Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

[Alta4ever]

I wouldn't call it hysteria. The real price of automobiles has already been driven up unconsciouably (sp) be all the safety gadgets, pollution gadgets, et. al. that are mandated. Many items that are necessities are priced out of reach by a single-focused drive for often irrational objectives. Don't the common people count?

Don't forget the over priced labor from the unions.

[Drea]

I agree Alta... we should pay auto workers minimum wage.

After all they just make a product that we put our children in and hurl down the road at 100km/hour so no need to be concerned that the $8 an hour worker didn't feel like working hard one day and didn't install your ball joints properly. Oh well, in a purely capitalistic society if a kid dies because of fauly workmanship its his parents fault.

/sarcasm

Now you are going to say "well Toyota isn't union and they make good wages!"

Alas they wouldn't without the pressure from unions. If a corporation can get away with paying $1 day they would.

Unions (whether you are union or not) are good for society.

[White Doors]

I agree Alta... we should pay auto workers minimum wage.

After all they just make a product that we put our children in and hurl down the road at 100km/hour so no need to be concerned that the $8 an hour worker didn't feel like working hard one day and didn't install your ball joints properly. Oh well, in a purely capitalistic society if a kid dies because of fauly workmanship its his parents fault.

/sarcasm

Now you are going to say "well Toyota isn't union and they make good wages!"

Alas they wouldn't without the pressure from unions. If a corporation can get away with paying $1 day they would.

Unions (whether you are union or not) are good for society.

No, because if Ford offered 2/hour they would lose all of their employees. People with the requisite skills are in demand and the market competes for them.

[eyeball]

Ok WIP.

I will state this.The EDITORIAL conclusions I posted does not appear to bother anyone.

Therefore this forum like a few other forums I posted the EDITORIAL in.Does not stay on the topic and argues peripheral issues.Ignoring the main ones that were written about in the EDITORIAL.The ones that really count.

On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

So... now I'm supposed to listen to what another bunch of scientists say? What if they're wrong too?

The real horror of our situation is that our decision making processes have been seriously undermined by the attack against scientists and the scientific method that has been mounted by the anti-AGW crowd. Throw in the ongoing debate about creationism vs evolution vs intelligent design and all the elements of a perfect storm of ignorance and confusion are in place.

Its not the public's fault that it has little but ideology to guide its views and input.

In the meantime its sure been a good year for GW skeptics. That said I'd like to see more research into Global Dimming and subsequent cooling which could account for the apparent lack of predicted effects due to GW. It would seem at the very least that the question of whether humans can affect the climate was answered in the days immediately following 9/11. All that needs to done is to confirm that finding by grounding all the airplanes over North America and measure the effects of removing contrails.

Are scientists often sceptical of findings that go against the current orthodoxy?

Yes, for good reason - usually the orthodoxy is correct. A famous physicist once told me that if you doubt every new idea in science you will be right 90% of the time, but you will be wrong the only time it matters.

Source

[WIP]

Ok WIP.

I will state this.The EDITORIAL conclusions I posted does not appear to bother anyone.

Therefore this forum like a few other forums I posted the EDITORIAL in.Does not stay on the topic and argues peripheral issues.Ignoring the main ones that were written about in the EDITORIAL.The ones that really count.

The Jim Pedan editorial makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims about the weather during the middle ages based on anecdotal reports from Europe.

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global [2]. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[3] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.[4]

Palaeoclimatologists developing region-specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP".[5][6] Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events rather than strictly warm events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

So, who are we supposed to believe? The global warming skeptics pull out charts to make a case that the earth was warmer during the middle ages, but the NOAA and IPCC reports show the average temps are higher now than at any period in the last 2000 years.

[Riverwind]

So, who are we supposed to believe? The global warming skeptics pull out charts to make a case that the earth was warmer during the middle ages, but the NOAA and IPCC reports show the average temps are higher now than at any period in the last 2000 years.

