As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather?

[SuperDuper! 230]

It's fcuking cold here in FL. Low 30's overnight and upper 40's for today's high. It's brutally cold, man.

Tell it to Mr. Global Warming Doomsayer, Al Gore!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Senate Minority Report, Charles?

You have no idea what peer review means, what a scientific theory is, or understand the difference between bodies of science whose expertise is in climate related science. Major FAIL.

In a rehash of last year’s laughable list of 400 ‘prominent scientists’ dispute climate change, Senator Inhofe has produced an updated list that now includes 650 scientists who dispute climate. As I explained last year; expertise matters, not everyone’s opinion is equally valid, and Inhofe’s list is short on people who’s expertise is actually relevant.

I wasn’t going to write anything about this year’s list, but Tim Lambert over at the Deltoid blog came to the realization that Inhofe’s list, is actually less honest than another famous anti-scientist list of ‘dissenting scientists’:

Inhofe’s

list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW

reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who

dissent from Darwinism

, so I thought I’d compare the two lists.

First, numbers. The Discovery Institute’s list has 751 names, while Inhofe’s has only 604. (Not “More Than 650″ as he claims — there are many names appearing more than once.) [

SD:

Not all people listed on Inhofe/Morano's list dissent to the consensus on climate change, yet the title is a count off erveryone listed in the list, thus the discrepancy between Tim Lambert's count and Morano's.

]

Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute’s list, but

Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you’re disputing the global warming consensus and he won’t take you off,

even if you tell him to do so

. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.

Those that remember my brush with Marc Morano (Inhofe’s spin doctor) know that the lists of ‘dissenting research’ he posted here weren’t actually dissenting. Some of them even explicitly acknowledge climate change and say we are already feeling it’s impacts. So it should come as no surprise that Inhofe’s new list is full of people that don’t actually deny climate change.

Attached to the list was a a study that presumably (according to Inhofe) claimed that the sun is responsible for climate change. [SD: The study wasn't actually attached to the list, I was confused because it was sent in the same email as the list] If true this would be in direct opposition to two recent studies, that conclusively show that the sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. When the lead author was asked if her study claimed that human-caused emissions were not the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century? She replied:

We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However,

the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature

.

Surely we can expect a correction to Inhofe’s obvious error any day now… right?

You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for dissent when the creationist cranks at the Discovery Institute are behaving with more integrity than you.

http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1922

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Senate Minority Report, Charles?

You have no idea what peer review means, what a scientific theory is, or understand the difference between bodies of science whose expertise is in climate related science. Major FAIL.

so now the senate does not count, even though over 700 names are on that report.

maybe you're having a difficult time with peer review too.....did you even read the report, particularly the part of "features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

[mawilson 2,133]

Cold and snow is one of the effects of global warming. Hot places are getting hotter, some cold places are getting warmer and other places are getting colder. See the pattern?

[mawilson 2,133]

Companies offsetting their carbon against the taxes they'll make us all pay or all Americans

driving Priuses won't make one lick of difference to the global climate.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so now the senate does not count, even though over 700 names are on that report.

maybe you're having a difficult time with peer review too.....did you even read the report, particularly the part of "features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

yes, steven, we get that you are at a loss for words. but keep trying.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Okay, Steve we will use pictures then.

/v/A1clgwabmPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&

[one...two...tree 2,762]

yes, steven, we get that you are at a loss for words. but keep trying.

You failed at proving anything in that post on the scientific consensus as not factual. You fail to understand the concepts that I mentioned....like peer review. You failed at realizing that Inhofe's list of 'scientist dissenters' is a lie. How much more failure do you want to have before you walk away with your tail between your legs?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You failed at proving anything in that post on the scientific consensus as not factual. You fail to understand the concepts that I mentioned....like peer review. You failed at realizing that Inhofe's list of 'scientist dissenters' is a lie. How much more failure do you want to have before you walk away with your tail between your legs?

Ohhh starting to get defensive.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

You failed at proving anything in that post on the scientific consensus as not factual. You fail to understand the concepts that I mentioned....like peer review. You failed at realizing that Inhofe's list of 'scientist dissenters' is a lie. How much more failure do you want to have before you walk away with your tail between your legs?

so 700 scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists are wrong?

[mawilson 2,133]

so 700 scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists are wrong?

Of course, Charles - they all work for Fox News.

[SuperDuper! 230]

so 700 scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists are wrong?

No, just misguided.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I get it! What Steve posts are facts and any dissenting facts are rubbish? :rofl: I think I will have a snow cone before they are gone!

Edited January 4, 2010 by ={Rogue}=

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so 700 scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists are wrong?

Oh really? Which ones? And state exactly where they said so....not because Inhofe says so.

Go back and read the article I posted. Or here, for your convenience...

IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents...

....

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686