Can't wait to see the open minded, hand holding, cum-by-ya singing responses to this thread from the blog's usual fraudulent suspects. LOL! Oh by the by, here's a little something that will make our sniviling, tree hugging, hoaxter friends nash their teeth even more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/21/abcs-stephanopoulos-declares-cap-tra de-dead-2009

We can only "HOPE."

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

Oh and one other thing. Vaclav Klaus is a champion of FREEDOM! And very brave to stand up to the SCAM. Living under MARXISM for decades will do that to people. It will make them clearly see a farce brought on my junk information and propaganda for what it is.

And as for the notes he's reading from. That's no different than President Superman reading from his teleprompter.

I wonder what their motives are?

Skeptics:Co2 is no lover of persons, has no political viewpoint and will warm the Earth with all the other GHG's and with water vapours help.It is proven Scientifically and accepted in Public Education in every country in the Industrialized world including America. Now if you think it is too Political or too unproven than you should learn why it is now changing the weather,as we have only begun to feel it's effects. Everyone here should have at least noticed your seasons change earlier, as my wifes roses just came up.A little early for Connecticut.
Conservatives is based on the word conserve,if we could only do that. I wish to hell it was more tame but the science proves it won't be. Moving to sustainables is the only alternative anyway.Oil has peaked, and as soon as the dollar is worth more our gas prices will zoom up again for sure.But that is only the start.Our pentagon has made their plans,shouldn't we. Why not make some money on green alternatives.We don't have to buy from China, we can do quite well by ourselves at home.Americans innovate! KIPP

Dr. Richard Lindzen speech was concise and to the point. It walked the line of reason and logic, inviting advocates of both sides of the arguments to do the same. Well done.

President Vaclav Klaus, speaks on a subject, he is quite familiar with. The ideological control of society for political purposes. His warning could not be clearer.

AGW proponents (environmental actvists) are the unwitting minions of a Hegelian political movement. They mostly are unaware of the dangers involved, in giving power to people, who couldn't care less about the real environment, but give it public "lip service", in order to gain power. Skeptics are not immune to the same manipulation, and must be careful not to make the same mistakes, by following a prepared "easy" path.

As to the rest of the videos that appear, at the bottom of the Lindzen video; I really hate video bites of serious subjects, because the graphic images, invoke tremendous emotional responses. These emotive responses, only interfere in scientific discourse. I realize, the fight fire with fire need, but I wish it wasn't necessary.

This very battle, may not be about our environment, but our very minds and souls. GK

So.... Clearly thses two gentlemen are wrong.

Perhaps Kipp could point out in clear scientific terms where Dr. Lindzen is mistaken.

And perhaps Mark could illistrate how Mr Claus has gotten it so wrong.

Your wizdom would be very much appreciated.

thanks in advance.

It seems to me that Klaus didn't even write his own damn speech.
He sounded drunk.
If Klaus loves car farts as much as it sounds like he does, maybe he should wrap his lips around the exhaust pipe & suck.
YELLOW SKY LOVING FOOLS!
How come I never hear anything about Nitrous oxide, Sulphur dioxide, Mercury etc. Klaus mentioned the economy.I say what about it?
They came up with this GAME, now change it.

Re: Marco | March 23, 2009 2:24 PM

Have you EVER had to stand in front of a large audience, and deliver a speech. It is one of the hardest things a person can do. Now, try to imagine doing it, in a second language.

"How come I never hear anything about Nitrous oxide, Sulphur dioxide, Mercury etc" you asked. The main reason is because everyone is being distracted by the CO2-GW issue.

Your head is so far up your own rectum, you can't see, hear, or smell right. Your insults are only a reflection of your own limited depth. GK

Kipp Alert: "...and with water vapours help.It is proven Scientifically...