The IPCC reports have been exposed as a fraud by numerous qualified statisticians. The latest peer review research done using correct statistical techniques shows a MWP that was comparable to today.

See climateaudit.org if you want to learn about the nature of the fraud.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[Argus]

The real horror of our situation is that our decision making processes have been seriously undermined by the attack against scientists and the scientific method that has been mounted by the anti-AGW crowd.

I doubt that's true. From the sounds up it the AGW crowd don't know much about scientific methods anyway.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

The Jim Pedan editorial makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims about the weather during the middle ages based on anecdotal reports from Europe.

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global [2]. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

I think that in dismissing what was long-accepted, conventional scientific and historical belief the "The Sky is Falling!" crowd need to do more than simply say "Well, we don't believe that any more". Europeans were sailing through the northern straits of North American back in the medieval times. Yet the "The sky is Falling!" crowd would have us believe that if the northern ice melts to the degree that - well, you can sail through the northern straits - that this is a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

"Pay no attention to those historical accounts! Look at my nifty computer model!" Pttthh.

[Riverwind]

The real horror of our situation is that our decision making processes have been seriously undermined by the attack against scientists and the scientific method that has been mounted by the anti-AGW crowd.

Good gawd. Would take the time time to educate yourself about how the IPCC/AGW has corrupted science? It is appalling! AGW sceptics are the only people willing to stand up for science instead on mindlessly conforming to the latest fad because it is good for funding.

[stevoh]

Good gawd. Would take the time time to educate yourself about how the IPCC/AGW has corrupted science? It is appalling! AGW sceptics are the only people willing to stand up for science instead on mindlessly conforming to the latest fad because it is good for funding.

Yes, and they are all good and honest people with no agenda's in any case... Please, another blanket statement that does not hold up. Some AGW skeptics are actual scientists, they are worthy of listening to. Some are even well informed individuals who have come to their own conclusions, I respect that. However, there are just as many hacks with other agendas promoting the skepticism as there are idiots who claim the "science is settled", as if science is ever settled. It is dynamic and always re-adjusts, sometimes painfully, to new information as it comes in.

Both types of hacks, whether for or against AGW, do the scientific community and public no service, and are simply noise confusing the issue.

That being said, lets say for a moment that CO2 emissions are not causing global warming. Is doubling the amount of any element in our atmosphere without understanding the effects a good idea? Just because one of the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may not be global warming, does this mean it is benign? That there are no other effects? Is that assumption worth gambling on either?

We know that the current concentrations of the various elements in our atmosphere sustain life as we know it, why would we change that significantly without caution? Perhaps the current madness around global warming is in fact unnecessary. But this does not mean increasing CO2 is not a cause for concern, and it does not mean that reducing emissions and attempting to stabilize the composition of our atmosphere is a bad idea.

[Riverwind]

Some AGW skeptics are actual scientists, they are worthy of listening to. Some are even well informed individuals who have come to their own conclusions, I respect that. However, there are just as many hacks with other agendas promoting the skepticism as there are idiots who claim the "science is settled", as if science is ever settled.

I can agree with everything you have said.

It is dynamic and always re-adjusts, sometimes painfully, to new information as it comes in.

My concern is how much the average person is going to be forced to suffer before science corrects itself on this file.

It Is that assumption worth gambling on either?

It depends entirely on the cost of action. If the cost of action is small then the precautionary principal is easy to justify even if the science is uncertain. If the cost of acting is large then we need a lot more certainty. The brutal reality is the cost of reducing CO2 in any meaningful way will be huge and will likely cost more than the probable harms due to CO2.

Of course we could engage in any number of meaningless gestures that simply transfer wealth from one group of people to another but do nothing to reduce CO2. Personally, I think such exercises are a waste especially since it is the average citizen who will do most of the paying. For example, I believe that an Obama presidency with Gore as cabinet member would do more damage to the US economy that Bush Jr. has with his escapades in Iraq. The only thing that will change is Obama/Gore will use 'carbon credits' as a way to tax the wages of the average American so the money can be sent to the more 'deserving' bureaucrats and party officials in China and India.

