Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[eyeball]

These are but a few of the things I chose to do

Way to go. Keep up the good work and good luck.

[GostHacked]

No, all it will tell us is whether a majority believes it is and wants more rigorous action taken.

Putting this vote to the people will not solve anything. Many people beleive many things because of the manipulation of the evidence for GW. This is not science, this is 'what do we THINK is the cause' and then do something about something that really may not exist. Let the scienctists do their work without political influence and the science will come to a conlcusion through the scientific method. This is the key.

Science will just have to suck it up I guess. Maybe it'll give it something new to study.

It is already being studied, and the data is being played with to show one side or another. Hell they think the recent global cooling is just another phase to prove that global warming exists.

See the problem?

Yes it really sad that science is no more immune to manipulation than religion, economics or worst of all, the democratic process that is supposed to protect us from manipulative people in power.

You are right. Something is majorly f&cked up when politics takes control of science to promote something that may not exist.

That's a really wierdly disturbing question. The implication is that we're better off living in ignorance.

You are already living in ignorance. Because of how they are presenting GW. You are being manipulated by the politicians. If you don't know the truth either and are relying on government scientists for results, then

The only thing I want to know right now is what happened to our democracy and how its gotten to the point that its of no utility to us in what could be the most important threat we've ever faced. It seems democracy itself is an even bigger threat.

This is a question for your politicians, and not the scientists.

Given your obvious disdain for truth and democracy is it really any wonder why?

Politicians lie all the time. I don't have disdain for it, just not much faith in the democratic system anymore when it comes to using science for political gain. Science is wanting to get to the answer of yes or no. You want to vote if there is a yes or no, You can't vote on science, science tells you what the deal is.

[GostHacked]

Weather is always crazy from the perspective of people living through it (studies have been done that show people have selective memory when it comes to weather). That said, even if you could come up with some way to measure 'craziness' and demonstrate that recent trends are unusual you still do not have ANY evidence that the weather was a result of humans.

IOW - 'crazy' weather is evidence of nothing.

True. I recall some crazy ass weather when I was a kid, back in the 70's there was a few warm winters, as in the 80's 90's and even this decade. The only severe climate change I have been exposed to, is me moving from Sudbury to Ottawa. Sudbury is kind of dry and very cold in the winter, where as here in Ottawa it is wet and cold, this feels colder due to the moisture in the air. The seasons are quite different in both cities Eventhough it is about the same lattitude on the planet and only about 500kms apart.

Your local weather results will vary.

The weather will always change and I think it goes in cycles.

Carbon dioxide is not harmful to the environment, providing plants/trees/vegitation are around to handle the job.

[eyeball]

Politicians lie all the time.

So do scientists and economists. They're human too.

Science is wanting to get to the answer of yes or no. You want to vote if there is a yes or no, You can't vote on science, science tells you what the deal is.

Science can't tell us a thing if we can't tell which scientists are liars and which aren't. Now we have nothing but belief to go on. See the problem?

Edited December 28, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

Let the scienctists do their work without political influence and the science will come to a conlcusion through the scientific method. This is the key.

There are many kinds of influences which are just as bad. For example, I suspect many climate scientists have a messiah complex and see this issue as a way for them to get credit for "saving humanity". For that reason they desperately want to believe the scare stories are true and will interpret ambigiuous data in a way that supports their belief. I don't think it is possible for any science to be conducted without a bias of one form or another.

The other problem is science cannot provide yes or no answers - especially in climate science. At the end of the day we are stuck with a a decision that is about as scientific as picking a stock or mutual fund. i.e. you do you research, figure out the risks and try to hedge your bets. But in the end it is nothing but a guess that could be wrong.

[eyeball]

There are many kinds of influences which are just as bad. For example, I suspect many climate scientists have a messiah complex and see this issue as a way for them to get credit for "saving humanity". For that reason they desperately want to believe the scare stories are true and will interpret ambigiuous data in a way that supports their belief. I don't think it is possible for any science to be conducted without a bias of one form or another.

The other problem is science cannot provide yes or no answers - especially in climate science. At the end of the day we are stuck with a a decision that is about as scientific as picking a stock or mutual fund. i.e. you do you research, figure out the risks and try to hedge your bets. But in the end it is nothing but a guess that could be wrong.

I could paraphrase and reword this to say the exact same thing - especially about economic science.

In the end your faith will still be just as desperately impervious.

