found it was a fraud 39 years after it was discovered to be fraud by an individual :)

If one is to use science to determine whether opinion is accurate or exact, then proof can be found using the scientific method. Once the truth has been found consensus is no longer valid. Consensus was either correct or not.

After reading Wiki's definition again, AGW does not fit into Scientific Consensus anyway. It states:

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution."

Evolution is not controversial in the scientific community, AGW most certainly is. In fact, AGW is not science at all, if one cannot produce repeatable tests to show a conclusion, then it is either hearsay or fantasy.

I'm not sure that quality press exists anymore and find it humorous that a couple of folks from the "Environmental Change Institute" find very much difference between "prestige" sources and "tabloid" sources :)

“In the UK tabloid press, almost one third of this divergent coverage was attributed to the view that human contributions are negligible. Such a stance has been characterized partly
as ‘contrarian’ accounts and comments.”

So this paper is complaining that nearly 30% of the papers offer alternate and totally natural reasons why the temperatures have warmed a bit?
Oh yes that is contrarian…....different and possibly natural reasons. But, If natural how can we push an agenda involving guilt and social change as part of the "solution"?
How dare the readers get to think in 30% of the articles! It is obvious that no reader should be allowed to think independently from the authors and certainty of the IPCC.
No independent thought allowed in this great new world of AGW.
So when do the brown shirts come out, burn the books and papers of and imprison the contrarians?
Folks Please Read, Learn, Ask questions and Think for yourself. When dogma becomes more important than learning the truth, be scared…....be very scared.

Oh heavens, the press didn't all toe the party line on AGW, so they must be misinformed. This is a typical self-serving idiotic "study" that didn't give the results the authors wanted (like the Texas A & M study) so the public/press must be wrong. A waste of time and effort, since the authors went in with the "consensus" assumption and the arrogant idea that they were right. It is also an attempt to stifle dissent by accusing the press of doing exactly what the AGW censors do - simplistic. non-scientific arguments.

Perhaps the Alarmists have been too successfull. For 4-5 years the MSM, numerous research groups, PR companies, advertisers, blogs, cable channels, and think tanks have fought hard to get the most alarming new "study" or opinion on the headlines ot the market. Add to the mix such entertainments as An Inconvienent Truth, and The After Tomorrow and you have media overload. You can only predict Armageddon so many times before before people stop listening.

The air really started leaving the balloon with the publication of the 2007 IPCC SPM. It was just a tad too conservative, and it lacked the strength to serve as the final take down in public policy. But worst of all, its scenarios didn't quite jive the alarmists projections of AGW Spokesman ALGORE. ALGORE did get an Oscar and shared in the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Alarmists expectations were in the political realm and not entertainment. Since last summer, the general public yawned at new warnings concerning tipping points, melting ice caps, and disappearing winters. The Alarmists did give it a good try, but they made 2 critical mistakes: 1)They put all of thier apples in the extreme weather basket and 2)They became quite boring.

Junk Science, Drudge and Newsmax are tabloids. Those are the deniers' favorite publications.

I think most of the scamitists have done it to themselves.

How can you put faith in their predictions, when they have been so wrong on their solutions?

Anyone with any common sense knew that we were not growing any extra food.

To not even be able to predict what promoting bio-fuel would do,
shows how out of touch they really are.

But their very science demands that the rest of the world have faith in their common sense and predictions.

.

The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

The extraction process at my friendly neighborhood Uranium mine uses baking soda to leach the Uranium out of the ground. Baking soda (NaHCO3) is one of the most unstable and prolific producers of CO2. Try mixing it with vinegar.

And remember "a little nukie never hurt anyone."

ECI is an organization who's sole reason for existence and funding is to generate concern about changes in the environment. As such, they are only interested in telling the truth in clear and honest scientific terms - as can be seen in their high quality publication here -

the world could heat up by about 5C till 2100. This is roughly the natural temperature difference between an ice age and a warm stage of our planet. Thus humanity would create an unprecedented "fire age".

global sea level would rise by 30-50 meters

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/downloads/pillars-wisdom.pdf

And also, this important report about greenhouse gas emissions emitted from rock stars.

