A statement from the American Geophysical Union

[HAL 9000 96]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

Ouch.

Still no show when it comes to refuting what I actually write... gee Gary...

You have written nothing to refute. You keep spewing the same BS over and over. Some scientist. geez

Search function here is a wonder. Thread after thread shows the prevailing scientific agreement versus Gary Sense.

Again, re-read what makes science superior to Gary Sense. Oversight, peer-review, and conclusion based on actual experimentation, not Google.

:lol: :lol:

What utter arrogance!! How do you keep from ripping your hat with a head that big?

Is it popcorn time or are you going to actually write something that doesn't make Gary Sense?

[GaryC 7]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. You keep touting the peer review process as the way scientists get their ideas validated. Well guess who does the peer review? The same scientists that have the aforementioned mind set! Anyone that comes along with an opposing view gets shot down. Take your reaction to my point of view. Your hostile and degrading of my opinion. You think you have all the answers. Your arrogance and self importance will not allow any other ideas. So as far as your concerned your opinions are useless.

Um hummm... and all this time I thought the answers were obtained after time spent researching meticulously. Maybe that's the difference between good science and the Cracker Jack science ignorantly propagated to support an opinion.

FYI... peer review is not infallible. When you submit something for review the scrutiny is placed not on your belief or your conclusion but rather on your experimental design and your interpretation of the data obtained. If the conclusions you obtain are not in agreement with the individual reviewer, comments are exchanged and discussed for clarification. Now you know something you didn't know before.

You know... kind of like proving a point with actual evidence obtained from research, not what others say.

Yo may call that BS and arrogant. We in science call it being educated. And yes, many in science are as arrogant as those irresponsibly touting false science as fact.

I bow to your almighty science oh master!!! What a joke!

I have shown you example after example of peer reviewed studies that fly in the face of your consensus but you just ignore it! Your club of man made global warming is exclusive. You must suck up the consensus or your out. How do you put up with us peons? It must be so hard for someone so smart.

[GaryC 7]

You want peer reviewed studies that show your consensus is wrong? OK. Here are a few for you to ignore and discount.

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.

Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’

The new study was also touted as “overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus’ in one fell swoop” by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Joel Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.

The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,” AEI’s Schwartz explained.

“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,” he added.

“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK)

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the “global warming movement [is] falling apart.”

“A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won’t start until 2009,” Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website. (LINK)

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)

Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK)

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [uN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."

"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)

3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (LINK)

4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)

5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)

6) New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle: Excerpt: The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007 (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: Despite the fact that one of the co-author’s protests this study being used to chill climate fears, this paper is an important contribution to establishing the solar climate link.]

7) Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.'" (LINK) A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: “There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm.” (LINK)

8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

9) Updated: October 2, 2007: Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK) Several other recent scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also debunked the “No Solar-Climate Link Study” on July 14, 2007. Excerpt: “[The study claiming to prove a] ‘refutation’ of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity,” Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action, wrote. (LINK) Other studies and scientists have found also confirmed the solar-climate link. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK)

11) An April 2007 study revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. < > We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system - "the Great Ocean Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. < > Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research. (LINK)

12) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." (LINK) [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]

13) Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007 (LINK) - “The (U.S.) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization has placed many sites in unsuitable locations — on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills! The data and approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. If the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much less of any background trend,” Meteorologist Joseph Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

14) Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' – The study was published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Excerpt from a March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily: “Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.” The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.” He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.’” The article concludes: “Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.” (LINK)

15) Updated: September 26, 2007: New Report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on global warming. Excerpt: As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete. Recognizing that powerful computer-based simulations are a key element in predicting climate change, a new Institute of Physics (IOP) report, published on 26 September 2007, shows that leading climate-physicists' views on the reliability of these models differ. The IOP is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change". (LINK)

16) A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [see July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK) ]

17) Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK) A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [see: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK) ]

18) Update - September 14, 2007: A soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said. < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the] Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” Taylor said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: In a classic case of observed reality versus unproven computer model predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’ ]

19) Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)

20) Update - September 10, 2007: New study claims UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process entitled “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to the analysis, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” The paper continued: "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis concluded: “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.” (LINK)

21) A May 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [see May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]

22) An upcoming Fall 2007 blockbuster U.S. Senate report is set to be released that will feature a sampling of peer-reviewed studies and hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media engineered climate “consensus.” Please keep checking this blog for updates.