[WIP]

Weather is always crazy from the perspective of people living through it (studies have been done that show people have selective memory when it comes to weather).

No doubt that there is a highly subjective aspect of weather memories, since they are usually tied to important events in our lives, but that does not explain the increase in tornadoes, severe storms and the increase in hurricane intensity in recent years:

Tropical Storms 50 Percent More Intense since 1970sTropical storms more intense, new research showsScripps Howard News Service, July 31, 2005

That said, even if you could come up with some way to measure 'craziness' and demonstrate that recent trends are unusual you still do not have ANY evidence that the weather was a result of humans.

The last point is most important. You see, no one really disputes the claim that the planet is warmer than it was 100 years ago. And some people do claim that crazy weather is a consequence of higher temperatures. So if the latter claim is actually true it would be true even if a significant part of the warming is the result of the sun/oceans/whatever.

If the increase in severe weather is caused by the sun, that doesn't do anything to lessen the damage -- and at the moment, the sun is in a lowpoint of activity judging from the few sunspots showing right now. One key part AGW deniers are missing about the climate change issue is that reducing human contributions to greenhouse gas levels, and strategies such as carbon sequestration, will work against natural causes of CO2 increases such as volcanoes as well as the changes we make. The global warming deniers apathetic response of just allowing nature to take its course makes no sense with either scenario.

[Riverwind]

that does not explain the increase in tornadoes, severe storms and the increase in hurricane intensity in recent years:

Such claims are mostly nonsense because they do not account for new technology that allows us to detect more storms than in the past. In fact, the scientific community cannot even agree on whether warming should theoretically lead to more storms:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

If the increase in severe weather is caused by the sun, that doesn't do anything to lessen the damage.

Hold that thought. I agree 100%. If climate is changing then we must ADAPT. Reducing CO2 does nothing to help us adapt. In fact, denying ourselves access to fossil fuels will make it more difficult to adapt to whatever changes come.

...reducing human contributions to greenhouse gas levels....

Will cost huge amounts of money and accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change. In fact, even if CO2 is the primary driver of climate change it may be too late to stop the changes coming which means money is better spend on adaptation rather than CO2 emission reductions. Edited December 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

For those with open minds....read the Manhatten Declaration. After reading, take a peek at the signatories and you'll clearly see that the "Science" is not settled - the "debate" is not over.

Link: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...7&Itemid=54

[jdobbin]

For those with open minds....read the Manhatten Declaration. After reading, take a peek at the signatories and you'll clearly see that the "Science" is not settled - the "debate" is not over.

I have seen this list many times.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The..._Climate_Change

The New York Times reported that when organizers asked scientists to come to the front for a picture at the signing only 19 people went up. Most of the people were not scientists or actively involved in scientific research. Tim Ball has been retired many, many years but now gets support from right wing organizers to speak against global warming.

So indeed...take a look who signed.

Edited December 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

Climate Change is a myth furthered along by Al Gore cause he needs a job since he cannot be the US Pres.

[Riverwind]

So dobbin, have you ever taken the time to check the sources on source watch or do you mindlessly assume that anything that appears on their website must be true because it tells you want you want to hear?

The site is run by activists who have no interest in truth or legitimate debate and are only interested in slandering those who dispute the consensus. In almost all cases their claims of links between sceptical scientists and industry groups are either outright falsehoods or so tenuous that they are irrelevant (e.g. so-and-so was paid to write articles for a think-tank that got 0.1% of its funding from Exxon). If you disagree then show us where that site discloses the various conflicts for Al Gore or the fact that Realclimate is funded by an environmental lobby group. Or how Hansen receive 50K or more from a fund run by Theresa Heinz.

The New York Times reported that when organizers asked scientists to come to the front for a picture at the signing only 19 people went up.

So? All it takes it one scientist who happens to be right. The unfortunate reality is any scientist puts his/her career at risk if they oppose the consensus. That is why a lot of emeritus scientists tend to be skeptics - they no longer care about such things.

Most of the people were not scientists or actively involved in scientific research. Tim Ball has been retired many, many years but now gets support from right wing organizers to speak against global warming.

And Jim Hansen is paid by left-wing activists groups to promote global warming. The only difference is those left wing activists happen to make funding decisions in NASA. Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

So dobbin, have you ever taken the time to check the sources on source watch or do you mindlessly assume that anything that appears on their website must be true because it tells you want you want to hear?

