posted May 17, 2010 11:56 PM         

I keep asking and you keep ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading the issue.

I posted a list of 31,000+ American scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap, a fraud, a scam and a hoax.

posted May 18, 2010 10:49 AM         

So OK, acoustic, show me the list of 9,000 scientists with PhDs who believe in the crackpot theory of man made global warming.

My personal theory about your ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading the issue...is that you cannot show any such list.

In fact acoustic, of the 528 peer reviewed papers on "global warming" only 7% explicitly endorse the so called "consensus" of man made global warming.

Further acoustic, only 1, (ONE), was stupid enough to claim man made global warming is going to turn the earth to a burned out cinder and exterminate life on earth.

"Of 528 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."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minori ty.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

Blowing smoke up you own ass isn't a substitute for work acoustic.

posted May 18, 2010 12:24 PM         

Posting more stuff from 2007 again from Inhofe's blog isn't going to cut it. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's article is disputed. A quick Google search confirms as much. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/monckton%20schulte%20oreskes%207%200%20%282%29.pdf

quote:

---

Blowing smoke up you own ass isn't a substitute for work acoustic.

---

posted May 18, 2010 02:12 PM         

You continue to make the assumption that none of those 9,000 PhDs published any peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where do you find that information acoustic. Or are you just pulling it out of your butt.

You're still ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading...and everyone knows why you are.

I've made the requirements less stringent acoustic.

posted May 18, 2010 05:12 PM         

Real scientists provided the information I've posted. They've convinced themselves.

quote:

---

You continue to make the assumption that none of those 9,000 PhDs published any peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where do you find that information acoustic. Or are you just pulling it out of your butt.

---

Yes, I do. Until I see proof otherwise I will continue this contention.

quote:

---

You're still ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading...and everyone knows why you are.

---

First of all, barely anyone is even paying attention to us. Second of all, those who are have already been convinced by my rational logic. Thirdly, I don't have a reason to avoid this issue. On the contrary, you're the idiot that thinks an amalgamation of names that were presented with bogus materials made an informed decision about global warming. That's stupid on it's face. You don't even need me here to point out how stupid that is.

quote:

---

Just show me 9,000 scientists with PhDs who tout the man made global warming baloney....oh, and since you've added a requirement....show me 9,000 scientists who tout man made global warming theory...who have also published peer reviewed papers on the subject.

---

Now you're trying to dictate terms on a frivolous, losing argument? If we're dictating terms, here's mine:

Find me just five peer-reviewed papers from "scientists" that have signed your bogus petition.

That wouldn't even you up against the number of scientists at Real Climate, but it would bolster your position immensely.

Considering that you've only managed to find one paper that even comes close to representing a coherant sceptical position I'd say you need all the luck you can get.

posted May 18, 2010 06:06 PM         

quote:

---

First of all, barely anyone is even paying attention to us.

---

Oh, I don't know about that...

I never realized how many readers lurk on GU until a few months ago. There was a general response type thread, something that was opinion based that everyone could answer and it was not about American politics.
Anyway there were maybe 8-10 people who responded, [I forget the thread] people who either rarely, or never post here. I remember my eyebrow going up.

My guesstimate is that, on average, there are 15 or so peeps-a-day who read/lurk. And if there is a hot button issue with a goodly number of arguments being waged that Doth spiketh readership considerably.

We love and light LLanders Heart a good fight.

As far as the topic, pretty much everyone knows what their stance is already.
You 2 goin` at it is entertaining. And when the insults are flying... lol funny.

I keep an open mind, but it is not a wind tunnel......

I think it is hilarious that JW bumped his other thread about this so he can cut-n-paste furiously with one hand, [bold-ing half the post] and use voice dictation [with speech recognition] on the other thread. Dueling as it were.

Oh, and me? Not that it matters in the big picture, but I go with science on this. The science that shows Man is indeed contributing to climate change.

posted May 18, 2010 07:00 PM         

Hey look! It's a lurker!

posted May 18, 2010 11:13 PM         

Of all the issues on the radar screen of Americans, global warming ranks DEAD LAST.

