Gee color me surprised. Not!

"What makes your post so stupid Paul is that you act as though the science is on your side. "

...which, as we keep finding out, it seems to be.

On the other hand, as shown above, much of the "science" behind GW theory is based on coercion, not actual science-type stuff.

Look, for example, at the temperature "rises" we've seen over the last couple of decades. Someone finally went and looked at the temperature-monitoring stations, and found that a lot of them were set up in places that biased their results. Putting a temperature monitoring system downwind of a running air conditioning system doesn't exactly make for good measurements (go outside and stand next to an external AC unit and try to figure out how this works).

"it reminds me of the right wing's boycott of the Ditzy Chicks"

Yeah, how DARE people stop buying their records simply because of disagreement with what they said! (LOL)

They oughta be forced, FORCED I say, to buy those records, so the Ditzy Chicks will have the money they deserve!

Global warming may be happening, but that's not the real issue. Understanding the cause is the issue. If humanity is just along for the ride with little we can do, then there's not much political or monetary gain to be made from it.

As we can see, Eckhart had a vested interest in pushing the human caused global warming case. When others bring up a competing theory that has growing support in the scientific community, people like Eckhart try to shut them up by every means they can think of. Anyone who thinks that passes for science is confused at best.

Yeah, how DARE someone call someone else a charlatan to the Harvard community simply because they believe they are not being truthful. How DARE they write a letter! They oughta be forced, FORCED I say, to believe what the skeptics are saying, so those who disagree with them will have the money they deserve!

Wow brian, that is one of the more ignorant things I've ever read. You're an idiot.

>What makes your post so stupid Paul is that you act as though the science is on your side.

You keep telling yourself that.

"What makes your post so stupid Paul is that you act as though the science is on your side. Which it would be, if only EVERY major scientifc body in the country (and most in the world ) weren\'t of the opinion that climate change is real and most likely man made. Lucky for you you are a moron who can ignore that.

2. Posted by cowardly Republicans"

Right, that is why a recent poll showed that 53% of Climate scientists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. How is that consensus going now?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Mycroft thanks for that link, good stuff.

Right, that is why a recent poll showed that 53% of Climate scientists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. How is that consensus going now? mycroft

Do you have a problem reading your own source material? Here is what it said:
"In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred"

So only 59% of Bush administration scientists from the EPA and other government agencies regulating the energy industry believe that global warming is man made.

It looks like you do not know what you are talking about.

Wow brian, that is one of the more ignorant things I've ever read. You're an idiot.

Well, thanks for your thoughtful feedback, but I didn't write it. I just substituted the words to show how asinine the sentiment was. So you can direct your admiration to the original author. Or you can shove it up your ass.

Global Warming. BS. I'm still waiting for the hurricanes Al Gore promised when he flew out to speak in Washington on his CO2-producing private jet.

"So only 59% of Bush administration scientists from the EPA and other government agencies regulating the energy industry believe that global warming is man made.

It looks like you do not know what you are talking about."

No, the EPA is not made up of Climatologists, but IS made up of activists. So my numbers are right, YOU don't know how to read.

Funny how when a liberal has a core belief challenged, they go all to pieces.

And read the begining of the piece. 53% of CLIMATOLOGISTS. That means scientists who study the climate. 53% do not believe in Global warming.

This whole global warming scam is getting ridiculous. Earth's weather has always been chaotic and variable. It's been much colder in the
past it's also been much warmer in the past all without the presence of man and industry. If the current warming trend is so bad then these
supersmart guys should be able to tell us precisely when the earth's climate was most optimal.

You didn't write it brian? Cool, tell me where I can find one of those keyboards that types your deepest idiotic thoughts for you.

Heh. Like the drip, drip, drip of a melting polar bear, the 'There Can Be No More Debate' club is slowly giving way to the 'Well, Some Scientists Disagree, But They Are The Fringe' club.

Soon it will turn into the 'Huh. Lots Of Honest Scientists Think This Thing Is Debatable' club. And then maybe we can have a real scientific debate about it.

Better hurry to get in on the Karbon Kredits scam or the EthanolNow! scam. They may not be around too much longer.

Good stuff. The Diplomad (he's back!) has a similar rant on Global Warming.

Mycroft, you still do not know what you are talking about you said this:
"..a recent poll showed that 53% .."

Here is the part of the article you pulled that from:

"S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred"

Are saying that a poll done in 1992 is a recent poll?

