Shredding the Climate Consensus... Over 1000 scientists, Former IPCC...Rebel. Only 52 scientists Participated in 2007 UN IPCC report! Pathetic

[nzucker]

The journal in question (The Climate Research Journal) published articles funded by the Oil Industry which contained blatant errors. I am not surprised at all that actual scientists wanted nothing to do with the journal. If I were a scientist, I would do the exact same thing. Resign from the journal, stop submitting to it for publication, and no longer consider it a peer reviewed journal.

Why do they have to "redefine what the peer-review is?" How about just saying to people that this journal is not properly peer reviewing articles and has factual errors, therefore it doesn't belong in the IPCC report. Interestingly enough, IPCC has committed some grave factual errors about Himalayan glaciers etc. This e-mail definitely sounds as if it is attempting to manipulate the science to exclude findings that do not corroborate the AGW hypothesis. Even if it is only partially immoral and mostly just bad wording, these e-mails send a bad message to the public about what "science" has become.. And no, I don't think it matters that the e-mails were originally intended to be private; they shouldn't need to be private if the climate scientists are doing their job. The reckoning is coming in the long term though with limited warming and no anti-carbon legislation.

[BethesdaWX]

You are right about the statistics you cited. We should talk about those another time.

One thing though.. the link you posted actually says the GHG effect from CO2 is more akin to a glass greenhouse than to a polyethelene one.

As usual.. I read every word of what you posted.

Ironically, the notorious "greenhouse effect" really does work the way a gardener's greenhouse was (inaccurately) thought to operate

It's saying the GHG effect really is like a glass greenhouse.

It's sort of a confusing link because it seems more concerned with explaining how polyethelene greenhouses work than the GHG effect which it says is like a glass greenhouse. The polyethelene greenhouse explanation is sort of an irrelevant tangent since it ends up saying the GHG effect is actually more like the glass greenhouse.

Good point. I think we've always known the GHG effect extists on earth, the discrepancies are still around though.....after all, thicker/denser Glass in a greenhouse would not enhance the heat in a Greenhouse. Now, try only a 3% of a certain matter in that glass... of the Glass itself (the wator vapor being the "glass", with CO2 being Metals/ions in the glass). How much change would that enact?

Yes... I know..Horrible example science wise.

[skierinvermont]

Why do they have to "redefine what the peer-review is?" How about just saying to people that this journal is not properly peer reviewing articles and has factual errors, therefore it doesn't belong in the IPCC report. Interestingly enough, IPCC has committed some grave factual errors about Himalayan glaciers etc. This e-mail definitely sounds as if it is attempting to manipulate the science to exclude findings that do not corroborate the AGW hypothesis. Even if it is only partially immoral and mostly just bad wording, these e-mails send a bad message to the public about what "science" has become.. And no, I don't think it matters that the e-mails were originally intended to be private; they shouldn't need to be private if the climate scientists are doing their job. The reckoning is coming in the long term though with limited warming and no anti-carbon legislation.

I really don't give a damn what climate scientists do or say to marginalize a 'journal' publishing oil industry funded 'science' that contains blatant error and bias. I'm glad that they were pissed off about it and trying to find a way to marginalize it.

[skierinvermont]

Good point. I think we've always known the GHG effect extists on earth, the discrepancies are still around though.....after all, thicker/denser Glass in a greenhouse would not enhance the heat in a Greenhouse. Now, try only a 3% of a certain matter in that glass... of the Glass itself (the wator vapor being the "glass", with CO2 being Metals/ions in the glass). How much change would that enact?

Yes... I know..Horrible example science wise.

Actually thickening the glass of the greenhouse would actually cause the greenhouse to be slightly warmer. Less heat would radiate out, especially at night. The effect would be fairly small of course, but there would be a noticeable effect probably of at least a few degrees. Anyways, this isn't really relevant to our discussion.

I'd like to get back to some of the statistics you cited concerning CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect, and human contribution to atmospheric CO2. I have tried to explain this to you in the past, but we actually seem to be having a good conversation right now so perhaps we will be able to stay on topic and really think about the details of this. So I'm going to list a few things with explanations and you just tell me specifically which you disagree with or don't understand (if any).

1) Humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.

