"Only those invited could participate..."
That restriction not only demolishes the validity of the poll but also reveals the blatantly obvious imtent of the pollsters to arrive at a predetermined result. So much for science by consensus.

What is meant by a "significant factor" is open to wide interpretation, and intentionally so. Maybe one scientists thinks a 5% contribution is "significant," while another thinks a 50% contribution is "significant." How do you "AGREE" with a QUESTION? You either answer "yes" or "no," you don't "agree" or "disagree." The emphasis on "agreement" is evidence of the transparent attempt to indicate something beyond simplistic answers to relatively meaningless questions. Notice how only two innocuously worded questions were discussed, and the notable lack of the real question, i.e.,

"Will the human contribution to changes in Earth's temperature result in catastrophic changes to Earth's climate?"

What were the other seven questions?! What were the responses to them?! The question above was either not asked or the answer was conveniently left out of the press releases, since the answer likely supports the opposite "consensus" from the one they are attempting to fabricate.

The "only by invitation" also allows cherry-picking of who gets to participate, which may skew the results (intentionally, I suspect). I expect that those they selected to "invite" were those who they figured would give them the answer they wanted.

The message is more like "The more you are indoctrinated under the current hostile, pseudo-religious environment within the field of so-called "climate science," the more you're likely to knuckle under to the politically correct thinking regarding global warming and humankind's contribution to it." This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to silence dissent by manufacturing scientific "consensus," which would be meaningless even if it actually existed.

Brett,

Thanks for providing more proof of the large 97% consensus of actual climatologist (the scientists that actually study climate for a living) that are in agreement about AGW. It's not a 100% consensus, but I don't think a 100% of the skeptics believe in everything some of their fellow skeptics are saying either.

The lower percentage of meteorologists who agree with AGW and have based their lives on short-term weather forecasting skills and obtained the necessary minimal education on actual long-term climatic factors is also not surprising. John Coleman and Joe D'Aleo are prime examples of this, including some nameless meteorologists right there at Accu-Weather. I even have to admit my meteorological background fits that category as well, but I tend to fall in the 64% category after applying my climatological skills that I obtained from my years in college and my own independent (unfunded) research. In other words, I don't depend on someone or some organization to sign my checks in order for me to come up with my opinion regarding AGW.

In regards to the lower percentage of petroleum geologists that don't agree with AGW, I wonder if that has anything to do with the companies they work for? In fact I am even surprised that the 47% number is as high as it is.

You don't need to be a climate scientist to see that we have not had cooling for more than a decade and that there is no direct scientific support for the claim that man's CO2 emissions have been the primary driver of the temperature increase since the end of the Little Ice Age. And you certainly don't need to be a climate scientist to understand when you take the end of a period that has the words 'ice age' in its name as a starting point for measurements you are going to see a rising temperature trend.

The bottom line is that the evidence for CO2 as a driver is not there no matter how many billions climate scientists and AGW promoters get to try and prove a connection. When you have last year's average temperatures sitting on the 110 year mean it is very difficult to even talk about warming in the first place. And when you can't explain why we observed several long cooling trends in the last century even as CO2 emissions were rising and the AGW promoters have to make up excuses about predictions made by their models have significantly overestimated the actual temperatures or why the signature that was predicted and noted in the IPCC report has not been evident in the satellite data the entire notion of legitimate scientific debate gets exposed for the political exercise that it is.

What we need and what you should be calling for is an independent scientific assessment that goes through the evidence and exposes it for all to see for what it is. Let us look at the proxy reconstruction methodology. Let us look at the algorithms and see how they adjust for the UHI effect. Let us do a quality audit of the temperature stations and see how they are categorized when the standards are applied. Let us look at the effect of the 1992 removal of USSR stations on the reported temperature averages. Let us look at the ARGOS data and see what it is telling us about sea temperatures and the satellite data and see what that tells us about the atmospheric temperatures conditions. And let us examine the link between the PDO and surface records and the effect of solar activity on temperatures before we say that the debate is settled.

But somehow I doubt that an independent review will be permitted or that we will get off the AGW bandwagon unless we go through some more very cold winters that even the frauds at the NOAA and NASA can't adjust away.

This survey reminds me of that question about "how do you feel about the direction of the country?" that the media uses to make up news.

Better questions:

1. How much does significant factor actually mean? Does that mean 10%, 25%, 50%, 90% or 100%?

2. How has human activity affected climate change?

You see, just because the scientists surveyed believe human activity is a significant factor that doesn't mean they believe CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions are the cause.