I lifted the citation in the article of the 2006 poll (recent) that showed a consensus of 59%.

barney and Mycroft, you are actually both wrong, it is neither Bush admin stoolies, nor the EPA, the article clearly says:

A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.

They have "standing" with the agencies, they are not employees of the agencies.

The guy tried to defend himself with a blog entry on his organization's web site. But the entry was pretty much an exercise in smearing the CEI because they don't agree with ACORE 100%. What's interesting is I've been checking in throughout the day. There were six comments earlier, all critical, and some quite long and well thought out. Later, there was only one. Then, two, the second being particularly long and detailed in its criticism. Now, no comments are left!

Michael T. Eckhart, you are, at least, consistent. Consistenly fascist when it comes to opposing viewpoints, that is, deleting them when possible, threatening people when not possible.

Good catch John... Of course the guy will delete anyone who shows him what a horse's ass he is.

He's so worried about his kids... I wonder how he's going to explain to them that he's a thug who tries to bully and intimidate people who disagree with him.

Of course they probably know that just from living with him.

cowardly Republicans, how much of that "consensus" is enforced by thug tactics such as above?

More interesting, how much of the above organizations have a monetary interest in the AGW hypthesis in terms of expanded research funds?

Even within the organizations you list, there are controversies such as when Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC over the misrepresentation of hurricane research.

can anyone here tell me how global warming, whether man made or not is a bad thing? What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?

Was the right temperature the when the dinosaurs ruled the jungle, or when mammoths walked the tundra, or when England was a wine producing region, or when the Sahara was full of lakes?

The left's obsession with global warming is just a form of religion.

Rush L. ran a commercial today where he endorsed the new GM trucks because of their environmentally friendly flex fuel technology.

If Rush is for lower greenhouse gas emissions, than so am I.

Good stuff. The Diplomad (he's back!) has a similar rant on Global Warming.

19. Posted by Miami

Miami, thanks for the heads-up. The diplomad was a favorite of mine. His posts during the aftermath of the December tsunami were incredible.

Anyone who thinks of the UN as a valid organization that the world needs should go read his blog posts from that time and learn the truth. Yet another reason to be skeptical reading IPCC reports on climate change.

Barney,

You're for wasting resources to grow corn for ethanol so poor people in Latin america can't afford to eat? Me too!

Global Warming is a cyclical process. If you get into the nuts and bolts of all the reports, the disagreements on what is causing GW grows very much. Also, scientists have shown that Mars' climate is changing. I guess we did that also. I have noticed lately that the left is getting a little carried away with themselves. No self control. I wonder if it has to do with the last election and all those promises of change that never happened, or all the arrests and impeachments that would happen. Or maybe it is because the SCOTUS is finally conservative and will remain so for a number of years. Global Warming is being shot further down every day. ww

No one has answered my question. What temperature is the earth supposed to be?

CR you're a fool. The scientific community has archived "consensus" about thousands of things that where later proven wrong. That a subset of them today agree to anything is not impressive.

I don't expect reason or logic to work on you... but for everyone else, I'll explain why science *can't* be on the hucksters side.

Basically you have to believe a few things to believe GW. -- And, to make things clear, by global warming, I mean "The planet is warming because of mankind and we're all going to die" (or similar)

To believe that you have to believe basically all of these things.

1) That ~150 years of temperature readings is statistically significant on a planet roughly 4,000,000,000 years old.

2) That the measured warming in the last 30 years is both a) measured correctly AND statistically important on a planet roughly 4,000,000,000 years old.

3) That we KNOW what the optimal temperature for the planet for the maximum benefit of mankind.

4) That we are there presently.

5) That without man we would stay for forever EVEN THOUGH the planet has never had a static temperature.

6) That computer models that can't model hurricanes much better than a coin flip and can't even model THE PAST without a 300% margin of error are valid.

OK as I said, you basically need to believe all of them but the debate can be distilled further; you MUST believe one of two of them... YOU MUST believe either #2 OR #6...

That is, that the last 30 years of temps are statistically valid proving we're warming OR (not and) the models are valid.

The problem is that both of these are false.

1) 30 years of temps on a 4,000,000,000 year old planet is not even worth discussing. It's meaningless.

2) The computer models CAN'T be modeling 100 (or 400 and Mann claims) years in the future with any accuracy.

