Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust

This sounds like great ammunition against Greenhouse warming alarmists!

Mike,

Who said all the ice had melted at the North Pole? Source, please.

Who said all the ice had melted at the North Pole? Source, please.

Dave,

This issue has been all over the news.

Have you not been paying attention?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1453313/completely_melted_north_pole_a_probability_this_summer/index.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20448107-1702,00.html?from=public_rss

http://www.informify.com/top-stories/46-natural-world/274-north-pole-ice-may-melt-by-september-accelerate-global-warming

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5265092&page=1

Those are just the first five articles that show up from a simple Google search.

Here, Ladies and Gentlemen, is another stellar example of dogmatic assertion brought to you by Dave Noble:

Why would I also do all these things, even if there were no scientific consensus on global warming?

Pssstttt…..

Dave,

I know, and you certainly should know, that there is NO consensus on global warming.

DW,

There is really no question that the ice is shrinking.

The question is: “Why?”

How does this year compare to prior years?

Do you know the answers?

I do.

All is not as it seems with AGW:

The Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.

IPCC 2007 Survey results:

Don’t forget that many scientists don’t participate in the IPCC because they perceive it as biased. The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter, for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our special

Lord Monkcton’s review of the 2007 IPCC report

National Academy of Sciences - had their CLEH (climate linked epidemic hypothesis) debunked by their own data.

Additionally, 400 prominent scientists - one of whom I know personally, dispute the ‘consensus’ you adhere to, David.

You can read about them and find links to other studies that point out how much we don’t know about global climate change. These scientist are quickly becoming the ‘Galileo’ of their time.

Oh, let us not forget the Nobel Prize Winners non-consensus:

Seven Nobel prize winners participated in a climate debate. How did it look like? Well, there may be a climate consensus among the high-school dropouts but there is none among the Nobel prize winners. There was one more difference. Many of the Nobel prize winners said, unlike the high-school dropouts, the following sentence: “I am no expert.”

Meeting of Nobel Prize winners, Lindau, Germany - 6/29-7-3

I’ll ask you again, David, please submit the studies that definitively links human activity and increased C02 to global climate change.

What is occuring is not substantive data that links human activity to global warming, all that is being producing is the second Inquistion of those who question AGW:

NASA - Put Those On Trial For GW Lies

Hanson targets CEO and politicians for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Silencing Dissent: A review of the cases.

Decertifying Weathermen/women

In the end of this there certainly has been no change in the science – there is still no persuasive evidence that humans are adversely affecting global climate or that humans can manipulate global climate by regulating greenhouse gas emission.

The Goracle and his cool aid srinking disciples are not scientists. Just a little while ago 31,000 scientists and PhDs signed a statemnet saying they thing that AGW is total BS and we have no control over the climate. The Global Warming scare is just another way for the socialists to control all of our lives.

I still do not see where in Constitution it tells the CONgress to tell me what products I can buy. I like the incandescent light bubls for certain lighting, but in a few years they will illegal because our great leaders have said they are bad for the einvironment, except now we are going to have to buy light bulbs that are more expensive and more harmful to the environment becasue some bureacrat said they willl save the environment.

The environmentalists are green on the outside and red on the inside. Watermelons

We have been warming for the past few hundreds of years from the time of the Little Ice Age, and it is looking more like we are in for a cold spell. The amount of Sun Spots have many scientists wondering why this is happeneing and that the last time this happened we had the Little Ice Age.

How does this year compare to prior years?

Do you know the answers?

I do.

Why, yes. Yes, I do. I’ve already posted this link. Why do I need to do it twice–because you can’t be bothered to read?

Oh, wait: let me guess. I’m cherrypicking the data because it only goes back thirty years, right?

I just dug a DW one out, Aye. Don’t see one for you. Is is this thread?

Nevermind… just found it and got it out, Aye Chi.

MataHarley
2nd generation un-hypenated American

DW,

According to this chart, this year’s melting is less than last year’s melting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html?action=Popup&gallery=no

Could that be because 2007 is one of the coolest years in the last 30 years?

Could it be because there has been no global warming since 1998?

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=136273

You still didn’t address the “Why?” part.

In the Southern hemisphere the ice level has increased and is now in the highest levels since it is measured.

Here you have the chart

And another one

First, because of its fundamental nature: the issue of scientific consensus.

Aye Chi offers a simple dictionary definition of the general term “consensus”
It is more helpful to look at the more specific and applicable definition of “scientific consensus.”