Not really. Do you mean Dessler? Here is a good relevant comment on that:

www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/what-about-the-clouds-andy

Also here is another peer reviewed analysis of water vapor:

tinyurl.com/cbpnml

Please Kipp on this site he is really helping the skeptics cause thank you Brett LOL

Gary: When you learn how to spell I will, but don't wait to long.
Marco:The title should be Macho men fear their own shadow.Dealing with Global Warming doesn't have to change anything except improve our own Economy.Yes, we will demand a world consensus for this work. A damn agreement and nothing more. I don't like the Politics of Russia or China.Their totalitarianism sucks.I have my own business and I don't want to pay for other people who don't deserve it.But I am emotionally intellegent enough to know what stalling is. You are only projecting your own insecurity.You don't understand and are afraid to admit it. So What! We won. KIPP

paulm:
I wonder what their motives are?
Reply: Countering the propaganda that has you and a good proportion of the population ready to accept draconian changes to our freedom and way of life for an outright lie. Wake up man!

Brett, recall that I predicted you would devote lots of attention to the denialist conference, even though it turned out to just be repeating old tired talking points. Much important new climate science was reported at the AAAS meeting and you gave that less attention, and worse than that you've made no mention whatsoever of the Copenhagen conference of a couple of weeks ago.

Reply: I feel I gave the AAAS and ICCC equal coverage. I was waiting for you to comment about this same thing.

Conferences aside, I could list the large number of recent important papers you've made no mention of in favor of several that seem to have been inspired by Watts Up With That or similarly non-scientific sources, but that would be boring.

Reply: Not true Steve.

I keep hoping for better from you, but keep getting disappointed.

It seems to me that Klaus didn't even write his own damn speech.

REPLY: Sorry Brett, but I knew this was going to happen. Mr. Marco. You mean like Obama writes his own speeches to, right???

Dr. Lindzen's speech is an embarrassment to himself and his field.

He sets up not just one, but a entire field of strawmen, and proceeds to knock them all down. Big deal. He lurches from one distortion, mis-characterization, or bumper-sticker to another.

Here are a few of the multitude of examples.

1. (1:48-52): "Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority."

Horse feathers. I note with interest that Dr. Lindzen fails to offer even one example. Nor does he even attempt to explain what he means.

2. (2:07-18): "The success of environmentalism with respect to authority also gives the alarm movement control over carrots and sticks, which in turn is what makes it so convenient for scientists to go along."

Again, no examples -- not even one. What does he mean by "environmentalism"? If this claimed terrible state of affairs is so pronounced, surely he can offer ONE example of bad science rewarded by one of these alleged carrots, or of good science punished by one of these alleged sticks.

3. (2:25-35): "The process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science."

Apparently Dr. Lindzen would like us to forget that this hilarious laugh-line is delivered to a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute -- a right-wing think-tank that exists to co-opt science on behalf a political movement, the rabid right-wing. Dr. Lindzen says this after eight long years of relentless efforts by the right-wing to co-opt climate science on behalf of the political agenda of their various constituencies (not to mention the associated economic agenda driven by simple venal corruption).

Just where should we place the antics of Marc Morano and Senator Inhofe in this picture? Where do the efforts to muzzle the director of the CDC from giving testimony to congress fit in? To what does Dr. Lindzen attribute decisions of the EPA under the prior administration, if not a "political agenda"?

This one line, in fact, strikes me as a classic projection -- Dr. Lindzen is projecting onto those he disagrees with precisely the behavior that most characterizes this conference, its organizers, the GOP, and the entire denialist movement. Dr. Lindzen is, as is often the case with such projections, entirely correct.

The process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence -- especially on scientists like Dr. Lindzen.

The reality is that a handful of beneficiaries of an enormously motivated, well-funded, and anti-science political movement -- the conservative GOP -- in fact whine about being ignored while they attempt to claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists who reject such funding are "corrupt".

The rest of the piece is rife with similar trash, and is not worth the time to rebut in detail.

Dr. Lindzen demeans himself with such appearances.

paulm wrote:
"I wonder what their motives are?"

paulm, I doubt very much that you wonder. You obviously think you know or you wouldn't mention it.

Skeptics are accused of being supported by the evil fossil fuel companies. Alarmists are accused of keeping the big research grants coming.

Questioning the motives of Skeptics or Alarmists is to dodge the real issue - the science.

Do you have any scientific rebuttal of Dr. Lindzen's remarks?