In the past you have cited the fact that the in any given year humans account for a small fraction of all carbon emitted (something like ~3%). You've also cited the fact that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere that comes directly from fossil fuels is very low as well.. something like 8% I think.

Both of these statistics are true - I am aware of them as you are (if you have the precise numbers that would be great). And yet humans are entirely responsible for the rise of Co2 from 280 to 400ppm. Take a while to think about how all those things can be true simultaneously. Every year the earth absorbs and emits large quantities of CO2.. in other words it is constantly being recycled. Every year the earth takes in a lot of CO2 emitted by humans and returns to the atmosphere a near equal quantity of "natural" CO2. The problem is prior to humans the earth emitted and absorbed something like ~1,000 gigatonnes of CO2/year. Now humans emit 30 gigatonnes of CO2/year. So now the total emission of CO2 is 1,030 gigatonnes. The total absorption rises to about 1,015 gigatonnes. So every year 15 gigatonnes of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. In other words, the cycle has been thrown out of balance.

The most clear demonstration of the fact that humans are responsible for the rise from 280ppm to 400ppm is the fact that CO2 stayed constant at around 280 ppm for over the last 1,000 years. Then when humans started emitting CO2, CO2 has risen to 400ppm. Honestly, nobody disputes the fact that the CO2 rise from 280ppm to 400ppm is due to humans. I hope we can finally agree on this fact so that we can entertain some more legitimate reasons for skepticism.

2) CO2 is a trace gas of .038% of the atmosphere by volume but is responsible for much of the Greenhouse Effect.

CO2's absorption spectrum is at wavelengths which are not covered by other GHGs such as water vapor. Thus a change in CO2 concentration prevents more of the energy emitted at these wavelengths from being emitted. Satellites empirically validate this. Over the last 30 years the amount of longwave radiation being emitted to space at CO2's absorption spectrum has steadily declined. Thus the earth is now absorbing more energy than it is emitting. You can see that in this chart:

The chart shows the change from 1970-1996 in the amount of energy reaching a satellite located outside the earth's atmosphere at the absorption spectrum of several GHGs. The amount of energy reaching it at CO2's absorption spectrum decreased because the amount of CO2 increased.

And in this chart you can see that much of the energy reflected back to earth comes from CO2's emissions spectrum. Thus increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is reflected back towards earth.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually thickening the glass of the greenhouse would actually cause the greenhouse to be slightly warmer. Less heat would radiate out, especially at night. The effect would be fairly small of course, but there would be a noticeable effect probably of at least a few degrees. Anyways, this isn't really relevant to our discussion.

I'd like to get back to some of the statistics you cited concerning CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect, and human contribution to atmospheric CO2. I have tried to explain this to you in the past, but we actually seem to be having a good conversation right now so perhaps we will be able to stay on topic and really think about the details of this. So I'm going to list a few things with explanations and you just tell me specifically which you disagree with or don't understand (if any).

1) Humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.

In the past you have cited the fact that the in any given year humans account for a small fraction of all carbon emitted (something like ~3%). You've also cited the fact that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere that comes directly from fossil fuels is very low as well.. something like 8% I think.

Both of these statistics are true - I am aware of them as you are (if you have the precise numbers that would be great). And yet humans are entirely responsible for the rise of Co2 from 280 to 400ppm. Take a while to think about how all those things can be true simultaneously. Every year the earth absorbs and emits large quantities of CO2.. in other words it is constantly being recycled. Every year the earth takes in a lot of CO2 emitted by humans and returns to the atmosphere a near equal quantity of "natural" CO2. The problem is prior to humans the earth emitted and absorbed something like ~1,000 gigatonnes of CO2/year. Now humans emit 30 gigatonnes of CO2/year. So now the total emission of CO2 is 1,030 gigatonnes. The total absorption rises to about 1,015 gigatonnes. So every year 15 gigatonnes of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. In other words, the cycle has been thrown out of balance.

The most clear demonstration of the fact that humans are responsible for the rise from 280ppm to 400ppm is the fact that CO2 stayed constant at around 280 ppm for over the last 1,000 years. Then when humans started emitting CO2, CO2 has risen to 400ppm. Honestly, nobody disputes the fact that the CO2 rise from 280ppm to 400ppm is due to humans. I hope we can finally agree on this fact so that we can entertain some more legitimate reasons for skepticism.