Prominent scientists speak out to calm CO2 emission fears

Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

Boston College paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier recently explained how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cease to have a warming impact. Frappier noted in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College’s newspaper The Heights, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but the impact of the gases instead stabilize and cease having a warming effect.

"At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [CO2] and its effect gets saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating." (LINK) "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today," Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, explained. According the article, Frappier criticizes Gore because “the movie (An Inconvenient Truth) fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.”

Spitting outside has ‘same effect’ as doubling CO2

In May 2007, the “father of meteorology” Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” Bryson, who has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, said. (LINK) “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson added.

Environmental economist Dennis Avery, co-author with climate scientist Dr. Fred Singer of the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years," explained the impact man-made CO2 has had on global temperatures. "The earth has warmed only a net 0.2 degrees C of net warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of that—or 0.1 degree C of warming over 65 years! We've had no warming at all since 1998. Remember, too, that each added unit of CO2 has less impact on the climate. The first 40 parts per million of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as much climate impact as the next 360 ppm," Avery wrote in August 2007. The book, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years," details more than 100 scientific studies with more than 300 co-authors revealing how solar activity is linked to the Earth's natural temperature cycles.

"How do the Greens project a mind-numbing surge of global warming from this New Math on Global Warming?" Avery asked, calling the new scientific research debunking climate fears a "real crisis" for Gore and the proponents of man-made catastrophic global warming. (LINK)

‘Temperature drives CO2’

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, recently spoke out against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Gore and others. Giegengack does not even consider global warming among the top ten environmental problems.

“In terms of [global warming’s] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don’t think it makes it into the top 10,” Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. (LINK) Giegengack also noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” (LINK) “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa,” Giegengack explained. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” he added. (LINK) "The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It's the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature," he added. (LINK)

“Certain ‘feedback loops’ naturally control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of solution in the ocean and releases them,” he continued. “[Today, humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons is going somewhere else. In the past, when the Earth’s climate rose, CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it won’t reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn’t see the effects of that for generations,” Giegengack said.

Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained how miniscule mankind’s CO2 emissions are in relation to the atmosphere.

“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website www.IceCap.US. (LINK)

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.

NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics ‘court jesters’

In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in “deceit” and were nothing more than “court jesters.”

“The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present,” Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of ‘deceit’ coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (LINK) Also worth noting is Hansen’s humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews. (LINK) ]

If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics? [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK ]

Media continues to ignore growing scientific evidence

The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.

In fact, the media is continuing to promote the unfounded scaremongering of both Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio. Both Newsweek (LINK) and NBC Nightly News (LINK) thoroughly embarrassed themselves recently with “news” items on global warming. [EPW Blog Note: Newsweek’s cover article featured such shoddy reporting that the magazine was forced to debunk itself in the very next issue, as one of its own editors slapped the magazine down for a “highly contrived” and “ fundamentally misleading” article on global warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...8&Issue_id=

[HAL 9000 96]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. You keep touting the peer review process as the way scientists get their ideas validated. Well guess who does the peer review? The same scientists that have the aforementioned mind set! Anyone that comes along with an opposing view gets shot down. Take your reaction to my point of view. Your hostile and degrading of my opinion. You think you have all the answers. Your arrogance and self importance will not allow any other ideas. So as far as your concerned your opinions are useless.

Um hummm... and all this time I thought the answers were obtained after time spent researching meticulously. Maybe that's the difference between good science and the Cracker Jack science ignorantly propagated to support an opinion.