Michelle: I don't want to play your game. Argue about measurements for what.You know that 40% of greenhouse gases are not CO2.You don't want to talk about the feedbacks mechanisms like water vapour or oceans or land releasing CO2. You don't want to talk about solar Irradiance and it's relatively small effect on the Earth's temperature.The game you play is to exclude all of the warming and cooling and just talk CO2. You know that I am studying this, and never said I was an expert. When you burn coal and gasoline increasing amounts of CO2 will warm this planet. All that I know is that I need to learn more.It's good that my politics has not clouded my thirst for learning. I would love to argue with you more,and we have both learned more this week.That's good. At least argue in open territotry not just on your home court. KIPP

G.W.STEVE:I used to read your arguments and when you lost them all, you started on different ones rather than face the truth.Water vapor is not a gas that is Radiative.If you want to call it a greenhouse gas, so be it. Why is all the Ice melting in the World. It accounts for 7% of warming,and yes it absorbs heat.I like to look at it as a feedback mechanism.It is part of the greenhouse effect. Remember when you used to say CO2 only warms in two bands, so how could it warm the planet.Well it seems to be spreading out to it's wings.It's symmetry is part of it. KIPP

Brookline TOM:EXcuuuuuse me!.They don't really care about Humanity.The greed and the arrogance of the last administration,well that's just bad luck.Like going after Al Qaeda in the wrong Country.Four thousand young men and woman died because GB had to show up his Dad. Dick Cheney proved to rest of the World, that torture lives in America.Then-they freed up capitalism enough to kill our economy.Now that Obama is in charge the market is going up again.A free democracy needs to swing like a pendulum,right-left,left-right etc.But when you go to the extreme and deregulate all business, you get a deep recession.Why because if anyone here has ever visited a third world country, they would see there is no middle class.When you have a strong middle class than let the investors go for it.Deregulate a business now, and the middle class shrinks and Capitalism stops working,and then you get that Socialism that none of us want.
Knuckle Dragger:Superman as you call Obama, is our President now. Maybe we should support him for a little while,and see how good he is. He is not a Republican, but he is our President. KIPP

Here are a "bunch" more interviews and presentations from the confernece.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool

Marco: LOL... So predictable; if someone disagrees with the AGW myth they are "Yellow Sky Lovers".

A note to everyone; the clip here represents only a fraction of Lindzen's actual speech to his ICCC audience. If you notice, there are a couple obvious breaks in the video and numerous smaller ones. A full transcript of his speech provided by the Heartland Institute can be found here:

http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html

Personally, I'm disappointed that Lindzen chose to make his speech much more about the politics of science rather than the science of climate itself. I think that for the Heartland Institute, it was a waste of someone with real scientific credentials (MIT professor, atmospheric physicist) to make his case against the science of AGW accessible to the public.

Instead, he questions motives of scientists who ascribe to AGW, attacks the reliability of climate models, repeats the common claim that the scientific profession has been corrupted by politics, and in summing up of his only real foray into actual science (a general discussion about outgoing longwave radiation) he detours into a monologue about how climate scientists don't understand what he calls basic atmospheric physics and that even if they did, they would (and do) manipulate the data anyway to match their preconceived notions.

I had hoped for better.

And finally this one is just simply a must see.
It is 87 minutes long but really vary worth the time investment.

Apocalypse? No!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524

G.Harst:
1.The answer to your first question, is yes I have.
2.The reason why I asked about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide & mercury is because they are all released into the atmosphere when you burn oil & coal.And don't forget nitrous oxide is a GHG.
3.The only reason why people are being distracted by co2 is because it is the most abundant & is not considered a pollutant by the governments.
4.I know enough not to trust a politician

Kipp:
I am not a COMMUNIST & don't support it either.
You made reference to Russia & China.If you only knew who I was & what I stand for, you'd realize how inaccurate your statements are about me.
Trust me man, if I was the government I wouldn't use your tax dollars to subsidize the auto makers.
The economy is just one big calculated game of constant consumption,there just to benefit the government.This is no accident.
That's what I meant in my final sentence of my first post.