“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time” (Here, climatology in 2008).
en.wikipedia.org…

This is the problem with the Petition cited by Aye Chi and previously cited by Mike in an earlier thread.

“The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions.” This is quoted from their site.

If the petition truly represented a contrarian view of a large number of climatologists, wouldn’t they have organized the project and not physicists and physical chemists?
Of the 30,000+ signers, only 3,697 have degrees in the general and very loose category of “Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment” and only 40 are climatologists. That makes 40 out of 30,000+ signers (a little more than 1/10th of one percent) who are actually trained in the discipline upon which they are offering an ostensibly authoritative opinion. This is even more critical given that it is a contrarian opinion.

I wouldn’t go to an astronomer for crucial opinions on climatological issues anymore than I would ask my gardener to check out my house wiring or I would go to a urologist to find out if I have obsessive-compulsive disorder (actually a proctologist might be able to help with that)

Here is the actual breakout from the Petition’s website:

1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Just as a note: there are almost three times as many engineer signatories as there are “atmosphere, earth and environmental scientists.”

The Heidelberg Appeal list and the list of 400 scientists in the Senate Minority Report suffer from the same flaw. They are hodgepodges of scientists from numerous disciplines who seem to be cited primarily for the general academic credentials and not for their specific expertise. The Heidelberg Appeal also suffers from the flaw of being 16 years old. Scientific opinion continually evolves.

Skye, you are a biologist, would you find authoritative the opinions of physicists, physical chemists (or climatologists) on an issue within your discipline. Would you cite them authoritatively in a paper?

Neither the Heidelberg Appeal, nor the Petition group, nor the 400 scientists cited in the Senate Minority Report is a group of comparable repute to the scientific organizations I cited.
Accordingly, my challenge remains unmet.

Back to the definition of scientific consensus: “There are always outliers, remaining advocates of earlier ideas which have been superseded, cliques or individuals with unique points of view or with new ideas which have not yet been thoroughly tested, and other dissidents. Each of these groups can be quite forceful in pushing their points of view and often are. As science impinges on society, societal groups become advocates of outlying theories for policy purposes, not scientific ones, which can confuse scientific truth.”
en.wikipedia.org…

Finally, consensus is not unanimity. There will always be outliers. Despite the conspiracy theories advanced in the posts above and their sources, I trust the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process.

Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.

Let me ask, what do Climatolagists study???? Becasuse a Climatologist should not study the whole world, r the whole world as one. The Climate of the Eartyh is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There are climates such ans the Mediterranian Climate, Sub-Saharan climate, and many others. But to put them all together as some sort of Global Climate is against what Climatology is. You study one climate at a time, not all atonce, it is impossible.

Sorry Dave, but I will believe theMereologist over a supposed Climatalogist that spouts out this asnine stuff.

And using wickepedia to put your argument forward is ridiculous. wickepedia should notbe used as a real reference.

Ands I am still wanting to see the Scientific Method used to show any kind of AGW. Models do not count, garbage in =garbage out.

Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.

or

“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Here, we’re confronted with the choice of who to believe. Dave, our Sky Is Falling Chicken Little, or Professor Lindzen, our PhD Professor of Meteorology, MIT.

The choice is clear.

***

Accordingly, my challenge remains unmet.

Hmmmm…..

I do believe that is what one would refer to as a conclusory statement.

Stix,

Are you saying the entire discipline of Climatology is pseudo-science? What are your credentials for making that claim?

I agree that it would be ridiculous to cite to Wikipedia for substantive facts on a controversial issue like this one. I would never do that. But to cite to it for a non-controversial definition is appropriate in my opinion. Do you have a more authoritative definition of “scientific consensus”?

Mata,

Look closely at my statement on the 928 peer-reviewed articles. Then compare it to your cite.
There is no disagreement between the two. What I said was that none disagreed with AGW.

If there are so many reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, where are their peer-reviewed articles?

As you know, AGW is anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. The climate changes on its own - e.g., the Ice Age was clearly not the result of AGW, not enough of us around then. The scientific organizations I cite above support AGW.

The IPCC expressed it’s results with an approximate certainty level of 80%. For inherently conservative scientists that’s a high certainty level. I once read an editorial attacking AGW and the Panel’s results. The writer asked if you’d get in an airplane after you’d been told that there was a 20% chance of it crashing. Unfortunately, he got the metaphor backwards. The proper question was “Would you get in an airplane if there was only a 20% chance that it would land safely?” There is a 20% that the AGW proponents are wrong and we have nothing to worry about. I don’t like them odds. As I told Aye Chi, I’m putting my money on the big guys.