They may think land use changes are the primary human activity that causes climate changes. They may believe it's "black carbon" or something else.

I sincerely hope there was more to the survey than the linked article reveals. Otherwise, this is just more junk science.

Climatologists may also feel more pressure to support the link between human activity and global warming, since disagreement may negatively impact their careers. Those outside climatology are less likely to feel this career pressure and may be MORE objective.

New Japanese satellite to measure greenhouse gases: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=advYAobrbTL0&refer=science

Here is a fun one. New cause discovered for warming in Europe and Eastern Europe: cleaner air.

I assume that we will need to bring back the air pollution to maintain temperature stability.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&refer=science&sid=ahQ2SOJRxYTI

How much is significant? Of that significant amount, how much is GHG and how much is land use changes? Is the increase catastrophic?
If they asked these questions, they probably would not have liked the result of the survey as much.
I also note that fewer than a third of those polled responded.

The question about the Inhofe 650 report is not just how many of the scientists actually know that they are on that list, but also how many agree on being mentioned in it.

Reply: I can see that.

I'm from Belgium, and i found that Belgian climatologists Luc Debontridder has been quote-mined, Belgian "scientist" Ferdinand Engelbeen actually isn't a scientist but a retired technician, found that Dutch "expert" Hans Labohm is dishonest because he's DELIBERATELY presenting misleading facts, etc.

The inhofe 650 does not just contains a few errors, but is fundamentally and DELIBERATELY flawed.

Excellent post.
I realize its a survey of opinions and not data, but at least it offers clarification to the comments I frequently read about "700 scientists do not support global warming" and who they are exactly.

As well documented in this blog, the more liberally minded a person is (no matter their education acheivement) the more libel they are to buy into a philosophy that denegrates human economic development. In essence, do you notice that the scientists tend to rip into "wealthy" countries at the expense of the remainder of the world?

Regarding climatologists believing in human induced changes to the climate, it seems to me that they HAVE to buy into that to maintain some sense of significance in today's "important issues climate". Otherwise, exactly what purpose does a climatologist serve in life? Sure they can provide some historical perspective on the environment but really, what's the point? Besides, really, how long has climatology been a part of higher education?

They are no more signficant than an archaeologist is to modern life. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy learning of past societies and their architectural prowess, but there is nothing that assists the progress of society based upon architectural studies.

It occurs to me that if someone either is told something or states it often enough, they will end up believing it. As evidence, look no further than yesterday's change of power.

I'll have to wait until I receive the issue of EOS in question, but I am curious as if only petroleum geologists were sent the questionnaire or was this a misconception on the author's part.

Being a geologist, myself, I can understand why geologists are the most skeptical. Geologists are very familiar with historical climate as they have to reconstruct paleo-environments on a regular basis. They realize that there are fluctuations in climate and that there is no such thing as a static or optimum climate.

Climatologists, on the other hand, are pretty much consumed with the last 150 years and really don't look past that unless forced to do so.

I'll reserve judgment on the article when I get a chance to review it in more detail.

Brett: Are there actual degrees in climatology offered at universities? Are there 4-8 yr programs that take a system-of-systems approach to understanding climate, or do people with degrees in meteorology, astrophysics, geology, chemistry, phrenology, etc., decide to focus on climatology either late in their post-graduate work in a singular related discipline or as a career after their education is complete?

Thanks, Mark

Interesting

3% of the climate scientists responding believe that human activity is not a significant factor in climate change.

No more soup (AGL research funding) for them!

That's the exact same percent of lemmings that don't go over the cliff each year.

EurekAlert! is a public service project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and is administered within the Office of Public Programs.

Hmmmmmmmmmm should we expect anything different from a controlled agency?

The alarmists seem to be really digging in their heels lately as more and more opposing views are being reported by more types of media.

Follow the money!

The two questions are so general and basically inane. How a state institution could fund nonsense is mindboggling.
It’s kind of like asking 2,000 clergyman, 1,000 daily church goers and 500 weekly church attendees if there is a God who watches over us.
I would suspect that there would be a general consensus in the affirmative with the number of positive responses decreasing as the amount of time in church decreases.

In all fairness, religion needs no proof nor should it, just belief. A real science field needs proof before belief.
The fact that there is little debate amongst these climate experts, just highlights that their belief in a subject is more important than gathering verifiable scientific proof. Those in this field of Climate studies continue to push belief instead of proof, thus proving this field more of a religion than science!