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/musicindustry.php

67-83% is pretty good for a newspaper, especially a tabloid :-)

The big problem with GW is that it is being debated in the press. Normal science is done in scientific journals with not much interest from the general press. That's much better for the science. If you follow the newspapers on which foods are healthy/unhealthy you might have an idea of what I'm getting at here.

Science is not a democracy where everyone gets to vote, no matter how ignorant they are on the issues.

Science doesn't need propaganda to distribute the "truth".

Something that could change public perception is a new study out about the possibility of cooler ocean waters and ocean currents causing global cooling the next 10 years, offsetting global warming, it could change public perception, but it will be kept away from the public as much as possible because they don't want any doubt to enter the minds that have been brainwashed.

"Steve Rowland:
The UK press have been overwhelmingly AGW proponents. It is amusing when the Hysterics go into reverse psychology."

I was just thinking the exact same thing.

The AGW proponents were applauding and quoting the press
when the press was forwarding their agenda
when the press was reporting their hysterics

Now that their pet project - bio-fuel - has turned into a disaster

All of a sudden the press is bad and it's the press that's doing damage.

Brett,

The UK tabloid press is ***t, totally celebrity driven. That said I'm surprised that the report says they were 63 - 87 % accurate in their reporting of climate change stories. That seems pretty good to me, all things considered. Does Boykoff want 100% pro IPCC coverage; probably yes from what he says.

I take the Guardian and Independent every day, except Sunday (a paper free zone) and they are generally absolutely with the IPCC, the Independent more messianically so (although its just got a new editor so things might change) Obviously I don't just read them for their views on AGW.

I haven't read the research paper and Boykoff's remarks in the Guardian article don't persuade me that there is any reason to.

funny all the agw's in this post have disappeared. Actually without AGW,..... skeptics and this site will also eventually disappear. Answer = lets keep AGW going just for fun...

It gets worse, the tabloids are bad enough, however, AGW is taught in schools in the UK as fact and not as theory.

Interestingly, the UK media is today debating the news that scientists feel we are unlikely to have warming for the next 10 years due to ocean current changes. The BBC is reporting that analysis of temperatures since 1998 is being misinterpreted by a 'minority' of scientists not supporting AGW.

I think most people worry more about their immediate, day-to-day problems, and global warming is viewed as something that may be out of one's individual control. And the impression I get is that nowadays most people consider the media as entertainment, even so-called "quality press".

On another topic but related, while I was searching through a bunch of science/math/computer books I have refuting BT's assertion that ENIAC was used during the Manhattan Project before the bomb was dropped, I came across the following quote regarding John Von Neumann, who contributed towards the theory of electronic computers and automata, was associated with the MANIAC, JONIAC, and ENIAC; game theory, proposal of the implosion method for bringing nuclear fuel to explosion (during WWII) and his espousal of the development of the hydrogen bomb after the war.

QUOTE:
*One of the most striking ideas whose study he (John Von Neumann)suggested was to DYE THE POLAR ICECAPS so as to decrease the amount of energy they would reflect--the result could warm the earth enough to make the climate of Iceland approximate that of Hawaii.*

From *The Legend of John von Neumann*, by Paul Richard Halmos, one time John von Neumann's assistant.

Good thing old John didn't get to carry out his study of dying the polar icecaps.

The following example is why I and others in the scientific community feel that the material presented on the ICECAP.US web site lacks all credibility.

I am attaching a summary of a report discussed on the ICECAP.US web site on April 30:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/evidence-towsey.pdf

The quotes below comes directly from their summary discusion:

"The following data does not fit the assumption that human activities result in global
warming. It follows then that the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 causes global
warming is fundamentally flawed.
� Ice core data shows that there have been repeated heating and cooling events on
the earth long before human activity was significant. Global warming is a
naturally occurring event. Attempting to interfere in this process may have
unpredictable consequences
� The Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 while fossil fuel consumption rose
dramatically. The Earth should have warmed if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
consumption is a cause of global warming. The theory does not fit the data.
� Ignoring data that does not fit a theory is poor science. Only one inconsistent piece
of data is necessary to negate a theory.
� Reducing CO2 emissions and introducing carbon trading will not prevent global
warming, but will make energy dramatically more expensive to the consumer."