But this does not mean increasing CO2 is not a cause for concern, and it does not mean that reducing emissions and attempting to stabilize the composition of our atmosphere is a bad idea.

Actually, this obsession with CO2 will hurt environmentalism and social activism in the long run because it will squeeze out other more pressing matters such as air pollution. People making big sacrifices to deal with an imaginary CO2 problem will be too fatigued to care about issues like protecting endangered species or helping the poor. Edited April 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Actually, this obsession with CO2 will hurt environmentalism and social activism in the long run because it will squeeze out other more pressing matters such as air pollution. People making big sacrifices to deal with an imaginary CO2 problem will be too fatigued to care about issues like protecting endangered species or helping the poor.

I totally agree. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

[buffycat]

Riverwind ~

Actually, this obsession with CO2 will hurt environmentalism and social activism in the long run because it will squeeze out other more pressing matters such as air pollution. People making big sacrifices to deal with an imaginary CO2 problem will be too fatigued to care about issues like protecting endangered species or helping the poor.

I totally agree. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

thanks, this is my biggest beef wrt AGW overall. Even if, and this is a really BIG IF, CO2 is contributing in at all to any 'perceived' warming.

It DOES detract from environmental and political issues that we CAN do something about. Notice how dioxins, water contamination, loss of arable soil - and so much more - is not even on the radar of so-called politicians? Nope, because those are REAL problems, which CAN be fixed.

The whole global warming fiasco has taken on a life of its own, things are blamed on carbon emmissions which have zippor to do with man made 'global warming'. Fish dying in a river? Ohhh must be 'Global Warming'! (Never mind the industry who is dumping toxic goop into the flow upstream... ) No, it simply must be due to 'Global Warming'!! Soil erosion? Has to be...wait for it.... YES 'Global Warming'!! (Never mind the overuse of pesticides and chemical fertilizers robbing the soil of so many base nutrients and minerals that it looses cohesion... nevermind the over-use of arable land, again leading to degradation.. nope, nope, nope - it's just gotta be 'Global Warming'!!

[stevoh]

Cosmic rays may not be to blame for warming trend:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/

key finding:

Low level cloud cover caused by cosmic rays is only responsible for a small portion of global warming.

I found this interesting, as it is the reason for the warming that is most often mentioned by AGW skeptics.

[peter_puck]

QUOTE(peter_puck @ Mar 30 2008, 08:35 PM)

I am not saying that there are not legitimate scientists who hold anti-AGW views. They are just a rather small minority. I am sure that this has been posted before, but all accross the globe where any scientific organization has looked at the AGW question, they have supported the AGW view. Name me one country that holds an anti-AGW view, name me one national scientific society, name me one major scientific organization.

Country---->The Excited States of America, Canada

I am afraid you are wrong. Both these countries have supported the basics of AGW. They are interfereing in Koyoto because it is not in their economic best interests, but both Bush and Harper have come out support the concept.

[peter_puck]

We have yet to consume half of KNOWN reserves we ever discovered.200 billion more barrels just recently reported in America available for drilling.

American oil production has declined since the days of $2 a barrel. If there was so much available oil, why was it not drilled long ago ?

The AGW hysteria is disrupting the marketing of oil.

Oil is at 100 plus a barrell...I don't think it needs marketing

If the governments and environmentalists would stop meddling.There would a greater speed of developing and using alternative fuels.But now the brain dead politicians are slowing it all down because of Carbon tax and other proposals.Creating uncertainty in the energy market.

There is HUGE money going into the oilsands. That is VERY expensive oil to extract. The oil companies don't seem that uncertain.