I placed one link here for brevity sake. We have gone down this road before. I have seen many other sources on the background of the organizers of the conference and the people who participated.

Do you mindlessly assume that everything the conference produced is legimate?

The site is run by activists who have no interest in truth or legitimate debate and are only interested in slandering those who dispute the consensus. In almost all cases their claims of links between sceptical scientists and industry groups are either outright falsehoods or so tenuous that they are irrelevant (e.g. so-and-so was paid to write articles for a think-tank that got 0.1% of its funding from Exxon). If you disagree then show us where that site discloses the various conflicts for Al Gore or the fact that Realclimate is funded by an environmental lobby group. Or how Hansen receive 50K or more from a fund run by Theresa Heinz.

Who is the Heartland Institute funded by? It doesn't matter to you?

So? All it takes it one scientist who happens to be right. The unfortunate reality is any scientist puts his/her career at risk if they oppose the consensus. That is why a lot of emeritus scientists tend to be skeptics - they no longer care about such things.

We have gone through this territory before.

I have said that the consensus of scientists says that humans have had a significant impact on global warming.

The right wing have tried to say there is no consensus and that there is a deep division. I have not seen that deep division and question the credentials of those we have seen on the petition.

Every time I see someone point to Tim Ball, I throw my hands up in the air. I was taught by Tim Ball. He has been retired many, many years and has not done peer reviewed research on this subject that I have seen yet claims expertise and cites his university background.

And Jim Hansen is paid by left-wing activists groups to promote global warming. The only difference is those left wing activists happen to make funding decisions in NASA.

Yadda. Don't make claims of deep divisions among scientists that are unsupported.

[Riverwind]

Do you mindlessly assume that everything the conference produced is legimate?

Where did I say that? The material deserves evaluation as any other material.

Who is the Heartland Institute funded by? It doesn't matter to you?

I don't really care. All sources of funding are biased. The Heartland Institute has its biases and those must be taken into account. However, I absolutely reject your assertion that any clap-trap produced by NASA or other government funded body should be treated as fact where as everything publicized by the Heartland Instutute should be ignored.

I have said that the consensus of scientists says that humans have had a significant impact on global warming.

So? I have seen no evidence that the few hundred scientists doing the climate model research are acting in good faith since their jobs depend on generous government funding. The rest of the scientists in the world know next to nothing about climate models and their opinion on their accuracy is quite irrelevant. Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Where did I say that? The material deserves evaluation as any other material.

As I've said, I've seen it. Saw the stories on it in the Washington Post and the New York Times. Thought to myself that it looked like the usual suspects trying to say that there was a complete division on the scientific front. Nope. Haven't seen that yet.

I don't really care. All sources of funding are biased. The Heartland Institute has its biases and those must be taken into account. However, I absolutely reject your assertion that any clap-trap produced by NASA or other government funded body should be treated as fact where as everything publicized by the Heartland Instutute should be ignored.

Didn't think you cared except where it comes to the other side. Not to mention the idea that there is a conspiracy or some sort of religion involved.

So? I have seen no evidence that the few hundred scientists doing the climate model research are acting in good faith since their jobs depend on generous government funding. The rest of the scientists in the world know next to nothing about climate models and their opinion on their accuracy is quite irrelevant.

There's that conspiracy theory we keep hearing about. Next, you'll be telling me something about September 11.

[Riverwind]

There's that conspiracy theory we keep hearing about. Next, you'll be telling me something about September 11.

Deny it if you like but the scientific foundation for climate catastrophe comes entirely from climate model outputs. Without climate models there is no catastrophe. These climate models are developed entirely by large government funded groups that would not have any reason to exist if there was no climate problem to worry about. I find it amazing that you yelp about funding of skeptics yet when pressed about the much more serious conflicts of interest that affect climate alarmists you start babbling about consipiracy theories.

Make up your mind. Either funding matters or it does not. Claiming that skeptics are biased by their sources of funding while insisting that alarmists are as pure as the driven snow is nothing but hypocrisy.

Bottom line: the hockey stick fiasco and susquent evidence of dishonest and unprofessional behavoir on the part of climate scientists demonstrates that these people cannot be trusted to be impartial arbiters of facts.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Such claims are mostly nonsense because they do not account for new technology that allows us to detect more storms than in the past. In fact, the scientific community cannot even agree on whether warming should theoretically lead to more storms:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

Well, first of all, that study is only dealing with hurricanes and doesn't get into questions regarding whether warmer temperatures = more energy and instability in weather patterns as many climate researchers are anticipating; and no doubt climate and weather cycles are very complex and difficult to understand, but it's interesting that you seized upon a scientist who puts together a new computer climate model that predicts hurricane frequency will remain the same or decrease, but predicts a likely increase in storm intensity because of global warming, as supporting evidence.