I have several comments about this report and associated graphs.

The key graph emphasized on the ICECAP site is attached below:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg

The authors of this report first conclude that ice core samples provide a record of periodic heating and cooling events outside of any human influence. Then somewhere along the line they assume that the recent global warming has totally eliminated these earlier natural temperature variances when they discuss the chart.

They can't have it both ways. If you say there are natural temperature variances, then you cant; expect the temperature curves to move in a straight line. I don't think global warming has ever been stated as totally eliminating the natural variances. I for one belive they are working together in a combined fashion. But I am sure that is what they want you to believe just to make their preconceived conclusions work out.

They also appear to concentrate on the short-term decadal temperature events while totaly ignoring the overall relationship of increasing fuel consumption and temperature increase over the entire 140-year record. If you average out the peaks and valleys by using longer averaging times (say 20-30 years), the two curves would seem to me to match pretty well.

The next thing I wish to note is the fact that the temperatures in that chart show current temperatures are much higher now then they were in the 1930's. What happened to all of their previous research and adjusted charts that showed the 1930's were warmer? This has been my biggest criticism from the information presented on their site. Their messages always have inconsistencies and their conclusions change based on what particular message they want to convey at any given moment. It would be nice if all of their separate conculsions match each other.

Their definiton of poor science should apply to them especially if there messages contradict each other. By their own definition any inconsistencies in the data negates the overall theory. The pieces from various reports showing different data sources just don't fit together to make a consensus point of conclusion. They just throw all of these reports together without showing how they all fit together and many times the data from one report contradicts another.

In regards to their last comment about the carbon trading causing higher prices for the consumer. Below is more direct quote directly from their report:

"Trading of carbon credits is being pushed by the investment community as a new investment product from which they can make moneyfor nothing. It’s the best thing since public company shares (now with no authorized capital limit) were invented. A share is an ephemeral nothing, but can be sold for a dollar value. They are both mechanisms for creating money from nothing."

I thought all free market investment and capitalism in the investment community is supposed to be good for us and create a mechanism for prices to come down? Won't that conclusion resulting rising prices upset those conservatives capitalist in the skeptic world? Especially the ones that donate to their site.

I copied the following from the wunderground.com hurrican blog site:

"Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University, as usual, generated the most laughter. He commented that he had been to all 28 of these AMS hurricane conferences, with the exception of the first (he was in grad school) and the fourth, when he was in Tokyo. Dr. Gray presented an educational talk, emphasizing the role of natural decades-long cycles in the salinity changes in the Atlantic as being the primary driver of observed increases in Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years. He showed that during 1945-1969 (25 years), during a period the globe was cooling slightly, there were three times as many intense hurricanes in the Atlantic compared to the 25 year period 1970-1994--a period the globe warmed significantly. His tongue-in-cheek conclusion: "CO2 gets into these storms and squashes them!" Extending this result to landfalling U.S. hurricanes, one could claim that we should expect zero landfalling U.S. hurricanes by 2050. Dr. Gray cautioned that this ridiculous result showed that one can manipulate statistics to show virtually any result you want."

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2008/gray2008.jpg

Figure 1. Tounge-in-cheek misuse of statistics by Bill Gray to show that the historical record of U.S. landfalling hurricanes predicts zero landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. by 2050 as a result of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Despite the musings by Dr. Gray, similar plots of supposed data correlations and extrapolated conclusions like this are typically portayed on the ICECAP.US web site and are passed along as "scientific" data for digestion by the general public.

Before you jump to conclusions, Dr. Gray is listed as one of the many "experts" on the ICECAP.US site. He is also the ones I hear many critcize for his fairly inaccurate huuricane forecasts (based on statistics alone) that you read about or see on TV every year. So this "expert" on ICECAP.US muses about another statistically incorrect data correlation between CO2 and the number of landfalling hurricanes.

He says it best himself: "...that this ridiculous result showed that one can manipulate statistics to show virtually any result you want." I couldn't say it any better for the same type of material on see on ICECAP.US.

"Junk Science, Drudge and Newsmax are tabloids. Those are the deniers' favorite publications."