I've NEVER met a programmer who wrote computer simulations who actually believes in global warming. Simply put, the models only spit out what we tell them to. If we tell them to model that we'll get colder if C02 hits the air, the models will predict global cooling. If we tell the model that C02 will warm us, the model will predict global global warming. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Remember, the computer does not know "the right answer" the computer only does a bunch of math and tells us the result.

Consider this
Let's take a far less complicated system. Let's take a football game. Bettors look at the stats of each player, they look at stats of the coaching staff, home records, away records etc etc etc... and they place a wager.

Now many years ago, I was hired to write a program to beat the odds.. We put in every stat you can imagine. We worked on it for 2 years... We got about 52%.

--My side method of simply measuring the height of all the starters and betting on the bigger team got us about 55% BTW--

To this day, MILLIONS of dollars have been spent on computer simulations of financially important events. We can't do it.

We can't tell you what the stock market will do next week and -no- we can't even figure out who will win a simple football game with only 22 players on the field.

So CR... if you're still reading... you show me a computer model that can predict the outcome of a simple thing like a football game and I'll pay more attention to computer models that claim they can model the climate of an entire planet 400 years out.

It's bullshit. We can't do it.

30 years ago the same climate people told us to prepare for an ice age, and there were serious proposals to coat the ice caps with coal dust in order to stave off impending doom!

Look, weather forecasts are a joke in the Great Lakes (as often wrong as right), and the hurricane forecasts for the past two years have been laughably wrong. Why should we believe that people who forecast for the whole PLANET, with thousands of times more variables to deal with, are any better at what they do?

I need to make a correction. I said,

"ALL of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. support the idea that GW is real and man made."

I was wrong, I should have said all but The American Association of Petroleum Geologists accept the GW is real and man made.

Considering you're cutting and pasting your bullshit, you'd think you'd get it right the first time... BTW in case you're new here, I have this nasty habit of using google.

Plagiarism will get you banned.

Cowardly republican: you just got the beat down from Paul. How bad does it hurt?

From the link given in post #10

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

When (if) the names are published they will likely be asked individually by media folks to affirm their support of the IPCC's position. How many will back up the IPCC?

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

Like many organizations, the IPCC is controlled by a few individuals who use the organization to amplify a single position. Many of the reviewers may have a different position and the consensus could disappear when exposed to scrutiny.

Funny think about that IPCC report, by the way. When you start asking the actual scientists listed by IPCC as endorsing catastrophic global warming, many say they only talked about one small side issue with IPCC, and that, in fact, they do NOT support what the IPCC says about the sky falling.

For a laugh, look at 1970s environmental books for predictions about the year 2000. They abound with apocalypse: no more wild animals in North America, worldwide crop failures, etc. None came to pass. Ooops.

CR- I'm not interested in you cutting and pasting talking points.

If you'll like to reply to people in this thread and defend your position with ideas, you're more than welcome here.

Cutting and pasting bullshit will get you banned. That rules isn't just for you, look around, it applies to everyone.

The only way your analogy would work is if I had STARTED smoking based on that same doctor's advice.

And BTW tell me which of the 2 above you believe.

Take that guy down Paul. No one likes him.

Lee "Edward Smith" Ward:

Bad form, I agree -- it reminds me of the right wing's boycott of the Ditzy Chicks

If "silenced" is still recording and selling cd's and concert tickets I guess you're correct.

And BTW, this is yet another in a LONG line of posts by you that addresses nothing other than your ability to fling poo at the opposition and zero ability to comment on the subject of the post.

30 years ago the same climate people told us to prepare for an ice age, and there were serious proposals to coat the ice caps with coal dust in order to stave off impending doom!

Ugh, when will you people stop repeating that lame myth?

Brian how old are you? 20...25? I was in my 20's thirty years ago and I remember the global cooling yapping that went on then...so it is no myth little man.

First off, the IPCC is a political emtity and not a scientific organization. Secondly, the latest report of the IPCC was delayed a bit so that they could make sure that the details in the main report did not conflict with the previously released summary (The summary was released several months ahead of the main report). Would any scientific body allow such editorial hegemony over scientific data?

AGW, as it is presently promoted, is a hoax.

Michael, instead of resulting to insults why don't you provide evidence that proves Brain's argument or data is incorrect?

Show us some articles from climate scientists that predicted a global cooling trend or forecasting an ice age back in the mid 70's.

"Aren't you damn tired of that canard by now?

If "silenced" is still recording and selling cd's and concert tickets I guess you're correct."