If Doran and Zimmerman asked my question to the above mentioned 3,500 folks, they could easily rewrite the last paragraph of their study for the new study. All the need to do is substitute the word God instead of Global warming. It would come out like this.
"...conclude that the debate on the authenticity of the existence of God and the role played by God’s activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and religious basis of the long-term deity worship processes. The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this absolute consensus of God to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among the religious."
Doesn't anybody see the sheer absurdity of this?
If pray we can get AGW recognized as a religion. Once we did we could use the "separation of church and state" to prevent the huge waste of taxpayers dollars going down this rat hole.
....and the insanity continues...

Why couldn't they scrutinize the term significant? So much for scientific, ehh?

Significant - adj. 1. Having meaning. 2. Having a major effect.

Ok, fine. So the majority of 100 would be anywhere from at least 51.

So are humans 51%, 65%, 85% responsible for a +0.8C rise in temperature?

And of that, how much is 0.01% CO2 responsible for? What about the doomsday progonis? I am sure these scientists have opinions on this as well.

Mark's "contribution" to the Senate Minority report was lifted from his post on this very blog on November 15th.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/11/update_on_carbon_dioxide_level_1.html

The report leaves out his response to one of the comments to that post:

"I believe the same thing, some warming is natural and some is man-made."

Mark made some other comments to the same effect and acknowledged the role of CO2 in raising global temperatures, though he also acknowledged how much he has to learn on the subject:

"You don't even begin to realize how much a "novice" like me learns from your comments..."

That leads me to ask not only if Mark knew he was included in this report, but also if he thinks his name belongs in the report as a "Prominent Scientist" in the first place. If not, it makes me wonder how many other names and quotes in Senator Inhofe's report were lifted out of context from online writings without the knowledge of their authors.

Brett, do you think we can get a response from Mark on this? I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Reply: I will contact Mark. I would love to hear his response.

This is purported to be a scientific poll. The questions used are hardly scientific-

1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?

There should be overwhelming agreement on this statement, since pre-1800 the globe was just starting to exit the little ice age. It says nothing about the cause of the warming, of course.
As far as responses providing any sort of 'finger in the wind' assessment of views on man-made global warming, this question is worthless.

2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Significant means that human activity must have a detectable effect on climate. Significant could be 10% or 99% of the total sum of factors that influence climate. Human activity could be cooling global temperatures. There is no indication in this question that the human effect is positive or negative, or if tipping points exist, or if climate cataclysms are just four years away. As far as responses providing any sort of 'finger in the wind' assessment of views on man-made global warming, this question is also worthless.

Filed in circular bin.

Where�s the Science????
I keep seeing posts from AGW supporters demanding links to the science that proves AGW is a misinterpretation of the data.
This is a red herring argument used to defer attention away from the real issue.
The real issue:
AGW claims that man made CO2 is the sole important contributing factor in global warming and drastic measures must be taken to reduce it. (that is 3% of .038% of the atmosphere or .00114%)
The burden of proof for this position is clearly on the claimants not the sceptics.
To date there has been no such proof or convincing arguments other than the fact that some small warming happened, CO2 is capable of trapping some radiated heat and some computer models can be programmed to show that more warming could happen under the right circumstances.
The only responsibility of the sceptics is to point out the flaws in the logic, data and conclusions of the AGW hypothesis and not to show conclusively what the actual cause is.
Having said that; sceptics have indeed provided more than enough alternative input factors to cumulatively account for all of the warming and then some.
When you review all of the non CO2 related warming drivers individually, none seems sufficient. However if you add them all up, together they seem like the proverbial No Brainer.
So on the one hand we have multiple Solar influences, multiple oceanic warming/cooling cycles, UHI corrupting the data as well as 1500 year climate cycles etc, all contributing in varying amounts.
On the other we have 3% of a barely traceable gas and suspicious Adjusting of current and historical records coupled with a strong political agenda.
Which one passed occam�s razor for you?

Consider the views of Dr Martin Herzberger. In a letter to USA Today he wrote; �As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming (the Levi, Borgerson article of 9/24/08) to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.�

It was a child who said the Emperor had no clothes because the adults were afraid to speak up.

I notice that they never asked if any warming was a problem. The fact that only 30% of those contacted were used in the survey provides a very low reliability factor. Activists would respond, others may have seen it as yet another self-fulfilling study.

"Only those invited could participate "
and
"97% of the climatologists agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, while that figure was only 64% for meteorologists and 47% for the petroleum geologists."

First the questions are so vague even I could answer yes to both.
Secondly I could also hand select a group to ask questions of.
Lastly, Climatologists will cover each others back to protect their faltering reputations.