2) CO2 is a trace gas of .038% of the atmosphere by volume but is responsible for much of the Greenhouse Effect.

CO2's absorption spectrum is at wavelengths which are not covered by other GHGs such as water vapor. Thus a change in CO2 concentration prevents more of the energy emitted at these wavelengths from being emitted. Satellites empirically validate this. Over the last 30 years the amount of longwave radiation being emitted to space at CO2's absorption spectrum has steadily declined. Thus the earth is now absorbing more energy than it is emitting. You can see that in this chart:

The chart shows the change from 1970-1996 in the amount of energy reaching a satellite located outside the earth's atmosphere at the absorption spectrum of several GHGs. The amount of energy reaching it at CO2's absorption spectrum decreased because the amount of CO2 increased.

And in this chart you can see that much of the energy reflected back to earth comes from CO2's emissions spectrum. Thus increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is reflected back towards earth.

That depends. Do you mean "dense", or "thick"?. Issue is, if we're relating a greenhouse to earths atmosphere, we need to acknowledge that we're only taking about 3% of the Glass, the "thickness" of the glass (being water vapor) would control how Much iron (as CO2) would store in the glass.

Weakly related, but it gets the point across that water vapor is dominant over CO2.

This is VERY tricky as well. Because forcings could be progged either way, but water vapor and cloud cover are completely different. You can see the effect here.

Alot of this above is due to ENSO, but the effect solar & water vapor have on the globe is almost 10-1 over CO2, which gives merit to the idea that CO2 is run by Global temps & water vapor. Due to the logorothmic warming effect, theres no way that the fluctuation in CO2 can increase water/decrease water vapor, which has 95% control. Solar, & GCC, also play a role, and if one uses that percentile, its almost invivible now (CO2)

One thing about the GHE, unlike Glass, there is only a certain quantity of forcing that can be emitted through CO2 alone. So, after awhile, it looses its heating abilities.

Now, Earths CO2 amount has been over 5000ppm, and 250ppm is VERY low, almost dangerously so.

Many would argue that CO2 reaching 390ppm (as we are now) would further warm us. problem is, that heating is lost, and we would need to double it to 800ppm to get 0.8C warmer.

CO2 is also, in a sense, reliant on Global temperatures. It is very likely that CO2 may follow temps, not the other way around, given how it is owned by WV.

[skierinvermont]

OK so it sounds like you are no longer disputing point #1 (that humans are responsible for the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm). Is that the case? If so we can move onto point #2.

[BethesdaWX]

OK so it sounds like you are no longer disputing point #1 (that humans are responsible for the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm). Is that the case? If so we can move onto point #2.

I've never disputed the fact that Humans are the Majority (not the only) cause for the increase in PPM overall to 390ppm. I also believe the remaining airborne fraction, is out of our control, and that although more CO2 that needs to be processed, that it is recycled out with the rest in no longer time. Trees are growing faster, oceans are absorbing more, and the planet has technically become Greener (lolz ) since 1920.

From my opinion, around 65-70% of the increase in overall PPM (not the airborne fraction) is due to human emissions burning. The rest I believe is due to the warmer ocean phases, the resulting warmer temperatures, and solar (which is still in lag mode).

[skierinvermont]

I've never disputed the fact that Humans are the Majority (not the only) cause for the increase in PPM overall to 390ppm. I also believe the remaining airborne fraction, is out of our control, and that although more CO2 that needs to be processed, that it is recycled out with the rest in no longer time. Trees are growing faster, oceans are absorbing more, and the planet has technically become Greener (lolz ) since 1920.

From my opinion, around 65-70% of the increase in overall PPM (not the airborne fraction) is due to human emissions burning. The rest I believe is due to the warmer ocean phases, the resulting warmer temperatures, and solar (which is still in lag mode).

OK good - 65-70% seems a little low to me even if you believe much of the warming is natural, given that CO2 never fluctuated by more than 20ppm in such a short period over the last 100k+ years. If you're saying 30-35% of the rise from 280 to 400ppm is natural well then you are basically saying that there has been a rise of 40ppm naturally - which is completely unprecedented in the last 100k years and therefore extremely unlikely. I could see a reasonable argument to be made that up to 20ppm (15%) has been natural.. but more than that I find exceptionally unlikely given it has never happened before in the last 100k+ years in such a short period (note that fluctuations slightly larger than this can occur on much longer timescales naturally).

