The National Post did a very good job of discussing some of the most credentialed skeptics.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-

Reply: Thanks for the link PH.

David Evans, Ph.D. understands the controversy over global warming better than most. As a scientist working for the Australian Greenhouse Office, he developed the carbon accounting model that measures Australia�s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

�When I started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good,� Evans wrote in an article on the New Zealand Center for Political Research Web site. �The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?

�Soon government and the scientific community were working together, and lots of science research jobs were created,� Evans wrote. �We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful. It was great. We were working to save the planet!�

Evans continued, �But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon plays only a minor role and is not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, �When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?��

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article.html?articleid=23926

We finally see a picture of Kipp.

All this talk about alarmist skeptics etc... why isn't specific risk analysis been done in a transparent way.

This is all about probabilities and cost/risk/benefit. (Why is Vancouver proposing a multi-billion airport expansion on a flood plain when we know sea levels are rising and seriously suspect that that is going to accelerate mucho!)

Right now the insurance industry is sitting up and taking notice of what might(probably) be round the corner.

No one is saying anything is a 100% certain
(who knows may be we will reach the inter-glacier tipping point and start heading back into an ice in the next 50yrs?)

Its just that if there is a 5% probability that we are going to get say 4 - 8ft sea level rise in the next 100yrs then we really aught to try to see if we can do something to mitigate this as the cost if we don't will be much more.

Why is the debate so polarize - (no global warming yes global warming) its all about risk vs benefit.

I got the impression from the Greenfyre blog that there are basically very few real skeptics when it comes to AGW, only AGW deniers, and even the few skeptics are probably deniers. To me, whether you call a person a skeptic or a denier or a pink pussy cat, I am not too sure that would cause a person to change his/her mind about AGW or manmade climate change. I dont think anyone on this website has changed his/her mind and they have been called some doozies. So I am not too sure what the Greenfyre blog is hoping to accomplish by classifying scientists as believers or deniers. Is he hoping to drum up enough support from the real scientific community to somehow *silence* them or send them to Dr. Moreaus island or something?

I think a denier *scientist* (he does not seem to think they are real scientists either) would probably want to see specific verifiable evidence of what percentage is caused by man and what percentage is caused by nature. By the way, what is the percentage of climate change caused by man? Is it 100% or is it less, scientists do know dont they, I cant remember seeing the exact percentage.

Anyway, as long as we know the exact percentage of climate change caused by man, should not we be concentrating on finding solutions to totally eliminate mans impact on the climate? I have asked before, but is there a global organization or group or big kahuna that is keeping track of all the solutions that have been proposed (I know we have seen a lot on this web site) and analyzing and deciding which ones should be put in place and when and in what order and all the ramifications and unintended consequences, etc.

Lindzen gets treated like a crackpot because he says stuff like this:

"If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

See this page for the details.

A climate scientist has some further comments about Lindzen, and may be willing to answer some questions.

Well, well, well, you could not find a more recent article than LINDZEN, Wednesday, April 12, 2006? Please allow me to assist you with "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" LINDZEN September 27, 2008.

Abstract
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of �carrots and sticks� whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

Mr Anderson, you do yourself no favours by being deliberately obtuse and economical with the truth in your assertions that what little beneficial warmings this planet had during the 1980s and 1990s were down to human causes. You may as well accept that you are wrong, apologise to your readers and hope against hell you hang on to your job.

Reply: When did I personally assert that? You are making stuff up about me. But, I will thank you for the more updated info. from Lindzen

Whilst you have the time, please read all 36 pages of LINDZEN's work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mark B:
We finally see a picture of Kipp.

(Austin Powers voice): Behave!

i suppose for the handfull of denialist scientists left.all that can be said is.never have so many, reason to be thankfull to so few.

Mr. Anderson you should encourage your fellow weatherpersons and all climate scientists to have an open mind regarding the causes of global warming (and cooling).

I, an atomic and molecular physicist, do not see the connection between increasing CO2 levels and the catastrophic climate changes postulated by some since I believe all of the climate models have positive feedback mechanisms that are highly suspect and unproven. It is the belief in these feedback mechanisms that is religion and not science. It would be far more useful to investigate these feedback mechanisms through scientific research than to argue them in church as theology.

Furthermore, the "alarmists" appear unwilling to accept any other cause for climate change than increasing CO2 levels. When presented with any form of sound scientific research that questions this correlation, the scientist is immediately attacked as a "denier."

It would be far more useful to accept that any physical mechanism can affect climate, and then set how to determine "how much?"

In my opinion, further increases in CO2 levels will have a minimal impact on the Earth's climate. The "greenhouse contribution" due to CO2 is already realized and additional CO2 molecules will have negligible effect.

Furthermore, the media seems to have taken sides in what should be a scientific debate and is the root cause for hysteria. The media doesn't have the scientific credentials to referee the debate. The media unfairly provides a platform to all forms of hysteria and interjects its bias into almost every news story.

Brett, the National Post link seems broken above

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

Come on Pericles, lighten up. Your negative paragraph towards Brett Anderson was completely off base. He is one of the best moderators and tries to present interesting stuff and he pretty much keeps his personal opinion to himself. There was really no need to write a paragraph like that, just present your info and your opinion on the info, that is all we need. Thanks.

global warming alarmists use intimidation to silence the dissenting scientists.