Lastly; I will see your 3100 and raise you 31000.

Just more panic from a dying myth.

Did everyone also notice that these surveys never ask the real question.

Is man made CO2 the main cause of the little warm spell we had last century?

Wonder why?

Doesn't the fact that all the people who took the poll were invited to do so, make it bias? The pollsters may well have invited people they new would fit there agenda. It's hard to trust a poll that is so controlled.

this is great information & gives pause to me, a GW skeptic ...

however a couple questions about the methodology of the poll come to mind.

wondering how many climate scientists were polled, and how many responded? and was this an anonymous poll, or is it possible that the respondents felt their answers might be made public, along with their names?

a part of my thinking about this issue is that the science of climate has been infected by groupthink - that scientists who are viewed as 'dissenting' risk losing out on funding and promotions.

from a skeptic's perspective, it's not hard to imagine that skeptical climate scientists may have opted out of responding for fearing of being put on a blacklist. this could potentially explain the sharp difference between their views and the views of geologists, whose views on climate wouldn't impact their funding prospects.

i haven't been successful in googling the original study ... would anyone who has access to it be willing to fill in these blanks for me?

Interesting..belief is one thing, being able to demonstrate it scientifically is another.

One of my many questions on this issue is 'which came fisrt: CO2 rise or temperature rise???' It seems that is an open question still.

Also, new from Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville:

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade or Natural?
January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

Doran also made a point about the climatologists....."They're the ones who study and publish on climate science.

I wonder how much training in thermo these climatologist have.

Dennis you wrote, "In regards to the lower percentage of petroleum geologists that don't agree with AGW, I wonder if that has anything to do with the companies they work for? In fact I am even surprised that the 47% number is as high as it is."
Following this same logic would it be reasonable to assume that "97% consensus of actual climatologist (the scientists that actually study climate for a LIVING) that are in agreement about AGW" is do to the fact that they draw off the 7 billion dollars a year tit that is the AGW machine? If there is no problem then how do you justify your research hence how do you pay the bills?
As for as the lower percentage of meteorologists who agree with AGW perhaps is it the fact that they see that current weather does not agree with much of the AGW hypothesis. The way I look at it is that people that study long geologic data (petroleum geologists) and people that study current weather data (meteorologists) do not seem to buy into theories brought forth by people who study computer prophecies (climatologist). But that is just how I look at this article.

Interesting way to word the questions so as to stack the deck:

1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Using that phrasing, the two Pielkes, Christy, Spencer, McIntyre, maybe even Michaels would be ticket punched "warmers".

Heck, even I'd agree with those two statements.

Of course, EOS wouldn't accept Pielke Sr.'s survey with more specific questions.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/21/an-obvious-double-standard-adopted-by-the-agu-publication-eos/

Hello Brett, i'm amazed by your patience on so many half truth statements made here and coming back over and over.

I even find quite hard to believe that someone here is shouting about AGW without even knowing where to find the IPCC reports or the data itself.

Here's for you my man, everything is on that website, the data, the reports, the methodology, the scenarios, all... http://www.ipcc-data.org/

Hopefully, you can put that in the ''interesting links'' on the top right of that page.

This is just a rehashing of the old consensus argument -- "the majority agrees, so let's end the debate" -- and is equally scientifically meaningless.

Let's have an open debate. Not among laymen, but among the experts. Get Hansen and Mann to take questions (and give answers) to their critics. Publish everything on the internet.

If the science really supports AGW, this will come to light.

I'm thinking along the lines of Chris M, were the 7,000 or so that didn't respond skeptical and didn't want to reveal that tidbit publically?
I'm also quite curious about Mark P's name being on the list. I would NOT be impressed if he didn't give his permission or ask to be put on it.

Here's the link to Doran's web page where you can find the article in EOS and some other stuff

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/

Brett ( or anyone with knowledge on CO2)

In reviewing the Roy Spencer link from Alic, I am struck by the large variation in CO2 reading from Mauna Loa.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-vs-emissions.jpg

I have heard so many times that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200 years. (also have seen 5 years)

If that were true, how can the CO2 level drop drastically in months?

Reply: The levels normally fluctuate by season.

Somthing is odd here.

Any Idea?

Mark P. may find that while it is very easy ro be put on the Inhofe list it is far harder to get off. Mark should expect to be asked to prove his identity to Morano.