All the fraud, hype and disinformation committed by the crackpot so called scientists and the lame brained press have turned Americans off.

These crackpots can't do any better than DEAD LAST on issues Americans care about.

I'd be very careful about whom you call a scientist. Falsifying data, hiding data, deleting data and manipulating data for computer models to make them predict what you want predicted....isn't anywhere close to "scientific method". It's junk science and that's being kind.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/42474

I notice you still haven't posted the names of those 9,000 nutty putty man made global warming scientists with PhDs who have written peer reviewed papers on the subject.

posted May 19, 2010 01:22 AM         

quote:

---

Man made global warming nuts, crackpots and fraud artists in the man made global warming religion have already lost the war.

---

In some ways, you're right. The public doesn't care. However, the scientific consensus has likely never been stronger.

quote:

---

I'd be very careful about whom you call a scientist.

---

Interesting coming from a guy who calls thousands of people whose professional qualifications he does not know "scientists." Those I call scientists are paid, educated professionals working in the field. Can't say the same about yours.

quote:

---

Falsifying data, hiding data, deleting data and manipulating data for computer models to make them predict what you want predicted....isn't anywhere close to "scientific method". It's junk science and that's being kind.

---

You haven't even attempted to prove such an assertion, and if you went down that path you'd fail.

quote:

---

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/42474

---

Who's CNS again? "The Right News. Right now."

quote:

---

I notice you still haven't posted the names of those 9,000 nutty putty man made global warming scientists with PhDs who have written peer reviewed papers on the subject.

---

And I notice you still haven't come up with just five peer-reviewed scientific papers disproving global warming either from your list of thousands or otherwise.

May I remind you that it is your contention --at times-- that there is no global warming, and that at other times you wish to take the position that there is warming, but it can't possibly be attributed to human activity. No one has seen you prove either position. As such, it's illogical to think you're going to get any traction by trying to divert people's attention away from your fundamental failure to produce science.

posted May 19, 2010 02:06 AM         

Disinformation about Global Warming

Feature
David Morrison
Volume 34.2, March / April 2010

For the past decade I have followed the growing evidence for climate change and global warming, talking to colleagues who are atmospheric scientists and at­tend­ing presentations by leading scientists at professional meetings such as the American Association for the Advance­ment of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Rarely in that time did I meet anyone who seriously disagreed with the growing consensus about global warming and the threats it imposes. This past October, however, I found these ideas disputed by both fellow skeptics and some in the audience we were speaking to. This was a shock, and it made me look again at the claims of the warming dissenters. I would like to share some of what I learned.

___________________________________

There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation about global warming on the Internet, driven in part by political and economic issues. These political and economic aspects are complex, and relatively few scientists understand them in detail. It is important to remember that climate is long term by definition; trends in climate require at least a decade to reveal themselves. Thus we can understand the climate trends in the 1990s pretty well but not yet in the 2000s.

One of the goals of the deniers seems to be to sow confusion and give the impression that the science behind global warming is weak. This disinformation campaign is at least partly successful; polls (for example, the 2009 Pew/AAAS poll, SI, November/December 2009) show that about half the people in the United States think there is substantial disagreement among scientists, when actually there has been a consensus on this topic for about a decade. The scientific case becomes stronger all the time, but public acceptance is lagging. Most of the counterarguments don’t make scientific sense, or else they are based on information that is obsolete. It is fine to be skeptical, but we need to be concerned when skepticism drifts into denial.

This is not the place to make the case for global warming; that is done very well in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See especially the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and Frequently Asked Questions posted at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. Instead, I list below (in bold) some “red-flag” arguments from global warming deniers that can help you spot disinformation.

1. We should not worry about carbon dioxide since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. This statement misrepresents the heating process. It is the carbon dioxide (and methane) that controls the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is highly variable and essentially follows the carbon dioxide, providing a positive feedback that amplifies the effects of carbon dioxide.