From The Desk of the Knuckle Dragging Flat Earth Philistine:
Of coarse he doesn't.He's just another puppet.

Kip: "I don't want to play your game. Argue about measurements for what."

Kip, I gave you the correct values. It was you who argued. And I never meant it as a game. I was trying to make YOU think, to make YOU learn. What, you find out I'm a girl and you assume it's some kind of game? How little of you, Kip!

Kip: "You know that 40% of greenhouse gases are not CO2."

I'm not sure where you got the 40%, since you never provide references, but you forgot water vapor.

Kip: "You don't want to talk about solar Irradiance and it's relatively small effect on the Earth's temperature."

If you haven't figured this out, without the sun, the temperature of the earth would near to absolute zero. So, in effect, the sun is ultimately responsible for all of the warmth on this planet. Without it, there is no greenhouse effect. It's the minor variations of the solar cycle and solar irradiance that I have no need to discuss. Especially not with you. When I want to learn about solar stuff, I read Leif Svalgaard's comments at Climate Audit or WUWT.

Kip: "I would love to argue with you more,and we have both learned more this week.That's good."

If you think I learned anything from my exchange with you, don't flatter yourself. I discovered that reading your comments was a waste of my time. You don't understand the subject you are so engrossed with. When I asked you my simple question the first time, you ignored it. The second time I asked it, you misunderstood the question and implied for all to read that I was the one who was ignorant, when it was you all along. Now, when you finally figure out the values I quoted you are correct, you avoid answering my question because you are incapable of putting pencil to paper and doing a little arithmetic. It's either that or you understand why I've been asking you to calculate the direct impact of CO2, without feedback, which is because its effect is miniscule.

On multidecadal time scales, the AMO and variations in cloud cover have larger effects than CO2. On decadal time scales, variations in solar irradiance have a larger effect on global temperature than CO2. (Granted, solar variations are cyclical, so they add part of the time and subtract the other.) On an annual basis, ENSO overwhelms the effects of CO2.

You are not being honest with yourself or with the people who read your comments.

Don't bother to reply. I will ignore your posts from now on. Something I should have done all along. There, you're right. I did learn something. I learned to ignore you. Yippee for me!!!!

Michelle

PS: You've recently been using the fact that they teach global warming in schools as proof that your views about global warming are correct. Kip, while they teach global warming in elementary, middle and high schools, there are many of us in high school (I'm a sophomore) who understand that greenhouse gases do not drive climate on this planet. When will YOU figure it out?

TTFE

Brett, this is off-topic so you don't have to post, but is interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7959570.stm

Kipp,
“Co2 is no lover of persons, has no political viewpoint and will warm the Earth with all the other GHG's and with water vapours help. It is proven Scientifically and accepted in Public Education in every country in the Industrialized world including America.”
What self serving sanctimonious drivel.
Accepted in public education? You can't fool all the people all the time. Burning witches at the stake was accepted in public education and the law. That didn’t make it right. That was the result of political correctness due to fear ignorance and hunger (another little anecdote of political ideology brought to you by a ramification of the Little Ice Age). The same will be said for this politically accepted pseudo-science called AGW. It is obscene is its intent and ramifications.
Skeptics all want real science before they accept AGW as a deity worth respecting. The world of AGW keeps babbling political science. The science is not settled no matter what some sixth grade textbook accepts. DO not confuse Climate Studies with a real science as it is not. It has been corrupted by political science and now fosters a political agenda using this pseudo-science to scare the uninformed and gullible.
Call me cynical but I have found the world of AGW is all political science and little reproducible science unless the data has been revised, altered or explained in a new "enlightened way". "That way" seems to be free of the normal constraints used in science that actually requires proving AGW dogma to be accurate and true. AGW dogma believes saying it, is tantamount to proving it.

Steve Bloom,Please enlighten us and name the unscientific sources on Watts Up With That.Your ignorance torward the skeptics on that site is why alarmists cannot be taken seriously.You cannot just broadbrush every scientist or paper that is skeptical as being unworthy of consideration on the subject of Globull Warming.