Here is a shocker:

Press Release
SSRC 3-2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
11:00 am

The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration: Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun.

In a news conference held in Orlando, Florida today, Mr. John L. Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center, issued a landmark declaration on climate change.

“After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun its next climate change. In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of the past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.”

According to Mr. Casey, who spoke to print and TV media representatives today, this next cold era is coming about as a result of the reversal of the 206 year cycle of the sun which he independently discovered and announced in May of 2007.

Casey amplified the declaration by adding, “Though the SSRC first announced a prediction of the coming new climate era to the US government and media in early 2007, the formal declaration has been held off pending actual events that validate the previously forecast new cold period. We now have unmistakable signs of accelerating decline in global temperatures and growing glacial ice, coupled with the dramatic if not startling changes in the sun’s surface including unusually low and slow sunspot activity. These signs, in conjunction with the research center’s ‘relational cycle theory ” or “RC Theory” of climate change which predicted these changes, now leaves no doubt that the process has already been initiated. It is also unstoppable. Our world is rapidly cooling. Even though we still may have isolated warm temperature records, the global trend to a colder era is now irreversible.”

As to whether others agree with his declaration, Casey congratulated the many other scientists around the world who had done “many years of outstanding research” which he used to corroborate his own research after he first found these climate-driving solar cycles and formulated the RC Theory. In the news conference he listed and praised more than a dozen other scientists, most in foreign countries, who had come to the same prediction on the Earth’s climate shift to a cold era.

He said, “I have consulted with colleagues world wide who have reached a similar conclusion. They have likewise been attempting to advise their own governments and media of the impending cold era and the difficult times that the extreme cold weather may bring. They are to be commended for their bold public stances and publication of their research which of course has been in direct opposition to past conventional thought on the nature and causes of the last twenty years of global warming. These last one or two decades of increased global warming were essentially the peak heating phase of the 206 year cycle.”

In the one hour presentation, Casey detailed the solar activity cycles that have been driving the Earth’s climate for the past 1,200 years. He condemned the climate change confusion and alarmism which has accompanied seven separate periods over the past 100 years, where scientists and the media flip-flopped on reporting that the Earth was either entering a new ‘ice age’ or headed for a global meltdown where melting glacial ice would swamp the planet’s coastal cities.

Much of the presentation focused on the positive and negative effects the next climate change will have on the State of Florida, the nation and the world.

Some effects of the coming cold climate on NASA’s space program were highlighted including an extended “quiet period’ produced by reduced solar activity. Casey believes this cold climate era will be the best time since the space program began to conduct human spaceflight. Advises Casey, “With the sun going into what I call “solar hibernation,” the harmful effects of solar radiation on astronauts in space will be minimized.”

Regarding the impacts of the next cold climate period on hurricanes, Casey summarized by saying “I would not be surprised to see the lowest number and least intense storms ever recorded in the US during this cold epoch, for obvious reasons. We should not forget however, the buildup along coastlines and an ever increasing population may continue to make Florida’s hurricanes potentially more destructive in the future, regardless of the number we have.”

On the subject of cold climate effects on agriculture, Casey was not optimistic. “I can see,” he added, “just like the last time this 206 year cycle brought cold, that there will be substantial damage to the world’s agricultural systems. This time however we will have eight billion mouths to feed during the worst years around 2031 compared to previously when we had only one billion. Yet even then, many died from the combined effects of bitter cold and lack of food.”

In his concluding remarks, Casey called on all leaders to immediately move from the past global warming planning to prepare for the already started change to a cold climate.

He ended with, “Now that the new cold climate has begun to arrive, we must immediately start the preparation, the adaptation process. At least because of the RC Theory we now have some advance warning. No longer do we need to wonder what the Earth’s next climate changes will be two or three generations out. But we must nonetheless be ready to adjust with our now more predictable solar cycles that are the primary determinants of climate on Earth.”

Kind of makes that “Consensus” a little bit debunked.

There is no such think in AGW. On both sides you will have a bias.

I just look at the science part and it tellsme thattheEarth will do whatever it wants with or without our help. The big orange ball in the sky will heat us or cool us. It has been happening since the Earth was formed. It has to do with the output of energy from solar flares and sun spots.