Hold that thought. I agree 100%. If climate is changing then we must ADAPT.

ADAPT! What should we adapt to: increased destruction from the storms, wind damage and freezing and thawing from these crazy temperature swings, or adapt to increasing cost of food caused by storms, floods and droughts......I guess if you've noticed your grocery bills have at least doubled in the last five years like I have then we're already adapting!

Reducing CO2 does nothing to help us adapt. In fact, denying ourselves access to fossil fuels will make it more difficult to adapt to whatever changes come.

Totally ridiculous! This is a lie propagated by the coal, oil and gas companies who want to continue the present pattern of having all tax subsidies and government policies (including wars fought on their behalf) so they can continue profiting from increasing greenhouse gas levels and accelerating an extinction cycle that is already underway.

Will coal be worth the cost if the coal producers and utility companies that want to keep building coal-fired power plants have to pay the whole cost of cleaning up disasters like the one that just happened in Tennessee a couple of days ago? And this is from a power station burning "clean coal." It seems a little ironic that after spending money to fund disinformation campaigns by global warming skeptics, the plant's coal ash pond may have been damaged by severe weather effects of our changing climate:

The T.V.A. is still investigating the cause of the breach, but officials have suggested that unusually heavy rain and freezing temperatures may have been factors.

Will cost huge amounts of money and accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change. In fact, even if CO2 is the primary driver of climate change it may be too late to stop the changes coming which means money is better spend on adaptation rather than CO2 emission reductions.

Judging from how well adaptation has worked during past mass extinctions caused by global warming brought about by volcanic activity and continental drift, I would say that adaptation to the coming changes is not an option. During the Permian/Triassic extinction that killed off approx. 95% of animal life on Earth, the oceans became stagnant ponds filled with sulphur-producing cyanobacteria....I'm sure future generations will enjoy adapting to that kind of world! But they may have no choice if sequester CO2 and methane trapped in the high arctic is freed up by warming temperatures:

Alarming but preliminary reports of methane gas bubbling up from the Arctic Ocean have raised the specter of precipitous global warming in the minds of some climate scientists.

[Riverwind]

--

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

ADAPT! What should we adapt to.

Whatever we need to. One advantage adaptation has it we don't need to depend on complicated computer models to decide what to do. We simply watch for trends in the the weather and change accordingly. For example, if these kinds of storms become a yearly occurrence cities like Vancouver and Toronto will need to invest in more snow removal technology - technology that already exists and is used in the cities like Montreal which have dealt with crazy winter storms for decades.

Incidently, adapation always involves a transition cost as people adjust but once the adjustment happens no one will remember that adapation happened. For example, the 2003 heat wave in europe killed 1000s yet a similar heat wave in 2006 passed without any major incidents. The diffference is europeans adapted by 2006 - it was not hard and was a lot cheaper than banning all fossil fuels.

Totally ridiculous! This is a lie propagated by the coal, oil and gas companies who want to continue the present pattern of having all tax subsidies and government policies

We use fossil fuels because they are cheapest source of energy. Replacing fossil fuels with anything else will increase the cost of energy. This, is turn, will reduce our ability to adapt to climate change. This is basic math and economics.

Alarming but preliminary reports of methane gas bubbling up from the Arctic Ocean have raised the specter of precipitous global warming in the minds of some climate scientists.

The arctic was largely ice-free 10000 years ago and at least 3 or 4 degC hotter than today. No methane induced warming event occurred then and there is no reason to believe it will occur any time in the foreseeable future. Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Whatever we need to. One advantage adaptation has it we don't need to depend on complicated computer models to decide what to do.

If computer modeling is so useless why were you quoting a climate modeler then, just because his model predicted no change in future number of hurricanes? If you're criticizing climate models that predict catastrophic climate change as being theoretical nonsense, you can't play the ones you like as evidence.

We simply watch for trends in the the weather and change accordingly. For example, if these kinds of storms become a yearly occurrence cities like Vancouver and Toronto will need to invest in more snow removal technology - technology that already exists and is used in the cities like Montreal which have dealt with crazy winter storms for decades.