Don't have time to delve into the GHG effect of CO2 right now. Watching the Pats v Bears , but I might be around later.

[cheetah440]

The term "climate scientist" is actually pretty silly. At least the way its been presented in a lot of these arguments. A lot of it has to do with funding, and hopefully this is something that will become less of a problem since Climategate. They have essentially blackballed anyone who tries to oppose them, so of course the consensus among "climate scientists" is going to be heavily in favor of the IPCC view. The proof is int he pudding of the emails and many other first hand accounts from anyone who tries to get a "skeptic" paper published in a journal.

But it doesn't take a climate scientist to debunk a lot of the crap they have spewed out. That's really all that matters. IPCC still pretty much doesn't acknowledge ocean cycles as having any real influence on temps...and we have the countless errors by GISS that dummies like McIntyer had to point out to them.

Why do you call McIntyer a dummy?

[skierinvermont]

Why do you call McIntyer a dummy?

I think he was being ironic.. mcintyre isn't a 'climate scientist' ergo he must be a dummy..

[BethesdaWX]

OK good - 65-70% seems a little low to me even if you believe much of the warming is natural, given that CO2 never fluctuated by more than 20ppm in such a short period over the last 100k+ years. If you're saying 30-35% of the rise from 280 to 400ppm is natural well then you are basically saying that there has been a rise of 40ppm naturally - which is completely unprecedented in the last 100k years and therefore extremely unlikely. I could see a reasonable argument to be made that up to 20ppm (15%) has been natural.. but more than that I find exceptionally unlikely given it has never happened before in the last 100k+ years in such a short period (note that fluctuations slightly larger than this can occur on much longer timescales naturally).

Don't have time to delve into the GHG effect of CO2 right now. Watching the Pats v Bears , but I might be around later.

There is no doubt humans have messed with carbon load big time, but that doesn't appear to be affecting global temps as many think it would, when compared to a 500,000 year proxy in volstok Ice Core.

Volstok Ice core is the best data we have over 450,000yrs. Yes, 390ppm has never been reached during this time period according to the Ice Cores...But look at the temps back in time, have spiked over +2C wuth Less CO2. Our current CO2 amount being 390ppm is highest, but temps are lowest in the proxy. This Either Means that Something else is driving our warming, or we've made an error in CO2 measurements, (most likely the 1st one)

In this Graph, we can see the RWP & its +2C spike several thousand years ago, and spikes close to 3C back 1 & 3 peaks ago. The high CO2 amounts have not changed the proxy temps, so give or take, its a constant........giving evidence that our warming is controlled my something else.

NOTE: "Present Day" on this Map is 1950

[skierinvermont]

There is no doubt humans have messed with carbon load big time, but that doesn't appear to be affecting global temps as many think it would, when compared to a 500,000 year proxy in volstok Ice Core.

Volstok Ice core is the best data we have over 450,000yrs. Yes, 390ppm has never been reached during this time period according to the Ice Cores...But look at the temps back in time, have spiked over +2C wuth Less CO2. Our current CO2 amount being 390ppm is highest, but temps are lowest in the proxy. This Either Means that Something else is driving our warming, or we've made an error in CO2 measurements, (most likely the 1st one)

In this Graph, we can see the RWP & its +2C spike several thousand years ago, and spikes close to 3C back 1 & 3 peaks ago. The high CO2 amounts have not changed the proxy temps, so give or take, its a constant........giving evidence that our warming is controlled my something else.

NOTE: "Present Day" on this Map is 1950

The warming and cooling of the ice ages of the last 500k years were not controlled by CO2. That is a well accepted fact by everybody on both sides of AGW. The IPCC discusses this process in great detail. The fact that past warming was NOT caused by CO2 does NOT mean that our current warming is not caused by CO2.

[Guest someguy]

OK this proves it...

It appears that in the cases you pointed out the scientists involved believed that the studies were flawed and should not have passed the peer review process. In one quote you give they are simply saying that the study in question is so bad that it likely would not pass the peer review process of GRL even though they have fairly low standards.

that is not what they are saying. Nor do they have the right to say and do that .