You need to get your big sister to read the comments to you, slot-car marc - I said boycotting the Ditzy Chicks, not "silenced". Don't put quotes around something YOU make up and then attribute to me. I also said that I was against the effort to silence Marlo Lewis that Paul wrote about.

Bryan sez: "Ugh, when will you people stop repeating that lame myth?"

Since the facts and truth are rarely on their side, Bryan, myths and BS is about all that many of them have left.

Science isn't done by voting. It is done by creating hypotheses, testing the predictions of the hypetheses using reproducible tests and published with complete disclosure.

Too much of AGW "science" is not up to that.

As for the IPCC, it is not itself a research organization, it is a propaganda arm that has been caught misrepresenting the state of science in the past. Its current process of vetting its detailed science discussion to match the already published "summary" discredits it utterly.

Al Gore has been trying to create a scientific consensus for human caused global warming (HCGW) since 1992, as seen in the story linked to in post #10. Al and others have certainly been successful in creating the appearance of a consensus as pointed out by CR's long list if organizations supporting the HCGW position.

However, scientists know that neither an appeal to authority nor consensus is a valid scientific argument. Neither authority nor consensus arguments can be sustained for long in the face of a future predicting theory or contrary experimental data. If the science were really settled there would be no support for experiments into a competing theory, yet the following institutions are supporting the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiments at CERN.

• University of Aarhus, Denmark
• University of Bergen, Norway
• California Institute of Technology, USA
• CERN, Switzerland
• Danish National Space Center, Denmark
• Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland
• University of Helsinki, Finland
• University of Kuopio, Finland
• Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia
• University of Leeds, United Kingdom
• Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany
• University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
• Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
• Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
• University of Reading, United Kingdom
• Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom
• Tampere University of Technology, Finland
• University of Vienna, Austria

Obviously, a lot of scientists don't think the science is settled. If the CLOUD experiments demonstrate that the Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud link is the primary driver of Earth's recent climate fluctuations, then cutting back on CO2 is likely exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. The Sun's magnetic activity is expected to enter an extended quiet period similar to that of the 1700's little ice age. Increased greenhouse gasses may be our only means of mitigating what would truly be a disaster for a world with over 6 billion people to feed.

barneyGRUBBLE:

Show us some articles from climate scientists that predicted a global cooling trend or forecasting an ice age back in the mid 70's.

Jesus H. Christ in a ferris wheel are you that dense? Do you suffer from extreme amnesia that you fail to remember all the linked posts and discussion about the Time Mag cover story of 1974 here at Wizbang?

Or, are you just an asswipe contrarian just for the sake of being one?

In the infamous words of Rosie Google it.

Before I start mac Lorry, someone needs to explin to you what a Appeal to authority is because clearly you misunderstand it. An appeal to authority occurs when a person is using a nonexpert to make there point.

Here's an independent definition: "An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it." It has nothing to do with the knowledge (or lack of it) of the authority. Like the appeal to consensus, the position of an authority will change in the face or factual data.

Okay, for those who seem to be unable to grasp how government-sponsored "science" works, I offer this quick primer.

If Dr. Einstein goes to a government and says, "I've studied phenomenon X, and there's no danger," the government will say, "Thank you, now go away."

If, on the other hand, Dr. Einstein goes to the government and says, "I've studied phenomenon X, and it's a crisis!" the government will start throwing money at him to find a "solution" to said "crisis."

Only the most naive (read: most lefty trolls here) would automatically ascribe lily-white motives to people with a vested monetary interest in finding (or manufacturing) a crisis.

I remember the global cooling yapping that went on then...so it is no myth little man.

That's just evidence that you get your science from Newsweek instead of scientists. It explains a lot, "little mind".

Jesus H. Christ in a ferris wheel are you that dense? Do you suffer from extreme amnesia that you fail to remember all the linked posts and discussion about the Time Mag cover story of 1974 here at Wizbang?... In the infamous words of Rosie Google it.

Good one, marc. Your Google link leads to many sites confirming that the "scientists predicted global cooling" thing is a myth. Here's one quote from a page that comes up in your link:

This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports

So I'll throw back at you... Jesus H. Christ in a ferris wheel are you that dense?

And if you're done embarrassing yourself, you could always try to actually answer what was asked, which was:

Show us some articles from climate scientists that predicted a global cooling trend or forecasting an ice age back in the mid 70's.

Or, are you just an asswipe contrarian just for the sake of being one?