There’s inconsistencies with the solar flare theories as well.

BTW- “The Space and Science Research Center” appears to be three guys working out of a frontage road office park suite…

About that peer review process that is being bandied about so heavily on this thread:

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus” as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.
The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.

At any given time, “scientific consensus” may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

“Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms “peer review” and “scientific consensus” often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute, editor of the quarterly journal The Independent Review, and the author of Depression War and Cold War, as well as numerous books and more than 100 articles in scholarly journals.

Dave Noble wrote:

Pssst ……The smart money is on the big guys.

You’re right.

That’s who I’m going with:

Statistics Needed

In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

CVs:

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative’s Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann’s study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann’s hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick’s long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick’s blade) this century.

Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee’s assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann’s work.

“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported,” Wegman stated, adding that “The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” When Wegman corrected Mann’s statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.” Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. “[I]f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done,” Wegman recommended, noting that “there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics.”

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt — although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. “I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school.” As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association’s 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While Wegman’s advice — to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics — may seem too obvious to need stating, the “science is settled” camp resists it. Mann’s hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Another:

Warming is real - and has benefits

Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

And Another:

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science

Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

And Another:

Polar scientists on thin ice

Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

Look closely at my statement on the 928 peer-reviewed articles. Then compare it to your cite. There is no disagreement between the two. What I said was that none disagreed with AGW.

If there are so many reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, where are their peer-reviewed articles?

Let’s break this down, but I have no idea how you came to the notion there was “no disagreement” between your citing of the Oreske’s article, and my link to the climatologists telling her she was basically full of sheeeet. That is “no consensus”, Dave. They most do *not* agree that any climate fluctuations are driven by man… which was the basis of her entire theory.

To demonstrate how words are played, the NYTs made a half-hearted attempt to clarify the IPCC report in their article just today on global warming:

On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is “unequivocal,” and that human activity has “very likely” been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had “likely” played a role.

Wow… they are ready to bankrupt the world based on “likely” and “very likely” scientific results???

The Times then carries on, with nary a care, with how (paraphrased) “it’s not about who did it, but now how to cure the problem” crap. How conveniently they opt to dismiss the word “likely” itself.

Get serious… in science, “likely” is hardly a statement of confidence. It’s not only generally a statement based on computer models in constant state of morphing, but it’s a statement of non-confidence that most definitely warrant time for further advances and debate.

Now add that the CO2 data - which all the “likely” word is based on - does not support their purported claims of man as the culprit.

What we have here is definitely no open-shut case. But that doesn’t stop a media/lobbyist machine - representing it otherwise - from ramming it down our throats.

Still you are determined to dismiss other fields where expertise definitely is related to the issue. Climatologies study long term epochs of weather patterns. (and, as Stix is correct, many specialize in specific areas as few are well versed on every area on earth… it is localized). Yet if man’s emissions are to blame, then chemists and astrophysicists are also integral for how those emissions dissipate, and how they react, or are affected by, known solar patterns and other upper atmospheric factors.

Other fields that are integral to read the past are geologists (especially those in marine geology as they are more undisturbed), palaeontologists, and stratigraphers.

It is oh so many of those discounted fields that point to the climatology alarmists’ theories… pointing out weather results they perceive as man made… who and simply say (paraphrased) you’re mad as a mad hatter! T’ain’t possible with the data we have.

Which then brings me to your “where are their peer-reviewed articles?” question. I will tell you it’s as simple as this. They are silenced, harrassed and threatened, as not only evidenced by the Oregon climatologist I mentioned. But also proven in the recent past by Robert M. Clark. Naturally the alarmists immediately cry foul with Carter because his marine stratigraphy expertise has use in the oil drilling business. So they proclaim him a shill.

Then go back to a Mar 2-4 summit in NYC for those that debate the IPCC findings. Hear much about that on the news? Or course not. Against the popular grain. But it happened. And almost nary a MSM outlet carried info. Try searching it… see what you find.

They call this Heartland Org summit “biased”. Yet those that gain from the economic proposals of AGW aren’t? Get serious. Both sides have a stake. But the scientific data produced from both sides should carry equal weight. And the problem is, what IPCC “experts” proclaim just isn’t the only and final case. Yet they are determined to silence any opposition. Now why is that?

Which brings us back to your question, “where are the peer review articles?”. When those, such as OR’s climatologist are threatened and harrassed (linked above in post #35) and the UN refuses to allow entry to those who debate their precious “consensus” in Bali (along with reporters) just how many “peer reviewed” articles do you expect to see?