I would fall into your denier category but I do not read the above. Once again Mark, you try to paint all people that disagree with you with the same brush. People are individuals with a unique personal journey that periodically come to the same conclusion.

If people were not near starvation because of the extremo-eco dummies advocation of the twin Satan's of catastropnic warming and fossil fuel use, it would be funny.

Now that global warming has been shown to be part of the natural variability of the climate system, they don't know what to do. So, the press blames it on their brothers and sisters in the tabliod media, which the Brits apparently invented.

The global warming market has seen its bubble, just like stock market bubbles. The psychology is the same. People see a bandwagon, and jump on without rational observations, and ride that bubble until it bursts.

Now comes the panic. They will blame everything and everybody, but, will still insist on their irrational dogma of AGW.

They could have predicted Brittany Spear moves more accurately than the climate.

Have fun, ya'll, letting the world know that we are now in a global cooling phase. It's not going to be pretty.

I want to thank Steven Pasek for bringing this report to my attention in his posting earlier today in the Arctic Sea Ice thread(?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm

In that report, a number of things appeared to agree with my a lot of my ideas that I suggested in my earlier postings:

1) A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming. However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

2) The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe. The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years. It may partly explain why temperatures rose in the early years of the last century before beginning to cool in the 1940s.

3) The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon. "We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature. "We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

I know a number of you constantly question the results from any climate prediction models and you may well question these predictions.

I was able to come up with similar predictions that are presented in this report just by looking at the 120-year temeperature records and come up with the 60-year temperature variations and concluded that we are in a naturally cooling trend for the next 5-10 years countered by the warming effects of the greenhouse gases. Then a naturally warming trend from 2020 to 2050 will tend to be enhanced by those ever increasing greenhouse gases (including methane).

The overall effect of superimposing the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions on top of these natural 60-year temperature cycles results in the continuation of the upward bias to the naturally varying temperatures. My earlier predictions seem to agree surprisingly well with the model predictions used in this report.

I feel somewhat vindicated that at least my own independent research was verified by other, more detailed model prediction systems. Simply following the party line (that goes for both sides) where you basically blindly follow and regurgitate the latest sound bytes cannot replace what your own research can discover just by looking at the bigger picture.

Of course only time will tell if these predictions are verified, but we should get the first if indication if as, I suspect, the average temperatures between now and 2020 remain above the last warm period of the 1930's.

From one of the UK's most respected newspapers.

Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/catherineelsworth/may2008/sue_al_gore_campaign.htm

An excellent piece from a UK tabloid today.

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Dennis Hlinka,

They are only now including the AMO in their models? How about the PDO?

The following might seem an obvious question: "How much of our current warming is due to us being in warm phases of the PDO and AMO?"

Now, just for the fun of it, I invite you to look back through the archives of this site to the period around January 2007, (which was a warm peak in global temperatures,) and reread the responses people got, when they asked this obvious question. Also check out the archives of Realclimate.

I think that you will find that even the most innocent inquiries about the contributions of the AMO and PDO to global warming gained people derisive scorn.

Now turn your attention to the statement you quoted, "The projection (that the AMO has influence) does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."

How did the public "become used to the idea?" Why didn't climate scientists mention there might be a ten-year-delay in Global Warming, back in January, 2007? Why didn't they insist the IPCC graph include a "temporary" halt to warming? Why were they so silent about the AMO?

To even mention the AMO in January 2007 made you a "denier." You were called an "arm-waving crack-pot like Dr. Bill Gray," even if you were merely curious, and asking an innocent question.

The climate scientists, in charge of educating the public, were utterly silent. Only now do they state, "Oh, well, we knew about the AMO all along."

I suppose late is better than never, but for those of us who experienced the grinder of derisive scorn and of being labeled a "denier," admitting the effects of the AMO comes a bit late. Where were their voices, when their voices were needed?

In any case, I highly recommend taking a vacation from the present, every now and then, and searching the achieves. Of particular interest are the archives of Climateaudit, where you can go way back to when they were pretty much a lone voice in a wilderness. What I think you will discover is that the facts remain facts, but the politics are brutal and swing wildly. It will give you a better idea why some skeptics have attitudes which are cynical, sardonic, sarcastic, or, in the case of Dr. Bill Gray, "tongue in cheek."