Steve Bloom,Please enlighten us and name the unscientific sources on Watts Up With That.Your ignorance torward the skeptics on that site is why alarmists cannot be taken seriously.You cannot just broadbrush every scientist or paper that is skeptical as being unworthy of consideration on the subject of Globull Warming.

Kipp,

Be thankful Brett did not post my last message to you, he spared you.

For our entertainment will you please explain how H2O vapor is not "technically" a GHG?

You started off so eloquently about how it is a feedback instead of a forcing bla bla bla . . .

It sounds so much more like someone who has been educated in English and Physics when you do it.

Come on, be a sport.

Steve

I only wish that there were clips that have not been edited available. I always wonder what was cut out and why when I see a speech that was obviously edited.

Just to be clear, I am not implying that you had any hand in the editing Brett.

I have one question for you. Is there any chance that you could post the raw clips of Joe Bastardi discussing the upcoming hurricane season with Katie? I had the good fortune to see them while they were up on the home page but they were not there long.
In my mind, they would be appropriate for this forum.

Thanks.

Reply: I will see if I can dig that up. Brett

Gary

BrooklineTom,

Let's face it. Regardless of the subject or statements spoken, you will denigrate a person like Lindzen simply because he disagrees with your beliefs on global warming. Your diatribe above sounds like a rant from a spoiled little kid who didn't get his way.

Can you remind us again where your degrees are from and what they are in? Additionally, can you please provide a list of any journals that have accepted your manuscripts on global warming? Where can we find these manuscripts? At what conferences have you presented your research on global warming?

Thanks in advance for the info!

Steve Bloom;

I think it owuld be quite entertaining to highlight some of the output of the Copenhagen conference of a couple of weeks ago.

A clearer example of desperate hype and silly manipulation of facts has seldome been presented.

It would illistrate well how the AGW movement is wobbling around on it last desperate legs.

And I would be great fun compare who's prediction of disaster is the most absurd.

Kipp Alpert, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Your side has contradicted themselves just as many times if not more than the skeptics have. You have no right in hell, heaven, or earth to tell us that we are insecure and that we don't want to believe the truth...For all any of you know there's a pretty decent chance that you'll feel like quite the sheople 30 years from now just like all of the ice-age fanatics in the 70's. Your side has not won, our side has not won...Nobody has won yet so you can drop the whole high and mighty act.

So I am not sure what the latest position is on the skeptial side.

One minute its GW is happening, but its natural due to solar, now it seems to be it isnt happening because of a lull in the rise in temp.

What is the consensus? :

- is it that there is no GW happening
- or is it that GW is happening but it is not AGW

Brett you should do a survey here to see what the figure are.

Reply: Not a bad idea.

D Caldwell: There is no scientific rebuttal for the type of lying propaganda spewed by Dr. Lindzen, because almost none of it is scientific in nature to begin with. As noted above, it is a morass of hastily-constructed strawmen and patently ridiculous accusations without merit. It is thinly disguised crap.

That's what Dr. Lindzen does, has done for years, and it's why they asked him to come. Corrupting science for politics - what he and others there claim to object to - is part and parcel of what he, and the entire conference, is there to do. He has no real scientific evidence to back up his claims - as is almost always the case for denialists.

AGW theory is now accepted by every bona fide scientific organization and national government on the planet. Those who believe otherwise are simply living in the past. There's not much else to say.

Travis:Lindzen was only speaking the truth about the whole GlobullWarming hoax.When will,if ever, you alarmists realize the whole GW movement is politically motivated and is backed by the most corrupt political institution in the world,the UN.Scientists, who's lifetime of work such as Lindzen and Dr.W.Gray have been crucified and shunned by their own peers must now try to justifiy beliefs they have held for years.Such shallow minded and ignorant are the alarmists.

Michelle-Anonymous
March 22, 2009 10:09 PM
March 24, 2009 7:22 AM

You completely misunderstand, why Kipp Albert would not answer your challenge. It is not because he was avoiding the minuscule results. It is because he cannot do the calculations involved. He has to hope, someone from "open mind", will give him the calculations with the proofs (that takes time). This would demonstrate his fundamental skill set below that of a sophomore high school level. If you want to make him eat crow, go ahead and solve the problem as stated. The fact that you are a girl has no bearing here.