Paul: "Being a geologist, myself, I can understand why geologists are the most skeptical. Geologists are very familiar with historical climate as they have to reconstruct paleo-environments on a regular basis. They realize that there are fluctuations in climate and that there is no such thing as a static or optimum climate.

"Climatologists, on the other hand, are pretty much consumed with the last 150 years and really don't look past that unless forced to do so."

There's no end to your fantasizing, is there Paul?
I'm sure it makes you feel better, though. Or perhaps this us what you meant by constructing a paleoenvironment.

I also echo Brett's sentiments in wishing good luck to the Obama administration. Right-wingers like to throw around the term "anti-American" whenever somebody doesn't support arbitrary invasions of sovereign countries, but I believe that anyone who didn't embrace yesterday's historic moment, regardless of political persuasion, is what I would call anti-American.

"It occurs to me that if someone either is told something or states it often enough, they will end up believing it. As evidence, look no further than yesterday's change of power."

Uh, Darren, I think the severe recession and 'malaise' (remember that word?) that your ilk have left this country in also had something to do with it.

"Otherwise, exactly what purpose does a climatologist serve in life? Sure they can provide some historical perspective on the environment but really, what's the point?"

Climate has a significant impact on the global economy and security. That's one reason.

On his blog, Roger Pielke Sr. has an interesting comment on the survey, or more particularly, the EOS's handling of the survey. In 2007, Pielke, along with Fergus Brown and James Annan, conducted a similar poll that indicated a wider diversity of opinion among climate scientists. They submitted an article about the survey as a "Forum Piece" to EOS. It was summarily rejected without review as not fitting within EOS policy. The new survey was not only accepted, but appeared as a Feature article.

I also note that the new study's authors have an undisguised agenda:

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

When it comes to polls... the only poll that should mater, is the two poles of the planet. They seem to be refreezing.

Alec,

the open mind blog has a look at Roy Spencers claim, and finds that Spencer doesn't handle the math very well :

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/

OT. Another golden opportunity, courtesy of our friends at the Sierra Club:

"Did you know that simply wrapping your water heater with an insulating blanket cuts the cost (both financial and environmental) of heating the water?"

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2009/01/winterize-your-home-tend-to-your-water-heater.html#comments

So... if I were to somehow wrap my water heater with an insulating blanket of 0.01% carbon dioxide, do you honestly think this would have an impact on increasing the efficiency?

It doesn't. A 0.01% "blanket" of CO2 is insignificant when it comes to insulating and radiating anything.

The problem with surveys is the questions don't always result in answers that mean anything.

Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? Definitely

Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? Probably

Have human CO2 emissions altered the climate in a significant manner. Probably not and certainly not proven.

Is there evidence that human GHG emissions have caused long term climatic change that will result in a catastrophe in the next 5 years. Now your just being silly!

Uh, I am missing something here...

"The authors of the survey contacted over 10,200 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Department to take part in the on-line poll, according to the EurekAlert article."

Yet only the opinion of 3146 the "INVITED" was actually taken. What happened to the opinion of the other 7054 scientist that were originally contacted?????

Brett, someone, please explain....

Reply: From what I could tell it seemed like they received responses back from 3146 of the total 10,200 invites sent out. I might be wrong though.

Travis,

Your comments about Mark and how his obviously neutral position on global warming is being taken out of context was spot on. I wonder how many of the other 650 scientists comments are also taken out of context. In fact, I am surprised Brett wasn't included because of his many neutral positions on this blog site.

I suppose if I had written a paragraph or two in this blog that portrayed a more neutral position, that I could have possibly been included in that list as well.

Somehow I do not feel someone taking a neutral positon is in the camp of the skeptics. But they obviously do, just as means to inflate their numbers in the eyes of the public. This really of puts the number of skeptical scientists in that "official" document into doubt. This also shows how obviously desperate the skeptic side, being led and organized by the ultra-conservative Sen. Inhofe, his staff, and his corporate interests in the oil industry are all becoming.

I suppose these scientist can explain the reasoning for every warm and cold period in the earths history. They should be able to explain it with no problem. How did we have an ice age with high levels of co2. And which was just mentioned above, which came first co2 or temp rise. They need to explain the history aspect of this also since they "know" and it is not part of the agenda. So I guess the sun is officialy out of the climate change, its all on us now guys. Lets see I want a white christmas next year so please limit your co2 and the next year I want a warm christmas and lets make it with lots of rain..what do you say. You know we have to agree on this you might want 2 white Christmass'

corporate welfare trying to sell global warming

They surveyed 10,200 scientists and invited only 3,146 and out of that group 82% agree man is responsible for global warming which equals roughly 2580 scientists. Why didn't they include all 10,200 scientists?