And cities are being forced to do this kind of adaptation anyway to respond to downed powerlines and road closures caused by severe weather disruptions.

We use fossil fuels because they are cheapest source of energy. Replacing fossil fuels with anything else will increase the cost of energy. This, is turn, will reduce our ability to adapt to climate change. This is basic math and economics.

They are the cheapest because they get generous tax deductions and offload the cost of cleaning up their mess on to society as a whole. When the total costs of depending on coal, oil and gas are factored in, they are far from cheap......and the cost of fighting wars and setting foreign policy objectives for the benefit of the oil companies should also be factored in with their costs.

But of the fossil fuels, coal is being identified as the chief threat regarding climate change. Some of the climate strategists are advocating a more intense focus on ending the use of coal, over and above concerns about gas and oil.

The arctic was largely ice-free 10000 years ago and at least 3 or 4 degC hotter than today. No methane induced warming event occurred then and there is no reason to believe it will occur any time in the foreseeable future.

Didn't we go over this one before? I remember something about someone claiming the waters around Norway were ice-free, but even if they were, that doesn't tell us about what was happening in Greenland or our Arctic islands. 10,000 years ago was only a couple of thousand years after the glaciers had retreated from Southern Ontario from the last Ice Age -- it seems pretty hard to believe that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free at a time when glaciers were still retreating from Northern Canada.

And right now, if methane-rich deposits on the Arctic Ocean sea floor start bubbling up, releasing massive quantities of methane into the atmosphere next summer, this could be one of those "tipping point" events that could cause a runaway greenhouse effect that have so many climatologists worried about

[kuzadd]

wip: I am so glad you pointed out the very heavy subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

I heard some stats somewhere on the subsidies per gallon, staggering.

Giving them monopolistic status.

There are a good many reasons to reduce dependance on fossil fuel, not limited to co2 alone, which would make the move beneficial, greatly beneficial, cleaner air, cleaner water, reduced dependance on foreign sources etc. etc. less war, damage to the environment oh the list goes on and on.

[GostHacked]

ADAPT! What should we adapt to: increased destruction from the storms, wind damage and freezing and thawing from these crazy temperature swings, or adapt to increasing cost of food caused by storms, floods and droughts......I guess if you've noticed your grocery bills have at least doubled in the last five years like I have then we're already adapting!

If the animals. plants ect can adapt so can we. Humans make the environment adapt to them.

Totally ridiculous! This is a lie propagated by the coal, oil and gas companies who want to continue the present pattern of having all tax subsidies and government policies (including wars fought on their behalf) so they can continue profiting from increasing greenhouse gas levels and accelerating an extinction cycle that is already underway.

I will say again, CARBON DIOXIDE is not the problem. For what is is worth, all humans and living things on this planet (except for plants) create more CO2 than anyything else around. Including industry. There are 6 billion of us carbon dioxide producing humans on this planet. AND GROWING. CARBON DIOXIDE IS GOOD FOR PLANTLIFE !!!!

Will coal be worth the cost if the coal producers and utility companies that want to keep building coal-fired power plants have to pay the whole cost of cleaning up disasters like the one that just happened in Tennessee a couple of days ago? And this is from a power station burning "clean coal." It seems a little ironic that after spending money to fund disinformation campaigns by global warming skeptics, the plant's coal ash pond may have been damaged by severe weather effects of our changing climate:

You have not been around power plants or even mining facilities at all eh? You could also blame the engineers and designers of the facility, to see if the damn was not built properly or there was some major structure problems that were never looked at. Things break all the time. So look at other things before you say that coal burning=bad.

I am from Sudbury Ont. I can tell you carbon dioxide is a minor if not insignificant player in the equation. Sulphur spewed from the largest mining stack in the world is spread over a large area. Before there was a smaller stack, and much of the vegitation around the city had died. The larger stack threw the stuff higher and farther and disperesed it over a larger area. Even with the reduced emissions over the decades, it still is a huge part of the contamination in and around the Sudbury area.