Hang, an entire damn meeting in the US’s largest and most well known metropolis was conveniently ignored. Even pitifully small “peace protests” get more press….

Now, remember that most scientists and their projects function via grants and govt funds.

Consider that this issue is pressed upon us as “life and death” in import. Frankly, I would think you’d be more concerned more about the lack of genuine public debate with opposing experts. And I also think you would be appalled at the overt oppression of free speech and debate. … and perhaps that should give you a clue that all is not what it seems on the surface.

Just to be fair, I again had to dig DW out of the spam filter. You may check out his post #45. Altho, as I point out in my own post #50, there is no unbiased source, and why should the “pro AWG” biased sources be given carte blanc, and the others not?

But it is interesting how those how whine regularly about “big oil” and “big business” now complain that a business is “too small” to be viable for an opinion.

John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel), has done a great deal in trying to expose the AGW fraud (he says Al Gore should be sued for Fraud). Take a look at some of his work at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner In his brief “THERE IS NO CONSENUS ON GLOBAL WARMING” he points out the following:

The working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali.

His brief contains the list of scientists who signed the letter of protest.

You can find all of his Global Warming briefs at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html and many more good links on the AGW fraud at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

Yes, the same guy, used to be on ABC in Chicago. His picture is on the web page link, you’ll recognize him right away. I watched the news at night only because he was on.

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists

***

Dave Noble in #9:

An examination of 928 abstracts, published in refereed (i.e.; peer-reviewed) scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, found none that disagreed with the consensus position that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.

The Oreskes review that you quote from 2004 is outdated.

Here is more recent information from 2007 using the same database and search terms as Oreskes:

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

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.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

***

Not only is the Oreskes review outdated, it was factually flawed from the beginning.

Update: The Oreskes abstracts

***

Dave Noble in #9:

Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.

Here they are:

Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Skeptical Organizations:

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

***

Dave Noble in #40

If there are so many reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, where are their peer-reviewed articles?

Here is the info.

Here is the list of peer-reviewed articles.

Not so fast Mike.

Again people always approach this with a set view point and then go out to find information backing thier point, filtering out the annoying contridictions.

A quick scan of Aye’s list of “skeptical orginizations” show several organizations that one would be skepitcal in trusting. The Thereau Institute is just that crackpot Randy O’Toole …and you expect that an association of Petroleum Geologists are really going to give us an unbiased opinion?

The bullshit from all sides piles up pretty fast whenever this people start talking about this.

Aye Chi,

Thanks for your response.

You rightly point out the need to update the Oreskes study. You cite a “pre-publication” copy of Dr. Schulte’s study. If it passes the peer-review process at the journal Energy and Environment, I will gladly consider it.

Re: The peer review articles. They are not directly on point. Look at the (7) general topics enumerated at the top of the list. Only the first addresses the issue involved in the Oreskes study: Are human behaviors contributing to global warming? And it does not contradict the position of the IPCC or the issue involved in the Oreskes study. The issue is not whether human behaviors, or other factors, are the primary drivers of global climate change, it is whether our bonfire is making the beach even hotter. The other (6) topics address potential results of global warming.

Further, you can’t have it both ways by challenging the dates of the Oreskes articles (1993 -2003) and then offering a list with articles going back to 1956 (and 1962, 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1978). I actually scrolled through the list of articles and found only 8 out of the 500 that had dates later than the Oreskes cutoff of 2003.

Finally, in spite of Mata’s statements about censorship it looks like the peer review process is doing just fine.

Aye Chi,

Re: Comments 48 and 49

I guess I should avoid slang to avert confusion. By saying my money is on the “big guys” I did not mean individuals, I meant the major scientific organizations I cited. You don’t need to print any more resumes.

Dr. Wegman sounds a great deal like a statistician who doesn’t think his discipline has been given a fair hearing in the AGW debate. That’s fine. He has an available forum in peer-reviewed journals. Has he submitted an abstract to the appropriate statistical journal citing the statistical inadequacies in the IPCC study? I would think that would be of interest to those in his own discipline as well as the larger scientific community.

Now about the peer review process. There is no process on God’s green earth that provides Olympian scrutiny. But somehow despite Mr. Higgs’ criticism of the process, we manage to muddle along and map the human genome, discover new crops, find new energy sources, investigate the origins of our universe. You and I are now talking on a mind-boggling communication tool resident on computational devices that have developed in my lifetime from monsters that filled a room to devices that sit on our desks and are carried in our pockets. Science works. The scientific process works. The peer review process works.