2. What we are seeing are “natural variations” caused primarily by variations in solar output. This is false; we have been monitoring solar energy for a quarter century, and the variations are taken into account in all the climate models. Most of the temperature variations up to the beginning of the twentieth century can be traced to small changes in solar output, plus long-term cyclical changes in Earth’s orbit and short-term cooling associated with large volcanic eruptions. There are also heating and cooling events associated with El Nino and other shifts in the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Since mid-century, however, the rapid heating from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is overwhelming these “natural” cycles.

3. The apparent increase in temperature is an artifact caused by the fact that much of the data are from cities, which are warmer than their surroundings. This is also wrong; the “heat island” effect has been corrected in plots of global temperatures. A great deal of scientific effort is going into understanding and combining the various measurements of temperature to produce a consistent data set, combining direct measurements on the ground and from space with indirect “proxy” information, for example from isotopic measurements that track temperature very closely. Also, of course, there are large-scale effects of rising temperature that are easily seen, such as retreat of glaciers, melting on the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

4. While temperatures seem to have been rising in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), they are dropping in the stratosphere. People who say this don’t realize that this is the expected signature of greenhouse warming (because greenhouse gases in the troposphere impede the flow of radiant heat from Earth’s surface to the stratosphere). If there were an external cause, such as increased energy from the Sun, both troposphere and stratosphere would be heating. Today’s computational models allow greenhouse warming to be distinguished from other causes and reveal the primacy of greenhouse warming over the past several decades.

5. Human activity and volcanic eruptions both add to the cloud cover and cause more sunlight to be reflected from the atmosphere. This largely counteracts any heating from the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric pollution, both natural (from volcanoes) and human-caused (from smoke and other aerosols), does influence temperature, reflecting sunlight and reducing the warming we would have from increased greenhouse effect alone. Without these contributions to cooling, the added greenhouse heating would be significantly greater than what we measure. There are also temperature increases caused by darkening of the surface, because more sunlight is absorbed. As the ice melts in the Arctic Ocean, the dark water absorbs a great deal more sunlight, an effect that will accelerate future global warming.

6. The warming trend during the 1990s is no big deal; temperatures are actually lower than they were in the medieval warm period. This is wrong; over at least the past few thousand years, temperatures have never been as high as they are today. By the middle of the twentieth century the temperature passed the record highs from about a thousand years ago, and they have been rising ever since, taking us into unknown climate territory.

7. While there was warming in the 1990s, this has stopped and the world is now beginning what may be a long-term cooling cycle. This is a misinterpretation of the temperature measurements. There are always short-term fluctuations in global temperature superimposed on the the overall warming trend. Those who say the temperature has plateaued or is cooling over the past decade start with the anomalously high temperature in 1998, reflecting a major El Nino event that year. If you adopt such a high temperature excursion as your baseline, of course the values tend to be lower for the next several years (called the regression to the mean). But putting aside the temperature spike in 1998, temperatures during the past decade have continued the warming trend of the 1990s.

8. More carbon dioxide is good, since it makes plants grow better. This might be true if we could increase carbon dioxide without greenhouse heating, but high temperatures are not good for most plants. In addition, the increase in carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans, which can destroy coral reefs or have deleterious effects on zooplankton, on which much ocean life depends. Over much of the Earth, localized long-term droughts caused by global warming will have a major negative effect on plants.

9. There is no consensus; many scientists disagree about global warming. This is not true at all. Dissenters have published hardly any peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past decade. The dissenters are mostly not climate scientists, and they have offered no alternative models to explain the data. The national academies of science in all of the industrialized countries have endorsed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents a strong scientific agreement on both the reality of global warming and the challenges it implies.