I have stated this before, but there is an insurance claim that Sudburians are elligible for. Fallout Claim. You can get your car repainted due to the sulphuric acid in the air from the mining facilities. If it eats car paint, imagine what that will do to organic things like, your lungs. I breath in carbon dioxide all the time. I tell, you, it does not burn like sulphur does. Cars are another large producer of sulphur.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/sudbury/sudbury.htm

Judging from how well adaptation has worked during past mass extinctions caused by global warming brought about by volcanic activity and continental drift, I would say that adaptation to the coming changes is not an option. During the Permian/Triassic extinction that killed off approx. 95% of animal life on Earth, the oceans became stagnant ponds filled with sulphur-producing cyanobacteria....I'm sure future generations will enjoy adapting to that kind of world! But they may have no choice if sequester CO2 and methane trapped in the high arctic is freed up by warming temperatures:

This planet has gone through major life changes a few times in it's 4 billion + history. And you are being quite obtuse when talking about mass extinction and not including the big meteor rock that hit the planet to wipe out most life on this planet. You show the effect here, but you forgot the cause.

Maybe mass extinciton is a way for the planet to purge itself of an illness. Humans are on the list.

[jdobbin]

I find it amazing that you yelp about funding of skeptics yet when pressed about the much more serious conflicts of interest that affect climate alarmists you start babbling about consipiracy theories.

I find it amazing that you have an anti-science conspiracy around every corner. Yeesh.

Make up your mind. Either funding matters or it does not. Claiming that skeptics are biased by their sources of funding while insisting that alarmists are as pure as the driven snow is nothing but hypocrisy.

I am more concerned by the flimsy credentials of the scientists the denialists claim are opposed.

Bottom line: the hockey stick fiasco and susquent evidence of dishonest and unprofessional behavoir on the part of climate scientists demonstrates that these people cannot be trusted to be impartial arbiters of facts.

Aw, there's that conspiracy theory again.

[Riverwind]

They are the cheapest because they get generous tax deductions and offload the cost of cleaning up their mess on to society as a whole. When the total costs of depending on coal, oil and gas are factored in, they are far from cheap......and the cost of fighting wars and setting foreign policy objectives for the benefit of the oil companies should also be factored in with their costs.

A big part of this AGW is problem is too many people are completely ignorant of our energy system and have no understanding of costs involved turning energy into something we can use. Fossil fuels are cheap because they require little processing/captital investment per unit of energy produced when compared to any other source of energy. The government tax deductions are insignificant and the so-called environmental cost of CO2 emission is a fiction dreamed up by people who think human should be living in unheated caves. To make matters worse the production of solar panels and rechargable batteries creates a huge amount of toxic waste - a problem that would quickly turn into a catastrophe if a significant percentage of our energy needs came from these kinds of sources.

IOW - we use fossil fuels because they are our best and most reliable source of energy. There are no practical alternatives at this time and none will likely appear anytime soon.

it seems pretty hard to believe that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free at a time when glaciers were still retreating from Northern Canada.

This is not in dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia)[1].

The entire planet was much warmer then as it was after each glaciation ended. The planet did not enter a period of out of control warming because of melting permafrost then and it will not now. These kinds of "tipping point" arguments are a joke and only appear because scientists who want funding need to "sex-up" their research by creating disaster scenarios. Tippings points and WMDs in Iraq have a lot in common.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I find it amazing that you have an anti-science conspiracy around every corner.

I don't understand your willful ignorance on this point. The dishonesty and unprofessionalism demonstrated by the climate science community well documented and indisputable. A drug or engineering company that conducted itself in the way these climate scientists do would be facing law suits and possibly jail time. We should not be making trillion dollar investment decisions based on science produced by people who are willing to dissemble and obfuscate in order to promote their cause.

In fact, this dishonesty is still going on: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4742

A few weeks ago a group of climate scientists published a paper that claims that the tropospheric temperatures are not inconsistent with climate models. This paper relied on a number of processed datasets that were not published with the paper and when someone tried to replicate the results the authors refused to provide the data. To make matters worse the "peer-reviewed" journal editor choose to abdicate its responsibility to ensure that all published results can be replicated by other and sided with the author's decisions to keep the data secret.

What this means is the paper could be based on fictious data and no one other than the original authors would know since they are not required to provide the data. This repudiates one of the basic principals of scientific research: that all published results must be reproduceable.

Now I realize that these people have invented some excuse that justfies there actions in their own mind, however, it is simply an excuse. If they were really professionals that had confidence in their research they would provide the data requested. Since they refused one must conclude that: 1) they are hiding something or 2) they have no concept of professional ethics.

Neither answer gives us any reason to trust them.

The fact that the journal editor refused to support the request for access to the data demonstrates that "peer reviewed" journals are also acting in an unprofessional manner and cannot be trusted to objectively evaluate science.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Riverwind