Henrik Svensmark has put forward this theory three times so far, and each time he was found to guilty of data fraud. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/6/8/1

Your link doesn't support your assertion that Henrik Svensmark has been found guilty of data fraud. It's just review of a book co-authored by Svensmark. The reviewer is a NASA climate modeller who has a lot to account for himself.

Here's what professor Freeman Dyson says about climate modellers "I have studied their climate models and know what they can do," Prof. Dyson says. "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere,"

What ya bet CERN proves him wrong for the fourth time?

The link between charged particle radiation and cloud formation has already been proven in a peer reviewed study, so it's more likely the CLOUD experiments will prove the climate modellers wrong with REAL experimental data. The so-called consensus would then evaporate like the morning mist.

So anyway, did I mention the 18 institutions and universities that don't agree that the science is settled and are supporting the CLOUD experiments at CERN?

/me wonders if the Martian soccer-moms driving around in their massively-polluting SUVs are aware of the damage to their environment it is causing, including heating up their planet's atmosphere to the point of melting its ice caps.

Oh.

Wait.

Strike the "Martians". And "SUVs".

Crap.

It is absolutely amazing how quickly liberals go from debate to abuse to threat of physical violence when people do not cow-tow to their beliefs, as idiotic or moronic as they may be. Because we all know, Michael-my-boy, that threatening to destroy someone else's career simply because they happen to disagree with you will automatically make you right. Of course it will.

Talk about compensating...

Hey, coward... show me which of the global-warming critics are getting paid by corporations.

And I mean hard data, not wacky conspiracy theories. And I want it from reliable sources, not panic-mongering sites.

I anticipate your spin and evasion.

"Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in your studies of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We understand that these studies of temperature proxy records (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.) formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding - that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is 'likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years' and that the '1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year' - has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of the public debate surrounding climate change policy." The letter goes on: "However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and Energy & Environment, researchers question the results of this work." It then states: "The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of federally funded research and of the IPCC review process - two matters of particular interest to the Committee."

American Institute Of Physics

...What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?

Was the right temperature the when the dinosaurs ruled the jungle, or when mammoths walked the tundra, or when England was a wine producing region, or when the Sahara was full of lakes?...

27. Posted by Oclarki | July 27, 2007 5:47 PM

I would like to hear a clear answer to this, too. Anyone?

Very good question indeed, Oclarki.

Sorry I missed it earlier.

cowardly Republican, researchers whose grant proposals are consistent with AGW are getting funding NSF funding, while those whose proposals question it are not. So by your own standard, those who are supportive of AGW motivations are not "lily-white".

You need some practice on this logic thing.

My God, Paul, what have you done with mantis and BC? I would refer everyone back to the last climate change thread where the warmers were decimated.
=========================

NASA chief Michael D. Griffin made the following comments on National
Public Radio May 31, 2007

I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists, I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Griffin's point that we don't know if "Earth's climate today is the optimal climate" is logically valid. Regardless of his well reasoned argument he quickly found out that questioning the global warming dogma is risky business and started doing damage control the same day per this Fox News report.

CR you're a coward.

Why don't you answer my simple question. Which of the 2 above do you believe?

Do you believe GW is proved by the last 30 years of data on a planet 4 Billion years old or do you believe the models that can't even model THE PAST?

Which one do you believe?

Cowardly at 7:25

Sure. The IPCC themselves:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
4.2
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

Sorry, CR, I asked first. It's impolite to answer a question with another question.

By the way, don't we know you by another name?

CR, since when is AMS a for-profit corporation? It's a friggin' association of meteorologists, for cryin' out loud!

If that's the best you can come up with, better create another sock puppet. This one just lost all credibility... not that it had much to start with.

Basically AGW proponents have two things in their court: An acknowledged empirical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature, and computer models. I agree that an increase in CO2 should increase the average temperature about the planet, but the data only shows this to be 0.2-0.3C over the last hundred years or so. The runaway doomsday scenarios only come from the models and the models "assume" positive feedback from other sources to cause the runaway. The models are built and calibrated against past warming trends (when you back them up, they match the average temperature history). One of the big concerns with the local site conditions of USHCN temperature stations (asphalt, air conditioners, rooftops, etc.) is that, taken as a composite, they give a decidedly upward bias. Computer models validated against this biased trend would themselves produce upwardly biased predictions/trends. It is very possible that we are being asked to turn over our economies and lives to governmental entities based upon warming that is not even real.

PERHAPS YOU DID NOT BELIEVE ME

CR I warned you 3 times.