FYI... peer review is not infallible. When you submit something for review the scrutiny is placed not on your belief or your conclusion but rather on your experimental design and your interpretation of the data obtained. If the conclusions you obtain are not in agreement with the individual reviewer, comments are exchanged and discussed for clarification. Now you know something you didn't know before.

You know... kind of like proving a point with actual evidence obtained from research, not what others say.

Yo may call that BS and arrogant. We in science call it being educated. And yes, many in science are as arrogant as those irresponsibly touting false science as fact.

I bow to your almighty science oh master!!! What a joke!

I have shown you example after example of peer reviewed studies that fly in the face of your consensus but you just ignore it! Your club of man made global warming is exclusive. You must suck up the consensus or your out. How do you put up with us peons? It must be so hard for someone so smart.

I dunno... just address the actual evidence with actual evidence, not pseudoscience. But for yourself I don't see any other VJers bringing themselves down to the popcorn phase yet. There could be hope to actually learn something beyond a perceived fear of actually discovering your support of incorrect science. I know what I do and say. Do you? That comes straight from the heart my friend... no insult intended.

[GaryC 7]

I dunno... just address the actual evidence with actual evidence, not pseudoscience. But for yourself I don't see any other VJers bringing themselves down to the popcorn phase yet. There could be hope to actually learn something beyond a perceived fear of actually discovering your support of incorrect science. I know what I do and say. Do you? That comes straight from the heart my friend... no insult intended.

Oh, so there is a consensus in VJ now? How charming. You wanted peer reviews studies and I gave them to you. Comments?

[Dan J 277]

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

[HAL 9000 96]

Where are the peer-reviewed parts?

Blog posts and Senate testimony from non-published journals are not necessarily peer-reviewed. Please stick to the program and not Google. Any quack can publish a blog or write a newsletter. Just look at VJ!

Maybe you should make your own commentaries to each paragraph you post showing your analysis and interpretation before you expect others to follow a point of view that continues to come from the same handful of scientists that time and time again have failed to stand up to the standards of the scientific peer-review process.

Don't take up bandwith trying to say the same thing over and over without an actual understanding of what you post.

And.. you could also read a little more... like its been suggested... one... two... three... X times over.

[GaryC 7]

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

[HAL 9000 96]

I dunno... just address the actual evidence with actual evidence, not pseudoscience. But for yourself I don't see any other VJers bringing themselves down to the popcorn phase yet. There could be hope to actually learn something beyond a perceived fear of actually discovering your support of incorrect science. I know what I do and say. Do you? That comes straight from the heart my friend... no insult intended.

Oh, so there is a consensus in VJ now? How charming. You wanted peer reviews studies and I gave them to you. Comments?

Search function.

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Naa... just belivieng a pseudoscientist without actually paying attention to where they're coming from.

[Dan J 277]

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Guy gets paid to push a particular political position. And you don't find it suspect?

[GaryC 7]

Where are the peer-reviewed parts?

Blog posts and Senate testimony from non-published journals are not necessarily peer-reviewed. Please stick to the program and not Google. Any quack can publish a blog or write a newsletter. Just look at VJ!

Maybe you should make your own commentaries to each paragraph you post showing your analysis and interpretation before you expect others to follow a point of view that continues to come from the same handful of scientists that time and time again have failed to stand up to the standards of the scientific peer-review process.

Don't take up bandwith trying to say the same thing over and over without an actual understanding of what you post.

And.. you could also read a little more... like its been suggested... one... two... three... X times over.

You want me to spoon feed it to you? Follow the link. That page links to every one of the peer reviewed studies. But I guess you will not do that. It doesn't agree with your ideas so it is automatically discounted. You don't want to understand something you don't agree with.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its push vs. actual discovery... and the pne that undergoes the discovery process is labeled arrogant... wow...

[GaryC 7]

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Guy gets paid to push a particular political position. And you don't find it suspect?