Reply: It looks like a large % did not respond to the online survey.

I can see how the survey went, surveyor question - do believe man is responsible for global warming? scientist answer - no, surveyor response - have a good day. Does that mean 7,620 scientists don't believe in this scam? So with those numbers, for every 1 scientist that believes you have over 2 that don't believe. Why don't you ever post the scientists opinions that man has not caused global warming and believe that weather runs in warm and cold cycles? I watch the weather channel every day and they always have the record high for that date. So the highs that were set back in the 1800's and early 1900's that still stand today, was that because of global warming? If so, what happened to it? If not, how come? I love how everything is because of global warming - what a joke.

There is a lack of regular talk about global warming this winter, now when temperatures are well below avarage for this time of the year.
Of course the afficionados of global warming come
up with explanations, that global warming results in colder temperatures. I predict, that in the summer there will be the usual avalanche of talks
and articles about global warming, summers should
be warm anyhow.
There is a large group of people referring to
quasy-scientists, who makes, or hopes to make
profit from the scare-tactic by channeling our
tax dollars into projects that among other things
supposedly "fight" to reverse the global warming
say, by influencing solar activity.
Geologist have found, that ice ages and warming
up times were cyclical,long before homo sapiens
appeared on Earth.
So wake up scientists, take the geological
history of the Earth into consideration, before
spending lots of money trying to fight the
overwhelming forces of Nature.
Respectfully, Joseph Mate.

The science supporting AGW is available from virtually any of the many peer-reviewed publications that cover the field -- many are freely available in your local public library. The science is summarized, with citations, in the various IPCC reports. Virtually all of the science is available online for anyone who seeks it.

Where is the SCIENCE that supports that contrarian position? I've asked this repeatedly on the other thread pertaining to the Heartland Institute gathering (it has more in common with an old-fashioned revival meeting than a scientific conference), and I'll ask it here.

I note, for example, that Alec posts a reference to yet another offering from Roy Spencer. I note that said offering is self-published. I wonder if Alec or Dr. Spenser can please offer a link to its publication in a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant field.

I'm with Regg - what a sorry group of researchers. Most here seem to be basing all their opinions on the press release of Doran's paper. Go to his web site, download the EOS paper which is posted their and the almost 150 page long full study. Then go back and read your statements here and 95% of the criticisms will be moot and most of the questions answered. Sheesh...a press release is not a good source of information.

Mark:What is the difference between you calling
skeptics anti-American, and they calling AGW believers anti- American.The whole message of Barack Obama was that we are all Americans,with different viewpoints, but still American. The biggest mistake to make is too become like those you abhor.Two negatives don't make a positive.

Skeptics: Our results do not necessarily contradict the generally-accepted interpretation of recent East Antarctic cooling put forth by David Thompson (Colorado State) and Susan Solomon (NOAA Aeronomy Lab). In an important paper in Science, they presented evidence that this cooling trend is linked to an increasing trend in the strength of the circumpolar westerlies, and that this can be traced to changes in the stratosphere, mostly due to photochemical ozone losses. Substantial ozone losses did not occur until the late 1970s, and it is only after this period that significant cooling begins in East Antarctic.Yet another proof of warming.How simple must this be to understand. KIPP

Tom,

The simple answer it doesn't exists. That is why all the "preachers" of the Church of Skeptics (ICECAP, etc) have their annual, back-slapping, propaganda meeting run by the purely political Heartland Institute.

They also have this annual meeting so they can refer to those political "conference" meeting papers as their equivalent to actual scientific research papers (in their own minds only) that are presented at actual scientific organizational conferences where opposing minds meet at the same place to discuss and debate their findings.

By the way, don't expect any responses to your request of scientific references, because I have asked for anyone on the skeptic side to present actual scientific reference documentation that can back up their contrarian positions for a long time and have yet to see any brought forward. They usually default to their typical comment that that the responsibility falls only on the AGW proponents to prove the validity of the science.

When you have no offense and you can't gain any yardage, you punt.

Oh No! Now we have Bill Depperman to deal with. Please read some of his BS and I believe you will know how to handle it. Brett, this is a very entertaining place to while away some of my retirement years. Best wishes.

Reply: I am glad you are entertained Bernie. Enjoy your retirement!

William Depperman at 11:25 am.

What the???
------------
Hey Mark (original Mark) and you made fun of ME for slightly suggesting there were some people that would use global warming as an excuse to get rid of capitalism. See our buddy above.