It would be really nice if the idiots (politicians and environmentalists) would stop fighting the use of Nuclear plants construction with known ZERO CO2 emissions.The high level waste is a problem only because politics are in the way.Environmentalists are the problem since Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 emissions.They oppose it anyway.Because they are drooling stupid.

I would agree .....nuclear is the only thing that is going to tide us over until some of those things you see on Star Trek come on line

[peter_puck]

The peer-review process is deeply flawed. Bad papers that support the consensus receive minimal review yet good papers that go against the concensus are analyzed for every little flaw.

In some cases, an error found in anti-AGW paper also exists in pro-AGW papers yet the alarmists turn a blind eye or resort to rediculous contortions to justify the actions of the alarmist.

Even worse. the journal editors have unethically passed the papers onto to AGW alarmists so they could prepare a rebuttle before the paper is actually published. This bypassed the usual process of submitting letters to a journal which prevented the original author from formally responding to the rebuttle in the journal.

Every scientist knows this goes on which means most scientists choose the easy way out and pay lip service the consensus because their need to get papers published is greater than their need to do what is scientifically right.

Gangs of chemists with shanks in their pocket protectors trying to keep people from talking ? This is not how the world works. I know people in this type of environment and this does not exist on the scale you are talking about.

If there is any intimidation, it goes the other way. The Bush administration and the Canadian government (before their conversions and probably after) have told their scientists to shut up. Canada's leading anti-AGW "scientists" Dr Ball launched a slap suit against his critics. That anti-AGW guy in the US congress threatened to launch a public inquiry into the finances of two prominent scientists testifying before congress.

What matters is if the science of the sceptics has merit.

What matters is that other scientists who look at the sceptics work don't think it has merit. What also seems inportant is that sceptics arguements have a very short shelf life. There arguments today are different than what they were a few years ago. Remember the 11 year solar flare cycle that used to be all the rage ? How about that satelite that showed the earth was cooling ?

1) Data collected by the MSU satellite shows that the mid-troposheric is not warming as fast as the models predict.

Okay, cool. It was alot warmer today that it is supposed to be according to the weather channel. Now, since their model must be crap,I am going to go kinny dipping when their obviously refuted model says there is going to be a hurricane.

The models are meant to describe behavior over time. It is easy to pick holes in a rough model, but why don't these anti-AGW types come up with a model of their own ?

Unfortunately, telling a government official that they don't need to spend money on a problem is professional suicide.

Really ? Not that I am a fan of government spending, but I can point to a whole host of cases where the government needed to spend money and didn't (cause they wanted to spend the money on a goose museum or something like that)

[peter_puck]

I think that in dismissing what was long-accepted, conventional scientific and historical belief the "The Sky is Falling!" crowd need to do more than simply say "Well, we don't believe that any more". Europeans were sailing through the northern straits of North American back in the medieval times. Yet the "The sky is Falling!" crowd would have us believe that if the northern ice melts to the degree that - well, you can sail through the northern straits - that this is a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

"Pay no attention to those historical accounts! Look at my nifty computer model!" Pttthh.

I really don't know if you are joking or not. Nobody made it through the North West Passage until 1900 something. Even then it took a few years. Go a certain distance, got locked in the ice, continue on in the spring.

Perhaps my history was influenced by some of these climate thugs (who must have built a time machine since this debate was not arround when I was in school), but I don't remember the Vikings actually making it through the North West passage.

[jbg]

Perhaps my history was influenced by some of these climate thugs (who must have built a time machine since this debate was not arround when I was in school), but I don't remember the Vikings actually making it through the North West passage.

The Vikings weren't searching for a "northwest passage". They were colonizing then-hospitable lands (soon to become too cold).

Did autos cause that warming?

[Riverwind]

Low level cloud cover caused by cosmic rays is only responsible for a small portion of global warming.