10. How can we trust climate scientists when numerous e-mails from the U.K. climate scientists show that they have distorted their data and actively suppressed dissenting opinions? These stolen e-mails from a British climate center reveal how real scientists work, warts and all. People write things in personal e-mails that they would never want published. There is no evidence, however, of fudging or suppressing the climate data. There appear to have been efforts to influence editors of scientific journals not to publish papers by global-warming deniers. At one level this is exactly what scientists normally do: vet papers through the peer-review process to weed out poor science. If the actions go further and represent impropriety, that will be revealed by the current investigation. But there is nothing in this controversy that undercuts the overwhelming scientific consensus about human-caused global warming.

Finally, let me comment on the role of the skeptic. (See also Stuart Jordan, “The Global Warming Debate: Science and Scientists in a Democracy,” SI, November/December 2007, and Jordan’s response to several global warming disputers in “Response to ‘Assessing the Credibility of CFI’s Credibility Project,’” SI, January/February 2010.) Note that I have said nothing about future warming trends, rises in sea level, or warming-induced increases in the severity of storms. As the saying goes, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. It is certain that warming will continue since temperatures are dominated by the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In spite of promises, there has been no reduction in the rate of CO2 production, and even if governments take drastic action we will continue to pump out lots of greenhouse gases at least through the middle of this century. In addition, the climate system itself has inertia, and the warming lags the CO2 concentration by ten to fifteen years. There are also major uncertainties about feedback effects, especially from warming in the polar regions, which might accelerate melting ice and contribute to release of CO2 and methane from the tundra. Scientists have tried to model these processes, and their simulations agree for the next ten to twenty years. Beyond that, the models diverge, however, due both to uncertainties in the computations and to differences in the assumptions made. It is reasonable to be skeptical about specific predictions, especially after 2030, but that should not blind us to what is happening to our planet now.

References
The IPCC reports and the peer-reviewed articles they reference are the basic resources for this article. In addition to the IPCC materials, I recommend two reliable Web sites: RealClimate—Climate Science from Climate Scientists, available at www.realclimate.org, and SkepticalScience—Examining the Sci­ence of Global Warm­ing Skepticism, available at www.skepticalscience.com.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/disinformation_about_global_warming/

posted May 19, 2010 10:00 AM         

That shouldn't be too hard for you acoustic...since you...and the nutty putty so called scientists claim..."there's a consensus" that man made CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Since you, Algore and the nutty putty set claim there's a consensus on the subject, logical, reasonable, rational people would be forced to conclude you're ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading when you continue to fail to produce the list of those scientists who say rising levels of man made CO2 is causing temperatures to rise.

posted May 19, 2010 10:39 AM         

Don't you know that the person who can't seem to stay on topic is the loser?

You continue to bring nothing to the table.

That doesn't put you in a position where you can demand more from people who clearly have no problem staying on topic. The topic is global warming, remember? You were going to prove how it isn't real, and is just a made up conspiracy. Alternately, you were going to prove how it's real, but not tributable to man. The only requirement put on you was to use bona fide, peer reviewed science in order to do so.

Now, just to make doubly sure you understand, you do realize that my failure to produce a list of scientists that back global warming won't and can't diminish my position, right? The reason being is that every scientist that produces scientifically reviewed papers on this subject believes in man made global warming. Claiming that there are other "scientists" that disagree with the notion of man made global warming puts the onus on such "scientists" to subject their work for peer review. Every one that has done so has been found to be in error.

You can't make an anti-global-warming argument without the science.

posted May 19, 2010 10:52 AM         

I've already produced a list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock, a hoax, a fraud and a scam.

I'm just asking you to do the same with a list of crackpot, so called scientists who say man is the cause of rising CO2 levels AND it's the man made contribution of CO2 which threatens the earth...and humans.

I even lowered the bar for you acoustic and reduced the list number of so called scientists to only 9,000.

So acoustic, where is the list?

You're going to have to stop ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading the issue acoustic....OR...you could admit right now that there is no list, you cannot produce such a list, that there is no consensus and that man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a fraud.