REPLY: No really??? Why...Why...Why..I thought the alarmists were all caring and compassionate and open minded to other viewpoints. I thought they were the ones who wanted to save the earth for ALL of mankind. I thought they were the kind, generous, but peace and harmony and a toke or two. LOL! I love exposing these frauds for what they are!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Any site like this "(ill)Logical Science" that uses any quote from the fraud or sloppy science of Hockey Stick creator Michael Mann is totally untrustworthy to make any statements of fact but Bloom will continue to cite this crap as the Earth continues to cool.

Mark b. If thats your best shot it's pretty lame.
Why not tell me why AGW is false. BRETT would never let the AGW realists post like that? You can stall, and you can hide, but you are dead wrong. KIPP

Reply: No. I always follow mark with a comment too!

Patrick:Is this real science?
"Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2.
Isn't it a fact that the Troposphere has caused the stratosphere to become colder, and the extra warming has been building, pushing back into the stratosphere. The only feedback would come from within the troposphere not outside of it.KIPP

I checked out Greenfyre's links to his deniers myths etc on the right that he goes on and on about. On the page on McKitrick and McIntyre and Manns hockey stick the name Edward Wegman doesn't even appear. So much for refuting a myth!

Brett, When was your survey? If it is over, say, a year or so and if it isn't too much trouble, how about conducting another? It would be interesting to see if one side or the other is gaining traction on this blog or if we're all just venting our views without effect. Not that there's anything wrong with that....Thanks, Mark

Reply: OK, maybe I will do another one beofre the year is up.

Pericles: Dear Sir; I have been blogging on this sight now for about a year. Although I am not a skeptic, I think that your intended warning is moronic. Mr. Anderson has never made any assertions as long as I have been here, and your cheap threat, speaks more about you then Mr. Anderson. As long as this is a free country, the influence you have is simple. One man,one vote. So if you wish to talk of fairness, at least be honest. Your title only proves, that your ego is so much larger than the brains residing therein.
Good Luck,KIPP

wow.heavy stuff from pericles.intimidating to say the least.keep up the good stuff Brett.any reaction is a good reaction.

And now for something completely different. Consensus Watch.

"Now, yes, you could argue that Galileo happened to be, in the strictest technical sense of the word, "correct," regarding the motions of the planets, but that's not really the point. The point is that we need a similar enforcement mechanism to get Richard Lindzen to sign something like this:"

"I, Richard Lindzen, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Fourth Assessment Report, "Climate Change 2007," swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by Al Gore's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ......."

http://planetmoron.typepad.com/planet_moron/2008/10/consensus-watch-10092008.html

Steve Bloom:
Thanks for your heads up about Dr. Lindzen. I found this article from your reference.Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature.
The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."
Despite Lindzen's acknowledgment that the planet is warming, most of his writing in the media and for various think tanks is spun to imply a far more fundamental disagreement within the scientific community. His most recent Wall Street Journal editorial, for example, includes admissions that the Earth has warmed over the last century, that humans are influencing the climate, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its levels continue to rise. The editorial's title was, "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming."
"If you parse his statements carefully, you find that he only very rarely strays across the line into scientific nonsense," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler for NASA and contributor to the blog Real Climate. "People read him and say, 'Oh, there's no consensus on global warming.' But, if you actually read what he says, he signs on to 90% of what everybody else is saying."
KIPP

paulm, I haven't seen one formally done yet. One of the closest I've seen was the gentleman who followed Al Gore in testifying before Congress. He accepted AGW scenarios, but then pointed out how for a fraction of the money much greater measures could be taken to save lives and improve the quality of life worldwide more that the most draconian AGW measures (if you could get the entire world in line) could ever do. Without wrecking economies, violations of human rights and increasing bureaucratic budgets.

Steve Bloom, Care to explain why that paragraph you quoted is crackpot material? Or did you just do a cut 'n' paste from somewhere?

Oh well, Hansen has been debunked, but your first link uses Hansen's graphs to attack Lindzen. Whoo-hoo. As for your second, that one was interesting:

First, if I used the criteria of the antidenier in the opening post, your "climate scientist" wouldn't be a "real climate scientist", at least if he was a "denier".

I completely disagree: Numerical solution of complex equations is simply the logical way forward once your basic theory is known (which is the case in atmospheric and ocean dynamics) but you want actual solutions of the equations.

True, but is the basic theory known? Way too many failed predictions for AGW (or ACC now that the cooling phase is on) to consider basic theory to be "known".

The reason that modeling has become so large is simply that ever better computers have made this possible, a tool that was not available to scientists in the good old times conjured by Lindzen. An example of the power of numerical modeling is weather prediction, where models using the same core physics as climate models have achieved tremendous progress.

How old is this guy? When did he thinks computers and modeling came out? There has been plenty of computing power to do this kind of work for over 25 years (actually over 30-40, but who cares?). The biggest difference is that any fool with a computer can hack away and do all kinds of test runs with powerful models instead of being limited to a few test runs that had been laboriously hand checked before they were allowed to be run.

It was over 25 years ago a PhD economist showed me the graphs of how the economy works. It tracked in the past real well, but was inaccurate when used as a predictive tool. Huh? Just how can that be?

Well, some of the figures you need to plug into the equation are variables when they are relevant and it is not until later the actual values are able to be determined. Too much chaos. Compared to the climate models, economics is a trivial subject.

Just remind yourself of how the tracks of this year's hurricanes have been predicted accurately many days in advance. This would not have been possible by theory alone, without numerically solving the equations.

So, how accurate where those tracks? More accurate than in the past? Yeah. So? They can still be off. For your assignment, why don't you go day by day and see how much accumulated error you get on hurricane positions.