Plagiarism will get you banned. Posting whole articles will get you tossed.

Learn it, live it, love it. That's just the way it is.

You are not banned YET. I unpublished your comments, I did not even delete them. (yet)

NOW... If you'd like to continue to avoid debate and simply post crap you google up, I can ban you... If you'd like to engage in a little debate you're more than welcome.

It's not that hard... If you're not smart enough to figure it out, then you don't bring anything to the discussion.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Hey CR you may be right-three hairy canes came thru here today (Tenn.) Never had any here before. Also saw water dripping and went outside to see if my glacier was melting. False alarm-just a leaky facuet. Whoops have to take back the hairy cane statement-it was just my AC kicking on and off. But now you hang in there because I am sure you can come with something that will take away the "I am a idiot" tatto that is on your forehead. But you had better hurry because they tell me that the hotter it gets, the harder is to remove tattos.By reading your comments you probably don't have much time left to remove it. As close as I can figure you only have 4,000,000,000 (give or take a few million) years left. If you think that is not enough time I just found out that a side grinder with 24 grit disk works wonders. Good luck and if you build a house, build it on stilts as the sea level rose 1/2 cm in the last billion years so somewhere in the Rocky mountains should be safe for a few million years. Don't thank me for the advice as I glad to help those that are in dire need of it.

Hey cowardly Rep' slack off. I just took up for you in comment# 68. Sheeze some people have no heart.

>Plagerism is what you did when you passed off your ideas on modeling as they they were your own. Now ban Yourself dippy do

Which is exactly what you did in your second and third posts here, moron.

>Plagerism is what you did when you passed off your ideas on modeling as they they were your own. Now ban Yourself dippy do

And what you and every one of the crazy deniers who support you have done since. Funny you are not bothering them about it. maybe because you a hypocritical chicken shit.

hey Jhow, becareful next time you are high up. I know you science haters don't beleive in gravity but it is real! Trust me this isnot partisan I am trying to save your life. it is real!

Organizations, committees, tribunals, blue ribbon panels.... I'm glad that Copernicus and Einstein didn't stop their obviously useless pursuits.
If the science is not slam dunk, and it's not, then they haven't convinced me. Mr. Griffin's remarks are reasonable and should be taken to heart. Thanks for the links, Mr. Lorry.

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html

See paulie dipshit a link to the site supporting what I say. Not plagerism. Starting to understand?

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. AGU is one of ten Member Societies of the American Institute of Physics. The statement follows:

"Human Impacts on Climate

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.

Oh and in case I didn't mewntion it. Virtually every major scientific body in the industrliazed nations has endorsed the idea that climate change is real.

Well actually Lorry plagerized, but cowardly Paul only mentions that when it is done to make him look like the schmuch that he is. But what can you expect from a coward?

You can whine like a girl all you want.... Nobody else on this thread has done what you did.

Period.

I will admit right up front you are being held to a *marginally* higher standard... If a long time poster (you know someone who has posted their own ideas for a while) quotes someone a lot in a thread, sure that will be treated different than what a you (a newbie) did today.

(and no I don't have to apologize for that)

But again, nobody else on this thread has done what you did.

You came here and made (from memory) 4 consecutive posts that where simple cut/pastes from other sites.

I asked you to stop.

You made several more.

I asked you to stop again.

You made several more then started posting whole articles in the comments thread. In addition to copyright issues, there is a saying in the blogosphere. GET YOUR OWN BLOG.

If you want to start posting whole articles, go to blogger or any other free services and start up your own blog. You're not welcome to try to turn this into your own (copyright infringing) blog.

If you say I just don't like debate, either you're new here or not too smart. Look down about 6 or 8 posts and read that thread.

mantis has a brain. He gets responded too. Barneygoogle is an idiot. He gets largely ignored.

Now, I don't know you yet. If you have a brain, you will be engaged. If you're an idiot, you'll be allowed a platform but be largely ignored by me.

If you can't manage to post without clipping others' works, you will be banned.

It's not that hard.

>Well actually Lorry plagerized, but cowardly Paul only mentions that when it is done to make him look like the schmuch that he is. But what can you expect from a coward?

Mac has made so many original posts here I couldn't hope to count them. You might look around a bit before you spout off...

You might notice that while Mac and I "agree" on things I don't actually talk to him that much. I actually do most of my talking to people who disagree with me.

I routinely answer mantis because he is one of the (very very very) few liberals here with a brain. We disagree on most everything but he's not an idiot.