Either way acoustic.

posted May 19, 2010 11:40 AM         

but if you are sure obama is using this issue to get control of energy production in this country what explanation is there for the european countries where energy production is ALREADY under state control to one degree or another??

i think the jury is still out on this one. there ARE plenty of scientists who agree with jwhop. and plenty who do not.

posted May 19, 2010 11:48 AM         

quote:

---

Gee acoustic, I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't ALREADY DONE.

---

Nor am I, dipstick. Produce some peer-reviewed science.

quote:

---

I've already produced a list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock, a hoax, a fraud and a scam.

---

No, you haven't. You haven't proven them to be scientists. You haven't produced any of their scientific papers on the subject. You haven't shown the evidence they were given to come to such a conclusion. It's moot moot moot.

quote:

---

I even lowered the bar for you acoustic and reduced the list number of so called scientists to only 9,000.

So acoustic, where is the list?

---

I lowered the bar for you as well. Remember? You're just FIVE scientific papers away from meeting your goal. First you can post the papers, and then we'll dissect their relevance, and whether they hold any water or not.

quote:

---

You're going to have to stop ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading the issue acoustic....OR...you could admit right now that there is no list, you cannot produce such a list, that there is no consensus and that man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a fraud.

---

It's so easy to argue with someone when science is on your side. So easy. Just had to say that.

Once again, the "ducking, bobbing, and weaving" is your inability to produce rational science to support your contention. Whoever heard of winning a scientific debate without science (and WITH a list of people that were presented with bogus information in exchange for a signature)?

posted May 19, 2010 01:43 PM         

Yes, European nations have control of their energy use and they tax the hell out of it.

For instance, while we pay about $2.75 per gallon of gas, Europeans pay up to about $11.50 per gallon and use that tax money to fund their grotesque welfare states.

But, even that level of energy taxation isn't enough as lots of people die waiting to see a doctor or have medicine, water and food withheld to make them die. Their economies are stagnant and the EU is falling apart right in front of our very eyes. Greece is bankrupt and bailing Greece out is going to push the EU over the edge.

Now let's have a look at O'Bomber's so called Green Energy Economy to create jobs in America.

Sorry O'Bomber but Spain has already tried that and found that for every "green job" produced, it cost 2 jobs in the private economy...such as it is in Spain. What a deal! As Joe Plugs O'Biden would say..."That's a big F-ing deal".

posted May 19, 2010 02:31 PM         

The link to the peer reviewed papers are on the 1st page of this thread at the link I posted. You should at least make an attempt to read them.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000258.html

I can't post the papers because there's scientific and mathematical notation which cannot be handled by non scientific fonts used on this forum.

Not that you could understand either the peer reviewed papers or the scientific and mathematical notation used to produce the peer reviewed conclusions reached by the scientific researchers.

Here's 1 http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Here's 2 http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

And that's enough to destroy your bullshiit that I've not posted peer reviewed papers which refute man made global warming theory.

So acoustic, let no more be heard from you that I've failed to supply peer reviewed papers which disprove man made global warming bullshiiit.

posted May 19, 2010 04:10 PM         

This one refers to the study of one guy (Stephen Schwartz) whose paper you posted, and whose paper I refuted using real climate scientists.

Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

Same paper.

Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’

Same paper.

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Interestingly, this one links to an Australian's work that has the following caveat:

Opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this testimony are those of the author, and are not attributable to either his organization (James Cook University) or research fund provider (Australian Research Council).

Rebuttals: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Robert_Carter

Real Climate's take on Robert Carter's testimony in front of Congress: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/

Two exchanges summed it up for me. In the first, Bob Carter insisted that CO2 always follows temperature for the ice age cycles (which are paced by the variations in the Earth’s orbit and for which CO2 is a necessary feedback) and seasonal cycle (related mainly to Northern hemisphere deciduous trees) . Both statements are true as far as they go – but they don’t go very far. Was Carter suggesting that the 30% increase in CO2 decreased after 1940? or that it has stopped increasing in recent years (since he appears to also believe that global warming stopped in 1998?). As an aside by his criteria it also stopped in 1973, 1983 and 1990…. only it didn’t. Of course, if this wasn’t what he meant to imply (because it’s demonstrably false), why did he bring the whole subject up at all? Surely not simply to muddy the waters….