Nope. Why should you? He didn't write the papers only compiled them.

Its push vs. actual discovery... and the pne that undergoes the discovery process is labeled arrogant... wow...

:lol:

If your an example of our scientists then we are in real trouble. (if you really are a "scientist") How closed minded can you get?

[HAL 9000 96]

Where are the peer-reviewed parts?

Blog posts and Senate testimony from non-published journals are not necessarily peer-reviewed. Please stick to the program and not Google. Any quack can publish a blog or write a newsletter. Just look at VJ!

Maybe you should make your own commentaries to each paragraph you post showing your analysis and interpretation before you expect others to follow a point of view that continues to come from the same handful of scientists that time and time again have failed to stand up to the standards of the scientific peer-review process.

Don't take up bandwith trying to say the same thing over and over without an actual understanding of what you post.

And.. you could also read a little more... like its been suggested... one... two... three... X times over.

You want me to spoon feed it to you? Follow the link. That page links to every one of the peer reviewed studies. But I guess you will not do that. It doesn't agree with your ideas so it is automatically discounted. You don't want to understand something you don't agree with.

been there, done that.

Again, they're all suggestions that in the end, COULD HELP you better defend your own position... just trying to help out.

But be careful what you actually read.

Anyway... I don't agree that I have to go wash the dishes, but I understand that its part of the job as a husband. See?

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Guy gets paid to push a particular political position. And you don't find it suspect?

Nope. Why should you? He didn't write the papers only compiled them.

Its push vs. actual discovery... and the pne that undergoes the discovery process is labeled arrogant... wow...

:lol:

If your an example of our scientists then we are in real trouble. (if you really are a "scientist") How closed minded can you get?

PM me and I'll give you a tour of my lab next time you are in Chicago.

Don't worry, there won't be a quiz about what you learned afterwards.

[GaryC 7]

Where are the peer-reviewed parts?

Blog posts and Senate testimony from non-published journals are not necessarily peer-reviewed. Please stick to the program and not Google. Any quack can publish a blog or write a newsletter. Just look at VJ!

Maybe you should make your own commentaries to each paragraph you post showing your analysis and interpretation before you expect others to follow a point of view that continues to come from the same handful of scientists that time and time again have failed to stand up to the standards of the scientific peer-review process.

Don't take up bandwith trying to say the same thing over and over without an actual understanding of what you post.

And.. you could also read a little more... like its been suggested... one... two... three... X times over.

You want me to spoon feed it to you? Follow the link. That page links to every one of the peer reviewed studies. But I guess you will not do that. It doesn't agree with your ideas so it is automatically discounted. You don't want to understand something you don't agree with.

been there, done that.

Again, they're all suggestions that in the end, COULD HELP you better defend your own position... just trying to help out.

But be careful what you actually read.

Anyway... I don't agree that I have to go wash the dishes, but I understand that its part of the job as a husband. See?

Who is Mark Morano?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

He is the guy that put the articles together in one place. What, if he is opposed to the idea of man made global warming then anything he touches is automatically disqualified?

Guy gets paid to push a particular political position. And you don't find it suspect?

Nope. Why should you? He didn't write the papers only compiled them.

Its push vs. actual discovery... and the pne that undergoes the discovery process is labeled arrogant... wow...

:lol:

If your an example of our scientists then we are in real trouble. (if you really are a "scientist") How closed minded can you get?

PM me and I'll give you a tour of my lab next time you are in Chicago.

Don't worry, there won't be a quiz about what you learned afterwards.

I may not be a "scientist" but I am an avid reader with a strong interest in science. I have read and tried to understand the things I cite here. I would think that you wouldn't need me to spoon feed it to you, that you would out of curiosity follow the links and read the studies. But it seems you would rather attempt to look superior without doing the work. So OK, I will go through my bookmarks that I have been accumulating over the years and spoon feed you. Try to have an open mind.