Joe Romm's "Shame on Richard Lindzen, MIT�s uber-hypocritical anti-scientific scientist":

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

Let's face it. Regardless of the subject or statements spoken, you will denigrate a person like Lindzen simply because he disagrees with your beliefs on global warming. Your diatribe above sounds like a rant from a spoiled little kid who didn't get his way.

REPLY: Oh man, that was too funny, Todd C. And you are correct. Rants like BT's are legendary on this blog. Quite nausiating, but legendary none-the-less.

DENY DENY DENY THE GL0-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Brookline Tom said best and succinctly. The Gestapo always blamed the Commies for their own crimes.

cmb wrote:
"There is no scientific rebuttal for the type of lying propaganda spewed by Dr. Lindzen, because almost none of it is scientific in nature to begin with. As noted above, it is a morass of hastily-constructed strawmen and patently ridiculous accusations without merit. It is thinly disguised crap."

cmb, don't be so shy. Tell us how you really feel about Dr. Lindzen. :)

PaulM
Not a bad idea indeed.

The AGW side is easy to state. GW is caused by man made CO2.

The skeptical side is more difficult.
GW is natural. Not caused by man made CO2.
The actual cause(s) are many and varied.
PDO/AMO, Solar variance, UHI, errors in measurement, fraud, money, power, stupidity.

Might be easier to offer one AGW cause and a list of the actual causes to choose form.

Oh Yes , and BTW BT . In regards to those PAPERS that Todd C. is asking for . You'de better make DAMNED Sure that they're PEER REVIEWED because I sure as Hell am not going to waste my time reading a bunch of " CLAP TRAP " , as you put it a few weeks ago about a paper by Spencer.

To Miss Michelle . I'm curious. Since it is claimed by certain individual [s] on this blog that AGW Theory is being taught in schools , then I have a question. How is it that you , a high school sophmore having been , shall we say , " subjected " to this " Teaching " , seem to have an understanding that does not , at least in outward appearences anyway, reflect a pro-AGW inclination ? After all , I would think that if one is to believe what one reads by certain people , our whole younger generation is convinced that AGW Theory is a proven fact and if we don't do something now , CATASTROPHE awaits us ! If you would'nt mind , could you maybe illuminate us on what , in your opinion , our young people really DO believe about this matter ? Respectfully , SAGWH.

CMB:
"AGW theory is now accepted by every bona fide scientific organization and national government on the planet. Those who believe otherwise are simply living in the past. There's not much else to say."

And that ladies and gentlemen is why AGW is now classified as a religion.

Anthropogenic global warming is universally accepted. Dr Lindzen thinks it's trivial and he may be right. The problem is not so much the current level of co2 as that capacity to warm is low; it is the perceived trend that is upward without control. Clearly this reflects the inability of the earth's biosphere to absorb the human co2. This warrants action to arrest the growth in this gas!

HarryL | March 24, 2009 5:38 PM

Harry,

All I said was that not asking Lindzen to speak more in-depth about what he sees as the errors in AGW science was a mistake on the part of the ICCC. If anyone at that conference was credible enough to counter the claims of AGW scientists, it was him. Instead, he gave a speech that was mostly political, something any speaker at that conference could have easily done. Apparently, they could have invited you to do so and not missed a beat.

I'm not criticizing Lindzen per se; I'm criticizing the wasted opportunity to advance the science of skeptics.

" Thor:

Anthropogenic global warming is universally accepted. Dr Lindzen thinks it's trivial and he may be right. The problem is not so much the current level of co2 as that capacity to warm is low; it is the perceived trend that is upward without control. Clearly this reflects the inability of the earth's biosphere to absorb the human co2. This warrants action to arrest the growth in this gas!"

Sorry but I have to get a bit picky here.

What is not in dispute by the sceptics is that after you go through a period that we called the Little Ice Age the earth warmed up.

What is not in dispute by the sceptics is that man has an effect on local climate and that man has an effect on global temperatures.