Almost everything that affects climate has different effects in different regions so looking for correlations on a global scale is a dubious argument at best. The proponents of the CR hypothesis have also made it quite clear before this paper that only CR's of a certain energy level will affect cloud formation and that this effect will only be observed in regions where there are not large numberz of particles from other sources that can affect cloud cover. IOW - regions with little or no correlation with CR are expected and this paper adds nothing to the science on the topic.

It is also worth noting that AGW types complain loudly whenever someone suggests a decade of cooling 'disproves' the CO2 hypothesis yet these people are quick to take a decade of little correlation between CR and temps and declare that the CR hypothesis has been disproven. We have only been collecting the data that would allow us to confirm or reject the CR hypothesis since 1980. It will take at least another 50 years to make a final determination.

You also must keep in mind that CO2 is only known to be responsible for a 'small portion' or global warming. The predictions of catastrophe by CO2 have no basis in physical science and rest entirely on computer models which are very poor approximations of the real climate. In additional, the water vapour feedback with is supposed to amplify the CO2 effect would amplify *anything* that causes warming. Therefore it is rediculous examine the CR effect in isolation and insist that the CO2 effect must be examined with all possible feedbacks.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Gangs of chemists with shanks in their pocket protectors trying to keep people from talking ? This is not how the world works. I know people in this type of environment and this does not exist on the scale you are talking about.

It is never overt - but it exists. People will generally choose to conform without realizing they made the choice. The science supporting catastrophic AGW is mostly circumstantial and not conclusive. A culture which did not put so much emphasis on predictions of doomsday probably would have looked at CO2 as simply one of many factors that can affect climate.

That anti-AGW guy in the US congress threatened to launch a public inquiry into the finances of two prominent scientists testifying before congress.

Hansen has a messiah complex and delusions of grandeur (he sent an open letter to PM of England and cc'ed the Queen). His complaints about being 'surpressed' are greatly exaggerated - a couple mid level bureaucrats decided to enforce NASA long standing policy regarding communicating to the public - a policy that is no different from the policy that any employee is expected to adhere to in the private sector. He whinged and policy was changed but he was told he must make it clear that he is speaking for himself an not NASA.

What matters is that other scientists who look at the sceptics work don't think it has merit. What also seems important is that sceptics arguments have a very short shelf life. There arguments today are different than what they were a few years ago.

What you forget is the AGW alarmists are constantly changing their arguments as well. In 1990 the Antarctica was supposed to get hotter but it didn't - so they changed their models and now try to pretend they knew it all along. Warming has essentially stopped over the last 10 years so alarmists start speculating about ENSO and global dimming.

In any case, your argument is a red herring. Kelvin once said: "When I have new facts I change my mind. What do you do?". The fact that alarmists think 'consistency' in science is a virtue in in itself is more evidence that their arguments are political rather than scientific.

The models are meant to describe behavior over time. It is easy to pick holes in a rough model, but why don't these anti-AGW types come up with a model of their own ?

Sceptical scientists believe that theories should be evaluated with empirical evidence - not models. That said, Roy Spencer has collected some compelling empirical evidence and developed a peer reviewed model that supports his theory of negative cloud feedback.

Really ? Not that I am a fan of government spending, but I can point to a whole host of cases where the government needed to spend money and didn't (cause they wanted to spend the money on a goose museum or something like that)

Exactly - that is why scientists need to 'sex up' their research projected. They need an angle that will allow the politician to get votes. Exaggerating a problem means the politician is more likely to pay attention. Edited April 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

I was going to drop out the global warming debate since it seems to be impossible to resolve facts with all of the competing climate models, graphs and statistics being bandied about, but Matt Drudge pulled me back in again.