Dennis Hlinka:
The study you reference fixates on the AMO, while there are other natural variables that effect global temperature. The AMO might have peaked two years ago, which is why there is concern it will begin to allow NH and global temperatures to decrease, hence the paper. If you were to click on the following link to RealClimate, you'll discover that the AMO was a major contributor to elevated temperatures over the past 30 years. What RealClimate fails to mention is the cyclic nature of the AMO will also help lower temperatures.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=38

That paper also says the equatorial Pacific should remain relatively constant, a claim which is contradicted by a recent NASA press release about the PDO.

Over the past 30 years, in addition to the AMO, the PDO, TSI, and the frequency and amplitude of El Ninos (versus La Ninas) have all contributed to global warming. Right now, all indications are they're all changing or have changed direction, and global temperatures will drop.

CO2 does not drive climate.

"The authors of this report first conclude that ice core samples provide a record of periodic heating and cooling events outside of any human influence. Then somewhere along the line they assume that the recent global warming has totally eliminated these earlier natural temperature variances when they discuss the chart."

The preceding quote is an example of failure of the 'scientific community' to avoid editorializing while they are making a point.

Here Mr. Hlinka fails to show how anything at his links actually meets his assessment so eager is he to express his opinion.

How can I respect one's expertise in a specialty when one fails even to present your evidence?

OK. I give up.

To what does the term "quality press" refer?

And what evidence exists to support the contention that Britney is capable of thought?

Larry-

Regarding Britney: I take Descarte's statement of "I think, therefore I am" and reverse it. As unfortunate as it is, Britney "exists". Therefore one could conclude she must think. If she didn't think, she wouldn't exist. Reminds me of an entertaining joke I heard once.

Descartes walks into a bar and sits down at the counter. The waitress acts what he'd like to eat so he says "I'll have a hotdog and a beer". She asks if he'd like onions on the hotdog and he replies "I don't think..." and he dissapeared.

Made me laugh anyway. Sure it's lousy logic, but I guess it's evidence that Britney is capable of thought.

Regards, Elliot

Quality Press? Didn't that go way of the Dodo Bird when they made Brenda Starr an editor ? Last I knew the Quality Press is in the Entertainment business now. Always some new impending disaster to hype.

To Caleb, Bob Tisdale, and Gary Gulrud,

I had time to think of a better way to explain my points regarding the comparison of the natural temperature variations due to PDO, AMO, TSI, etc. to things like fuel consumption and corresponding CO2 emissions. So let me try this approach.

The plot I copied from the ICECAP.US web site is again provided below:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg

Let's now assume that instead of the fuel consumption curve in that plot, let's replace it with a curve that represents the increase in worldwide population during the same period of time.

Using that assumption, I now refer you to the document directly from the ICECAP.US web site about the Urban Heat Island:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf

the following quote comes directlyu from that urban heat island report:
"Oke (1973) finds evidence that the UHI (in oC) increases according to the formula:
UHI = 0.73* Log10 * (pop)

where pop denotes population. This means that a village with a population of 10 has a warm bias of 0.73 oC, a village with 100 has a warm bias of 1.46 oC, a town with a population of 1000 people has a warm bias of 2.2 oC, and a large city with a million people has a warm bias of 4.4 oC (Oke, 1973)."

Based on this summary document, there appears to be a direct relationship with population increase and temperature increase over the long-term.

Again if the exponential curve of population increase was used in that other comparison plot instead of fuel consumption, the correllations again would also not be very good. The rather smooth curve of population increase would not match the obvious highly variable temperature plot and these correlations would be very low. This would be because population increase has no relation to the natural vartiance of PDO, AMO, and TSI. DUH!

The authors in the report that discuss the comparison chart would again conclude that because the correlation is bad that you would have to conclude the relationship of temperatures and population is invalidated. Of course we know that is not true and it also contradicts ICECAP.US's earlier conclusion for urban heat islands and popultation. So what are you to believe?

My assumption is that the authors try to convince you that since the fuel consumption, and corresponding CO2 emissions, are on a relatively smooth curve the the temperatures are not then the relationship has no basis in reality. But they somehow ignore the long-term upward trends of both lines, which appear to match pretty well just like the same temperatrue plot and population increase.