That does not mean that sceptics accept the notion that man is having a positive effect on temperature because we have insufficient understanding of the complexity of climate to say that. We might have a slightly positive effect or a slight negative effect as different factors offset each other. Clearly urbanization makes local temperatures much warmer but having NYC experience a 6C increase in average temperature does not mean that the effect on the globe is either significant or positive.

What is not in much dispute among sceptics is the notion that man's effect is so small when compared to natural factors that it isn't worth worrying about one way or the other. The simple fact is that the temperature trends can be explained much better by solar activity than they can by CO2 emissions. This does not mean that solar activity is the only material factor, only that we don't know enough about all of the factors that are involved to make a conclusive statement.

What is also not in dispute among sceptics is the fact that the science is far from being settled. That means that the political games played by the UN with the IPCC needs to be opposed by mindful individuals.

Thor!!!!
Wholly Crap.
A lucid and sensible argument.
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I must say your statement is reasonable and logical.

Why in hell can't the rest of the AGW crowd think critically?

Knuckle Dragger:Superman as you call Obama, is our President now. Maybe we should support him for a little while,and see how good he is. He is not a Republican, but he is our President. KIPP

REPLY: I don't support Marxism, Kipp. Nor do I support Wednesday night cocktail parties in MY White House. Nor do I support the radical policies and agenda that this unqualified indivdual has implemented on the country, along with his criminal friends in Congress. But that's OK, Kipp. Captialism done forever. That being said, I will repeat what I stated in a previous post: I will give Obama as much a chance as the "Ain't My President" Crowd did in 2000/2001 for the "evil" Bush. Got That, Paly?

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

Nacational Academy of Science is holding a Climate Change Summit if anybody wants to participate:

http://view.newsletters.nas.edu/?j=fe921c747566037d7d&m=fefc1276756205&ls=fdfb15787765057d731d7677&l=fec61d7375610778&s=fe2516757761007c721c78&ju=fe5e12757c63047d7617&utm_medium=etmail&utm_source=National%20Academies%20Press&utm_campaign=Community+Builder+3%2f26&utm_content=Customer&utm_term=

AGW proponents are justified in their fear of Debate on the Science of the theory:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2200792/posts

Excerpt:
"It is difficult to arrange a debate of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW) because few proponents of AGW are willing to face such debate. They know from past experience that they always lose such debates because there is no evidence that AGW exists and much evidence that it does not. "

"In the video, Lindzen says that endorsing global warming has made many scientists lives easier. One example is through funding of research. "

Lindzen, funded in part by fossil fuel interests, isn't one to make slanderous claims on scientific integrity. It's like Bernie Madoff preaching about business ethics.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. "

BrooklineTom,

Good post. Lindzen's hypocritical blather is based on politics, not science.

Here is a good scientific refutation of various Lindzen-type claims:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

The irony of Lindzen's closing statements amuses me

Re: Vangel | March 25, 2009 6:19 PM

Well spoken, but you forgot about at least one skeptic.

There is at least one skeptic, who concludes that a warmer, wetter, higher carbon environment, is mankind's greatest hope to feed 7 billion (increasing), on into the future. A warmer, wetter, with higher CO2, will increase the biomass, on the planet. Life does have climatic effects. It stabilizes it's environment to optimum conditions. Retreating ice is replaced by bio-active plants and animals. New growth pulls carbon at increasing rates.

All of these benefits are at risk, during sudden cooling events. If man can bias climate, we should always nudge it away from cooling. It is the self-regulating, and limiting factors, we need to identify and bias. We have barely begun to look. CO2's main role is to feed the growing bio-mass. We have to look else-where for temperature control (if possible).

With-out abundant life, the planet cools, becomes a snowball. Abundant life shapes it with green.

There is at least one skeptic, who will welcome the return of warming trends. Unfortunately the planet does not seem to be co-operating. GK

Good evening. There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Buy more, save more! Product details.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.resicare.com.au/Members/Preschool/kids-preschool-craft]kids preschool craft[/URL]. Grab your own felix the cat clock for your myspace, friendster, hi profile or blog. Then comes marriage then comes baby in a baby carriage! As with humans, so with birds. Best regards :confused:, Tisha from Maldives.