The second great example was Carter making an appeal to authority (using NASA and the Russian Academy of Science) for his contention that world is likely to cool in coming decades. Of course scientists at NASA are at the forefront of studies of anthropogenic climate change so a similar authority would presumably apply to them, and the Russian Academy was one of 11 that called on the G8 to take climate change seriously, but let’s gloss over that inconsistency. The nuggets of science Carter was referring to are predictions for the next couple of solar cycles – a tricky business in fact, and one in which there is a substantial uncertainty. However, regardless of that uncertainty, NASA scientists have definitively not predicted that this will cause an absolute cooling – at best, it might reduce the ongoing global warming slightly (which would be good) (though see here for what they actually said). Two Russians scientists have indeed made such a ‘cooling’ prediction though, but curiously only in a press report rather than in any peer-reviewed paper, and clearly did not speak for the Academy in doing so, but never mind that. Of course, if Carter seriously thought that global cooling was likely, he should be keen to take up some of James Annan’s or Brian Schmidt’s attractive offers – but like the vast majority of ‘global coolers’, his money does not appear to be where his mouth is. It’s all classic contrarian stuff.

posted May 19, 2010 04:52 PM         

No peer-reviewed science here.

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

First up scientist is Dr. James Renwick. Let's see what he had to say more recently than 2007:

Dr James Renwick, Principal Scientist NIWA National Climate Centre, comments:

“My take is that it is a very good overview of the state of the global climate in 2009, something that has only become possible to do in close to real-time since the advent of comprehensive satellite (and other) observing systems.

“Understanding how the climate system is varying and changing is critically dependent on such monitoring systems, and climate system observing should be a top priority for all national funding agencies. The climate in 2009 show a mix of events, underlining the effects of climate extremes upon humanity, from the Victorian bush fires, to drought in China, and heat waves in Europe and India. The climate change signal is clear, with the current decade coming in warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s. Continued monitoring, prediction, and adaptation/preparedness are crucial.” http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-nz/20091012-20384-2.html

I think I snatched that one right from under you and Mr. Inhofe.

Scientist number two (Dr. Kevin Trenberth)penned this: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/full/08feb/trenberth_testimony.pdf

posted May 19, 2010 04:53 PM         

He's a retired coal industry researcher. Not surprising that he's sceptical.

Fourth scientist: Hendrik Tennekes

No published research in last 15 years
Tennekes is a retired researcher from the Netherlands that, according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990. Prior to 1990, Tennekes has published research mainly in the area of meteorology. http://www.desmogblog.com/hendrik-tennekes (fascinating site devoted to climate sceptics)

posted May 19, 2010 05:02 PM         

the move to renewable energy is in almost all cases an effort to put the arabs back in their "place" - ie the third world - and get a handle on costs.

and the move to control the climate is not to
"save the planet" but to save the human race from conditions it cannot survive...

posted May 19, 2010 07:22 PM         

New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes:

Damning? Mmmm...not so much. One of the authors made it over to Real Climate (in 2009) to talk about this paper. It doesn't disprove global warming. Nor is he a global warming denialist:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming

Unconfirmable. Not likely peer-reviewed.

3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age

Stott notes, however, that this does not indicate that CO2 has no role in the climate. I think that paper tried to attach some scepticism to global warming, but I think he's non-committal about being lumped in with the deniers. His was essentially a CO2 lag paper, and I've already posted Real Climate's opinion on the matter.

4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming:

Dr. Roy Spencer is a legitimate global warming sceptic. Here's his site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Here's part of the review of Dr. Spencer's work as performed by scientist, Dr. Raymond T Pierrehumbert, at Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/