I provided an example to you that the same relationship applies to the population curve, yet they don't seem to bring that up because that would negate their other assumptions of urban heat island effects. There are just too many contradictions in their arguments to make them credible.

Are they trying to say that fuel consumption and population increase must have a relationship with PDO, AMO, or TSI in order to be a reliable predictor? That wouldn't pass the laugh test. My opinion, therefore is that they are trying have you assume that global warming is miraculaously eliminating the natural temperature variation, which we know is not true.

So you have to question what ICECAP.US's true motives are when they present this type of contradictory information. In other words, temperature increase matches with population icnrease (disregarding the bad correllations) but doesn't match with fuel cosumption (also with the same bad correllations). My guess is those "experts" have a certain agenda that is to present a series of data correlations that don't match so the general public remains confused about whether or not the consensus of scientists are right or wrong. I think those at ICECAP.US need to explain why the data they present has too many contradictions.

That is why I feel that the natural 60-year temperature variation, due to the combination of PDO, AMO, and TSI is being effected by the fuel consumption (CO2 emissions), an increase in methane emissions from the melting tundra, and population increase, and other human conributions to create an upward bias of that natural temperature variance curve.

Brett, Larry has it pegged, 'The Guardian' is a tabloid if ever there was.

Dennis,
I think you are trying to complicate things a bit too much. First of all, the sun's insolation is what heats the ocean surface, not the atmosphere above it. This is one of my biggest critiques of theories that say GHGs will overtime result in higher SSTs. The understanding of what drives the teleconnections like the AMO and PDO are very, very limited. Yes, there are plenty of speculative theories out there. Everything from solar cycles to GHG concentrations have been thrown into the arena of speculation. The fact remains that not one person or organization can predict the intensities or life cycles of ENSO, the PDO,or AMO with any degree of precision.

Also, ICECAP is just a clearing house for views skeptical of AGW. Like Real Climate, they just present opposing views. Unlike Real Climate they have no pretensions of knowing it all. You can take or leave what they present.

One last thing about the UHI. NASA and NOAA use night time low satellites to determine if a site is rural or urban. How often they update thier data I don't know. But this method has obvious failings -namely a rural site could be surrounded by a concrete parking lot and an air conditioning exhaust. NOAA, NASA and HadCrut all apply a very small UHI adjustment to thier data, when its obvious that many stations readings are quite useless from a climate point of view. Fortunately, NOAA is attempting to fix this. See Anthony Watts blog concerning future NOAA plans to fix these deficiencies. Perhaps Brett will Blog on it soon.

More horse manure from the Guardian -

Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange

The article says that it is due to "warm water" off Florida. No doubt the attack in San Diego last week was also due to the La Nina induced "warm" water.

Apparently the Guardian staff needs to teach the sharks how to read thermometers - because they don't seem to understand that the water temperatures are running below normal in both Florida and California. Stupid sharks. If only they read the Guardian more dilligently.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

An extermely well written piece from the UK Telegraph

Watch the web for climate change truths

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

Hey, Dennis, get out of the water!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange

taxonomy of newspapers:
* papers for people who think
* papers for people who believe
* papers for people who want to be entertained

how to tell them apart:
* investigative journalism, try to get to the bottom of things. let you form your own opinion.
* present to make your opinion match theirs
* they make it up

Which newspapers have done a good job covering GW?

Dennis Hlinka,

Are you aware of any tests/experiments that have been conducted to show how and how much CO2 has contributed to GW?

One issue that I find with most AGW advocates is they so often use hearsay or conjecture as evidence of CO2's role in GW.

How about using a repeatable test instead? There can be no controversy then. The test will either show evidence for or against AGW because of CO2.

Wait a second! Shouldn't AGW advocates be providing these tests and experiments to skeptics for repeating?

Is there such a thing as "The AGW Theory" or are we just debating a moving target? If there is, can anyone provide it's hypothesis? Again, how about some tests and their results? Have any formal conclusions been drawn?

Amazing how a settled science has so little science to fall back on, if any.

Regards,

Steve