Jeesh, I think I have entered the Twilight Zone because all the zillions of science fiction books I have read in my life, it appears the story lines are becoming true and I am now living the nightmare.

Once again a poll that shows how willing some people are to believe anything that is popular.

I would like to point out that... there are no valid temperature data records of "pre 1800s levels". So the so called scientists who say that there has been a change in mean temperatures are using the WAG (Wild Ass Guess) theory for science.

Have you ever noticed how statisticians are rarely asked thier opinion of the weather data?

If you really beleive in global warming then what ever you do, do not look into temperature collection methodolgy, data collection equipment standards and standardization, data station collection interuptions, reduction in data collection points within collection time data, data equipment changes with in the collection time.

The majority of the data used for temperature collection for the global warming theory was collected before any kind of true collection methodolgy was created or implimented.

Climatologists using data that has been artificially adjusted for heat sink aberations are again just using the WAG theory of science to come to conclusions that are scientifically and statisically unsound.

Again, quoting ozone levels over a statistically insignificant time duration without historical data to back up changes and deviations is unscientific and ignorant proper of scientific methodology.

I agree with Brookline Tom that you rarely see desenting research to global warming. If one penny for every dollar spent on pro global warming theory was spent on desenting research, you would see alot of peer reviewed disagreement.

But lets face it, there is no funding to question a theory that the media, tax hungry politicians, cap and trade proponents and pro theory advocates have dietized.

To me the skeptics are the people who beleive in the theory and not the data. Never fear beleivers you've got Depperman on your side.

David G

By the way, don't expect any responses to your request of scientific references, because I have asked for anyone on the skeptic side to present actual scientific reference documentation that can back up their contrarian positions for a long time and have yet to see any brought forward. They usually default to their typical comment that that the responsibility falls only on the AGW proponents to prove the validity of the science.

There's not a single, peer-reviewed published study that contradicts AGW alarmism? Really? Perhaps you're too busy making angry comments about funding by Exxon-Mobile or other ad hominem attacks on the researchers.

GAWD!

How in the HE double faked MANN graph can a post like that written by William Depperman at 11:25 am get through?

I mention a couple of things and get a post edited. Fair enough and I respect the edits but holy batcrap, his post is 17, count them 17, rolls of the of the sroll thingy to get by it.

I skimmed the stuff and man, bud, you gots some issues.

Like the good Mary above says, thanks William for representing all the things we might be concerned about.

Mark:

Your right, the severe recession as you say it certainly had something to do with the election. But simply put, you could have run a Hippo on the DEM ticket and gotten it elected. The fact that Obama is a great speaker, and dapper helps a lot. But, my ilk as you say, had little to do with the creation of the recession nor did they do anything most conservatives like to correct it.

On you comment about the importance of climatologists, you must be reading the climatologists lobby handbook. Because I ain't buying it yet.

Care to give me a real world example?

The experts already had their debate. You can read about it in "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

John Galt: "There's not a single, peer-reviewed published study that contradicts AGW alarmism? Really?"

OK John,

I will do this one more time on this blog site just for you.

Here is a simple request, please provide me with your peer-reviewed research documentation that shows why global temperatures have risen since 1950 when the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface has decreased during that period of time. Scientific documentation that details of all the 100% pure natural components that provide the extra amount of heat energy and where it is actually coming from. Again I want actual science documents, not just someone's opinion.

Once you provide me with that information, we can go on to other research documentation on other related subjects.

Dennis Hlinka:

Here is a simple request, please provide me with your peer-reviewed research documentation that shows that man made CO2 has caused global temperatures to rise since 1950. Also show peer-reviewed documentation that shows conclusively that the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface has decreased during that period of time. Scientific documentation that details that only CO2 and not all the other 100% pure natural components provide the extra amount of heat energy. Again I want actual science documents, not just someone's opinion.

Dennis:

You see, it not up to sceptics to provide any proof of anything.
It is clearly and simply up to you AGW pushers to prove your claim.

We only need point out that you haveno such proof and there are dozens of other possible causes that make more sense.

So; again, Where's the Science.

Pretend this is a scientific poll as some posters do. Some also question the opinion of geologists who do not agree with the climatologists because geologists get their pay from oil companies.

Note that climatology has suddenly become a very profitable business with huge grants and jobs with advocacy groups. Most of this did not exist before Global Warming became an issue. I suspect climatologists would suffer financially if there was a consensus that Global Warming is a contrived farce or even that it was insignificant. Is it only the dissenters who may be biased by financial considerations?