So far, you're not in that league.

Update And looking back at Mac's posts, you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. There is a difference between excerpting something and trying to pass it off as your own work goofball.

Well first off i'm sure mantis is quite smart and beats you regularly. As I have demonstrated it is not very hard to do.

Now lets cut the bullshit, Paul, you deleted those posts because you know they make you look bad in the debate. For example you deleted posts where I destroyed your tortured logic without posting anyhting.

My last post to Lorry which you removed, was an article that demonstrated that incredibly silly idea of hers was in fact already rejected by the scientifc community. Plus she made claims about what parts have succeeded in tests without citing them (as did you) that is plagersm. So you can knock off your act you are fooling no reasonably minded people.

Oh and one final point you are acting as you are somewhat noble in not banning me. We both know the real reason you haven't though. When you look at my account you see me coming in from too many IP addresses. You know you couldn't do it if you wanted to. So lets not pretend like you are being nice. You just don't want to declare it then be made a fool if.

Oh you silly little child....

No, don't flatter yourself... I have not looked at you IPs.

But as for the larger issues, you know I really don't care what names you call me or anything like that... It bores me.

I'll let you post all you about how I'm a coward and I don't like debate... Blah Blah Blah

I've been posting here for like (I actually don't know) but it's been like 3 years or something. In that time I've have more than my share of trolls and idiots.

You might say a lot of bad things about me but that I shy away from debate simply isn't one of them.

But say it all you want.. at least it is an original thought.

===========

And just so you know... posting the fact that a whole bunch of gullible people agree on GW isn't "proof" of anything and HARDLY proves me wrong.

*** Did you REALLY think that I didn't know a whole bunch of people believe the scam before you came and told me?***

Yes, CR it might come as a shock, but I know a lot of people claim GW is true. If you actually use that gray ooze between your years, you might figure out that's the EXACT reason I keep posting the truth.

DUH!

(here CR I'll do it for you)

NEWS FLASH, NEWS FLASH, NEWS FLASH...

A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY ARE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING

wow... thanks CR before you got here we thought we where the only blog discussing it.

You are such a moron.

I just pulled up your last 10 posts and they all have the same IP. If you're going to claim you're using posting by proxy, at least freaking do it you loser.

Bye, bye CR...

ut-oh, the boss was listening. lol

This is the global warming thread so stupid it is funny. CR, go back to the global warming thread for 7/25 and see a few substantive issues discussed. You are a mess.
==================

You know, that CR is a closet authoritarian is shown by his misunderstanding of what constitutes an argument to authority. Read, CR, Mac's comment at 8:01 PM, and compare it with your understanding of what an argument to authority is.

Your whole schtick here as been an argument to authority. Do you not get that we are challenging that authority?
===========================

I see it's too late to respond to CR's assertion that I plagiarized something (he didn't specify). I do copy excerpts from other places, but never the entire content and I try to link to the source unless that link has already been provided in the thread by myself or others.

Definition of plagiarize from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

As long as the source is cited it's not Plagiarism. Plagiarism is an ethical violation, not a legal violation. Copyright is an entirely different matter. Citing the source of material is irrelevant for the purposes of determining Copyright infringement, but the law includes the doctrine of "fair use", which I'm well aware of and practice. If I slip up or push the fair use doctrine to an uncomfortable level then I fully support Kevin or the author of a piece deleting my comments. I view it as a safety valve to keep things above board in the heat of a discussion.

Note to Kevin: I solved my TypeKey sign-in problem. It was on my end.

Leave it to eco-extremists to send these threatening letters knowing that the whole global warming is a lie i mean its time that EARTH FIRSTEARTH LIBERATION FRONT and other swere investigated and take a look at all the eco-wacko groups that promote this global warming bull kaka and demand that AL GORE tone down his ranting. And the fact is that when the FBI search the UNIBOMBERS shack they found a well read copy of EARTH IN THE BALANCE in there

Hey Mac, please tell me what you think of

icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

TNX
===

How about 'Earth for the Unbalanced'?
======================

CR,

My last post to Lorry which you removed, was an article that demonstrated that incredibly silly idea of hers was in fact already rejected by the scientifc community.