Drudgereport is still my homepage and he usually is one step ahead of the media pack, but yesterday his banner headline was a report claiming that 1998 was the warmest year on record, and it turns out that this report was sponsored by the World Bank, which has jumped into the climate change debate and is being accused of trying to hijack the debate by environmental groups: http://www.reuters.com/article/environment...K28941120080404

The Energysmart blog points out a simple fact of statistics: that one year does not establish a trend. And even taking a 10 year average is not accepted by the experts, since natural weather effects like La Nina and El Nino can have signifiicant effects on a year to year basis:

First, in climate science, 10 years does not make a trend. You need at least 30 years to establish what the baseline should be. So looking at a graph of only 10 years does little to tell us anything. What was it like before? Well gee, notice this graph starts at a temperature high point of 1998, which was in part due to El Niño that year. How convenient of them to start at the outlier.

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/2...l-temperatures/

And, according to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year on record: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...05_warmest.html

So, I'm back at square one! There is money and vested interests on both sides who want to misuse statistics. One thing is for sure, somebody is lying!

[sunsettommy]

WIP:

GISS is all alone in making this claim:

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.

Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.

They use a statistical method for making the zone chart for the artic region.A method that is considered improper.

Have you actually visited and viewed the artic weather reporting stations?

They generally do not jibe with what Jimmy is claiming.

Meanwhile HadCrut3,RSS,MSU show a much lower temperature.

[Riverwind]

The Energysmart blog points out a simple fact of statistics: that one year does not establish a trend. And even taking a 10 year average is not accepted by the experts, since natural weather effects like La Nina and El Nino can have signifiicant effects on a year to year basis:

I agree that one must do proper a proper statistical analysis before drawing conclusions from a temperature trend, however, the claim that a 10 year trend is too short is categorically false. The correct answer is it depends on the difference between the prediction and reality. For example, if someone predicted that the temperatures would rise 10 degC/year then it would be possible to prove them wrong if temperatures stayed flat for a little as 2 years. OTOH, if someone predicted 0.1 degC/decade then it would not be possible to prove them wrong with anything less than 20 years of stable temperatures.

The IPCC AR4 report predicted that the temperatures would rise around 0.2 degC per decade, however, the actual temperatures have fallen slightly. A proper statistical analysis that takes into account the effect of weather noise shows that the IPCC prediction of 0.2 degC/decade is 95% likely to be false.

Now 95% likely to be false still means there is a 5% chance that they are right. However, I think is very difficult to justify massive CO2 reduction policies based on an analysis that only has a 5% chance of being correct given what we know now about temperatures.

The bottom line is: the recent temperature trend is a statistically significant deviation from the predictions made by the IPCC in their most recent report. Alarmists who claim otherwise are living in denial.

You can find the complete analysis here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/accou...cochrane-orcutt

The analysis is extremely sound scientifically and she has completely rebutted all of the criticisms by warmers. In some cases warmers tried to provide alternate analysis that ignored inconvient data yet were still only able to show that the IPCC is < 15% likely to be correct.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[sunsettommy]

WIP posted from a link:

First, in climate science, 10 years does not make a trend. You need at least 30 years to establish what the baseline should be. So looking at a graph of only 10 years does little to tell us anything. What was it like before? Well gee, notice this graph starts at a temperature high point of 1998, which was in part due to El Niño that year. How convenient of them to start at the outlier.

Sure 10 years is a short trendline.

The problem AGW believers has.Is that all the while CO2 goes on up,temperature does not.A growing contradiction to the CO2 hypothesis.James Hansen and Al Gore among others have been talking of a coming soon run away warming trend.NOT HAPPENING AT ALL!

That is what is telling us so far

There has been NO significant volcanic eruption in the same last 10 years.To promote cooling.

The sun has been ruled out by AGW believers. It is stupidly wrong.But not surprising.

How come a strong La-Ninya produce the single biggest one year drop in world temperature in 100 + years.Somehow brushing aside the awsome CO2 warm forcing power so quickly and for about a year?

But before the strong La-ninya came around a year ago.The temperature trend from 1998 to 2007 was still about zero.1998 still remains the high point in last 10 years.

It begs the question.What is preventing the trace gas from warming up the planet.In the last 9+ years?