Unfortunately, this is long past being a scientific debate. This is just politics.

Gary:

Here is a simple request, please provide me with your peer-reviewed research documentation that shows that man made CO2 has caused global temperatures to rise since 1950. Also show peer-reviewed documentation that shows conclusively that the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface has decreased during that period of time. Scientific documentation that details that only CO2 and not all the other 100% pure natural components provide the extra amount of heat energy. Again I want actual science documents, not just someone's opinion.

How about Figure TS.5 on page 32 of the IPCC's Technical Summary Report (18 MB pdf),
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

The IPCC is basically a summary of the existing peer reviewed literature. I am guessing from the tone of your comment that you don't like the IPCC report. Out of curiosity, why is that? You don't have to ignore the science if you want to be skeptical. Notice in that figure that the uncertainty in the effect of clouds is of about the same magnitude as the CO2 forcing which is known pretty well. It's interesting stuff.

Gary: "You see, it not up to sceptics to provide any proof of anything. It is clearly and simply up to you AGW pushers to prove your claim."

"We only need point out that you have no such proof and there are dozens of other possible causes that make more sense. So; again, Where's the Science."

I do not wish to keep talking in circles with you guys. Please refer to my comments I made to Tom on January 22 at 5:26 PM.

If you are unable to search it out, here is a copy of my last statement in that posting:

"By the way, don't expect any responses to your request of scientific references, because I have asked for anyone on the skeptic side to present actual scientific reference documentation that can back up their contrarian positions for a long time and have yet to see any brought forward. They usually default to their typical comment that that the responsibility falls only on the AGW proponents to prove the validity of the science."

All I am asking is for your side is to present your science arguments on the other possible causes you feels proves your points. Like how does your science explain the increasing global temperatures when solar energy has been decreasing since 1950? I have the science to back up my statements (if you have been reading most of my posts here), where is yours?

Otherwise, without your scientific proof, what is the point of debating on this blog site? Opinions without science is not debating.

Is there anything GOOD about Global Warming?

Ted:

Sure I can tell you something good about warming, overall energy usage would absolutely tumble. The increase to the economy would be immense as people would not have to divert SO much money to trying to stay warm. Even though the house is well insulated, my monthly electric bill goes from 190 in summer to 320 in winter. If we have an extended cold period (like right now) the bill will go above 400. No comments, the temp in the house is around 66. Note, we have livestock that we maintain heaters and waterers on they are inefficient but better than nothing and I accept and PAY the bill.

Oil usage would probably drop a ton since we would not be sitting around warming our cars up all the time. Also, commutes would be shorter since snow and ice slow us down. My mileage goes from 24 in the warm months to less than 17 in winter.

Frankly, I have a tough time finding the negative in warming. Other than of course polar bears. Oh and that Gore would be out of a job exploiting the warming.

Mister Bob:
Out of curiosity, why is that?
Actually it is because I believe the IPCC to be hopelessly Biased and somewhat corrupt. Also, the report you are refering to is years out of date.
The submission deadline was May 2006.

Dennis:
I was just making a point about your request for some proof. Sceptics have been asking for the same thing from the AGW industry for years.
So far none has been provided.
To date, we still only have a loose theory based on primitive computer simulations.

There are lots of related Peer Reviewed papers that show lots of related facts and theories but nothing to convincingly tie them all together.

On the other hand there are lots of related Peer Reviewed papers that show lots of related facts and theories that do not support the belief that man made CO2 is the main driver of anything other that plant growth.

Bottom Line is that there is NO Proof of anything.
Just some theories.

Gary: "Bottom Line is that there is NO Proof of anything. Just some theories."

Yes, but if you do not at least present some scientific theories or proof on you end showing that all the observed temperature and physical changes (such as glacial retreat and sea ice decrease) can all be accounted for by purely natural components, then how can you say you have a valid argument? Criticizing without proof or supportable research findings showing those results is not telling me anything.

The one key question I want you (as a group) to answer is: With the reportable decrease in solar energy for the past 60 years, why are the global land and sea temperatures rising and why is the Arctic sea ice decreasing and worldwide glaciers continuing to retreat?

If you are so confident in your anti-AGW position, then why is that question so hard for you to answer?

If you could just show and prove to me that those events can all can be explained by 100% natural causes, then I will seriously consider your points of view. That type of information should be at your fingertips to automatically prove your point once and for all.

Otherwise without your proof, the AGW theories (as you call them) continue to make more sense to me based on what I am observing.