First, it's his (I understand the confusion, however) and saying it's an incredibly silly idea is just your opinion and one not shared by the scientists at CERN. Svensmark's work is disputed, not rejected. One often quoted critic is Nigel Calder who bases his criticism on the fact that there is no long term trend in cosmic ray data gathered by the neutron monitor at Climax Station in Colorado. However, that neutron monitor measure only a small part of the energy levels of cosmic rays, which span a range of over 14 orders of magnitude! The CLOUD experiments at CERN will determine which energy levels (within their accelerator's limits) are important, if any. Nigel Calder may come to regret his haste in dismissing the link based on the Climax Station data.

Plus she made claims about what parts have succeeded in tests without citing them (as did you) that is plagersm.

It's not plagiarism to say a study established some link unless I claim that work as my own. You continue to make simple errors in logic, which is no doubt why you're so impressed with the appeal to authority. It doesn't require any critical thinking on your part.

Hey Mac, please tell me what you think of

icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

It's 113 pages. That will take time and right now it looks like good motorcycle weather outside.

Sheesh, Kevin, did ya have to take away my cat-toy before I was done playing with it?

Just kidding. Good work on getting rid of the troll. Hope you IP banned him.

Yea, no hurry. I got the precis, but can't find it now. They claim the physics of the greenhouse theory has been misapplied. Wear a helmet.
=========================================

How is that banning me workig out for you?

Just fine thank you.

Since I know exactly where you are please take this, your only warning, to heart - you are not welcome here anymore. Any attempt to return will result in me personally going directly to your ISP to report TOS violations. I've got the full history already prepared. You need to go now and stay away.

Kim,

I got through a first pass of the paper you linked to. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. They are not the first to claim there's no basis in physics for the so-called greenhouse effect. They point out that "Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heatflow without mechanical work." And that the flow of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer ground violates the second law of thermodynamics. If there's no scientific basis for the so-called greenhouse effect then all the computer models are wrong. Furthermore, Gerlich and Tscheuschner argue that no computer model based on real world physics is likely possible even in the far future. This is their summary:

In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

I also like this statement: "Scientific consensus is scientific nonsense."

A quick search shows the authors are already under attack by the global warming crowed. Also, unless such a paper is published in a peer reviews journal it's not likely to get any official attention. I don't know if it's been accepted for such publication or not. If it is, there are now enough people concerned over the issue to prevent this paper from being ignored. The computer model supporters are going to have to address the fundamental physics. If they can't defend their physics the global warming industry will have it's foundation pulled from under it.

>Also, unless such a paper is published in a peer reviews journal it's not likely to get any official attention.

Peer review is meaningless today. Look back at the last GW thread. That was "peer reviewed" read my comments to mantis. It's meaningless today.

Ooh, thanks, Mac. It is not yet published.

Except, of course, on the internet, and being truly peer reviewed. Time to check in at ClimateAudit.org
======================

Its like when those GREENPEACE wackos are taking part in some crazy protest and they always get so absurd I mean only a idiot would have anything to do with GREENPEACE

Peer review is meaningless today. Look back at the last GW thread. That was "peer reviewed" read my comments to mantis. It's meaningless today.

I tend to agree that peer reviewed doesn't mean sound and well founded. What being published in a peer reviewed journal does impart is standing within the scientific community. You'll note that mantis tends to dismiss studies that don't have such standing and he's not alone.

The editors of such journals act in the role of gatekeepers and have been known to filter out unpopular ideas. That would be too bad in the case of the paper Kim linked because it seems to be very well thought out. It's also important because it attacks the very heart of the human caused global warming assertion.

It's also important because it attacks the very heart of the human caused global warming assertion.

And that's why they might filter it out.

CA unthreaded #16 may be hotting up.
======================

Well Mac there was a time -when scientists where advocates for science and not a political point of view- when peer review meant something.

Now you get your GW paper signed off on by Bill Jones, senior fellow and the "Save the Planet from Global Warming Institute" and the "Center for Progressive Thoughts on the Environment" and poof! you've got your peer review.

That's why I say it is meaningless.

Perhaps being NOT peer reviewed is an impediment but to me being peer review carries no weight.

When I was a kid, the thought of having my work scrutinized like that terrified me. Now if I could go back, I'd think nothing of it... I'd just find the right peers.

Get the book THE POLITCLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIROMENTALISM and get some great information

Nope, Steve doesn't understand it either. Brignell's a little skeptical. The physicists seem to be applauding. It's going to be a big paper.
===============================

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

You blew in here a week or so ago with the same claptrap about solar influences being debunked and we sent you off in search of CERN and Svensmark. Do you not learn?

While you're at it, peruse Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
================================