Finally, is Mr. Higgs just objectively commenting on the peer review process or does he have an interestingly coincidental bias?

“For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.”

What a coincidence that he chose that example.

Mata,

Re: Comment 50

I read your post more carefully and I apologize for overstating the similarities between our views.

Here is the question that your survey asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” That overstates the position of AGW proponents. The IPCC report does not state that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. What it states is that there is a global warming trend (“Warming of the climate is unequivocal”) and there is very high confidence (9 out 10 chance) that human activity is contributing to it. Think of it this way. If I’m at the beach in the summertime, it’s not hot because of me. But would it be prudent to build a bonfire on the beach in the middle of the day?

Your assumption that decreasing global warming will bankrupt the world economy is a conservative talking point. I heard it in precisely those words from the lips of Sean Hannity. That it’s a talking point doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t true, but it’s hyperbolic and unsupported as stated. That there will be costs, yes. That they will “bankrupt” the world (or even American) economy? I doubt it and I don’t think you can support it.

Finally, you have taken a position that I respectfully saw coming, but hoped you would avoid. No peer-reviewed articles? Of course, they were censored, threatened and harassed.

How can I disprove a conspiracy theory? Here at Flopping Aces as everywhere, that’s a trump card. It’s your final move. Maybe some conspiracy theories are true. But unlike science or even history, and like conspiracy theories, like religion, are beyond rational discussion because they cannot be proved or disproved.

I leave you with this. You’re an intelligent woman, do you really believe not a single solitary voice could get through the wall of silence erected by the totalitarian AGW movement and get their contrarian views published?

Mata,

A bit slammed? I feel ya girl. Been there, am there.

Mike,

We have been having an intelligent discussion between laypersons here. If there is a climatologist among us, I missed it. My comment re: credentials was in response to stix’s apparent attempt to debunk the entire discipline of climatology. That task calls for credentials.
To participate in the discussion we have been having requires no specific credentials other than an open mind, the ability to research, and the willingness to debate responsibly.

Come on in, the water’s fine.

Mike,

I’m sorry I suggested you were a chickenhawk. I never used that word. I stand by my position that you find it too easy to advocate committing our troops indefinitely to a misbegotten war. I don’t think you think hard enough about it. I don’t think you look objectively at the origins of the war or at its current realities. Your military service is irrelevant to that opinion or any ensuing discussion.

Stix,

Thank you for the clarification. There are local instances of climate change and changes that are global. The increase in CO2 is global. It seems logical to assume it wil have a global effect.

I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials.

Again, Mike, you’d be easier to take seriously if you’d only explain what you did while you were at the EPA. Did climate studies fall within your purview?

This is my third request for this information. Of course, you don’t have to supply it, but you have used your alleged EPA experience more than once to stifle anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. The longer you hold off on this disclosure, the more it looks like there’s nothing that you really want to disclose to inquiring minds.

P.S.: working in some undisclosed capacity at the EPA eighteen years ago doesn’t confer upon you any particular “rights” that the rest of us don’t have.

Mike’s America
82

Now that we have established that, let’s move on and examine the remaining talking scaremongering talking points.

We’re learning every day that the nearly the ENTIRE argument for action on global warming is a LIE!
July 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Whoa! You demolished the opposition talking point by talking point! Amazing. Well “examined,” my friend–classic MikesAmerica work!

Greenhouse gas buildup.

Little Ice Age ending.

Positive AO.

Decreased solar reflection due to natural incidents of polar ice cap melting.

Decreased sunspot activity.

Left-wing conspiracy.

Despite the multitude of theories, my Spidey Sense tells me that your theory will be THE ONLY CORRECT ONE111!!11ELEVENTY!!! and that everyone who disagrees with you is a Mexislamofascisthomotreehuggerenvironazi.

Difficult though this may be to believe, your suppositions on the topic are of no interest to me. I’m currently busy waiting for Mike’s explanation of his expert credentials as an “official” of the EPA.

Not answering the question, Mike–not even a clever evasion. I like the way you tried to turn it back on me, though. The best defense is a good offense.

Check out this from Climate Audit.
The first red dot is June 1998. The second one is June 2008.
No global warming in the last ten years. In fact, slightly cooler. The charts don’t show any significant increase, nothing that could be considered unusual.

DW 5000

Check out your comment 27, and some answers on comments 30 and 31.

A. If you didn’t know that information about the Antarctica freezing, then you didn’t know some basics facts about AWG.

B. If you knew that information about the Antarctica, and yet you asked for proofs, then you just came here to distract and make noise.

If your situation is A, your comment 91 cannot be explained.
If your situation is B, your comment 27 and your comment 91 make sense.

some answers on comments 30 and 31.

Dear Einstein:

You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.

Yeah, Aye.

DW 5000 is showing his best. He will probably ask you now what you are talking about.

“My purview at EPA was across the board. I had the opportunity to study any particular issue that interested me.”

Title?

I worked at AQMD, and while I had ‘opportunity’ to study many things, like Hydrogen distribution and the efficiency of Palm Spring’s windmills, at the end of the day my title meant I paddled ARCO’s paperwork on compliance from Box A to Box B.

Proximity does not equate authority.

shut down the public discourse

This is a favorite approach of the Right as of late: to equate disagreement with “stifling debate” or “shut[ting] down the public discourse.” If that memelet sticks, then they have a handle, however ill-made, from which to hang their “liberal fascist” crapola–because fascists stifle debate, am I right? I mean, that’s the way they roll.

Mike, it’s sad for you to be so terrified of disagreement on your own blog that you feel that the Lefties who post here might have the power to shut down the debate–even when you have control over which comments get posted.

This dovetails nicely with the Flight 93 memorial thread. I kind of feel sorry for the Right because they live in such fear of Left-wing commenters and inanimate objects and so on. What a scary place the world must be for Mike and his confreres.

Please tell me where I claimed to be an “authority” Ash?

I would say that

I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials

does the job nicely.

And how about this:

I had the opportunity to begin studying this issue many, MANY years ago at EPA and before it became the subject of global hysteria.

And I stand by my contention that I have been studying the issue far longer and in greater depth than the Al Gore parrots who regularly show up here and blah blah blah.”*

*”Blahs” added by me.

If you’re not saying that you’re an authority, then what the hell is that stuff all about?

DIME STORE GOEBBLES

WD-40 says… “//“shut down the public discourse // This is a favorite approach of the Right as of late: to equate disagreement with “stifling debate” or “shut[ting] down the public discourse.”
“

“”I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared forcefully at a recent United Nations summit. “We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”"

Some, “debate” thing he’s got going there, eh!

…from this lefty e-rag…
http://www.desmogblog.com/schwarzenneger-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-over
JIM HOGGAN CONCLUDES

“Statements … from the leading scientific bodies in the world and Schwarzenegger’s quote [wouldn't carry the same weight without it] underscore how ridiculous the claims of “skeptic” scientists, like Pat Michaels, Tim Ball and Fred Singer, and polticians like Senator Jim Inhofe actually are.”

When screwball Lefties scream…

“The world must urgently act now by applying Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands against the chief climate racist, climate criminal, climate terrorist, climate genocidal countries Australia, US, and Canada that are acutely threatening the world with ecosystem collapse, climate genocide and indeed an all-encompassing Terracide”

…it’s time to realize they are the ones who are paranoid, delusional and dangerous, as is the malicious WD-40.

see also
http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-by-intimidation-by-desperate.html

Now, let’s see if I have this straight, …the AGW fascists say “the debate is over” and WD-40 tells us that we are over interpreting that, and then goes on to belittle us for our “silly” alleged “fears,” and tries to shame us into compliance. (Ooooo, psychology! I am so mystified! - NOT!) An argument he can’t win by reason, he attempts to win by deceit, mockery and intimidation, all the while telling us what we see him, and them, doing is just our imagination.

What a stinking load of _____________. (Oh, drat! My last dose of Penn&Teller just wore off, and now I just can’t bring myself to say it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t.)

The (non-existent) “debate” ISN’T over. How could it be, when the ecco-fascists never let it begin?!

TYPICAL LEFTY, ACCUSE THE OPPOSITIOIN OF WHAT THEY DO THEMSELVES

“You can’t take some results from studies out of context…”

We don’t. They do. E.g., They say, “The debate is over” We say, “LOOK AT ALL THE DATA.” It only looks like “cherry picking” because we are only presenting what they aren’t looking at. And why should we? They already have that data. QED.

@Mike’s America:

“warmermongerers”, good one, LOL.