It isnt there Job .

In the first email They do NOT say the Studies were flawed or not.

Maybe they were.

But that is not what JONES and MANN are talking about

In another they are complaining about the obvious bias of a journal. The journal in question was extremely biased (publishing oil industry funded 'science') and doesn't meet even a basic level of scrutiny.. I am not surprised in the slightest that they are discussing ways to marginalize this 'journal'

I was actually duped by the seeming sinister nature of many of these emails at first too. Then I learned the context.. there is still some questionable scientific behavior but by and large I am not surprised or concerned by the content of the emails.

pay attention. You said you know of NO instances ... not one.. of any AGW scientists trying to supress reasearch or interfere with Peer Reviewed research

whether that journal is baised or NOT is that THE issue.

You said it didnt happen.

You said there are NO known cases

NOW you are saying well it did happen but it is Justified

admit it.

You are wrong

[Guest someguy]

The warming and cooling of the ice ages of the last 500k years were not controlled by CO2. That is a well accepted fact by everybody on both sides of AGW. The IPCC discusses this process in great detail. The fact that past warming was NOT caused by CO2 does NOT mean that our current warming is not caused by CO2.

But it doesnt prove that it is either

you seem to have serious isuses with understanding basic science

If you are going to argue that the current warming IS caused by mostly CO2....

YOU have to prove it

NOT THE SKEPTICS.....

You have to prove WHY the previous warmings are NOT relvant to todays

[iceicebyebye]

OK this proves it...

you really are grasping here....the targets of your "climategate" have been exonerated.

[iceicebyebye]

But it doesnt prove that it is either

you seem to have serious isuses with understanding basic science

If you are going to argue that the current warming IS caused by mostly CO2....

YOU have to prove it

NOT THE SKEPTICS.....

You have to prove WHY the previous warmings are NOT relvant to todays

not really....science is intrinsically conversative and skeptical.....CO2 theory relative to warming is not new and has been generally accepted....burden of proof is on contrarians to dislodge this.

[BethesdaWX]

The warming and cooling of the ice ages of the last 500k years were not controlled by CO2. That is a well accepted fact by everybody on both sides of AGW. The IPCC discusses this process in great detail. The fact that past warming was NOT caused by CO2 does NOT mean that our current warming is not caused by CO2.

Then what was it caused by then? Certainly... CO2 is supposed to be the "super dominant" global thermostat, as hansen says, so, if CO2 is Earths thermometer, why, in a time with 400ppm CO2, are we COOLER? What could have brought the earth to +2.5C only 4000 years ago?

And, since we're now on the downside of the cycle (cooling), and since this natural cycle appears to be overpowering, would an all too powerful 100ppm of CO2 bring us to 6C within 100 years? ROFL

[BethesdaWX]

not really....science is intrinsically conversative and skeptical.....CO2 theory relative to warming is not new and has been generally accepted....burden of proof is on contrarians to dislodge this.

Wow...

[skierinvermont]

Then what was it caused by then? Certainly... CO2 is supposed to be the "super dominant" global thermostat, as hansen says, so, if CO2 is Earths thermometer, why, in a time with 400ppm CO2, are we COOLER? What could have brought the earth to +2.5C only 4000 years ago?

And, since we're now on the downside of the cycle (cooling), and since this natural cycle appears to be overpowering, would an all too powerful 100ppm of CO2 bring us to 6C within 100 years? ROFL

Changes in the earth's tilt largely caused the past warming and cooling (Milankovich cycles). It's all in there. Read it!

Also we weren't 2.5C warmer than present 4,000 years ago... the warmest period in the last 10,000 years was 8,000-10,000 years ago known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum. During that period temperatures were just slightly higher than present temperatures (0-1C warmer). The last REALLY warm period was prior to the last ice age 125-150,000 years ago.

[skierinvermont]

But it doesnt prove that it is either

you seem to have serious isuses with understanding basic science

If you are going to argue that the current warming IS caused by mostly CO2....

YOU have to prove it

NOT THE SKEPTICS.....

You have to prove WHY the previous warmings are NOT relvant to todays

I know that DT -- I wasn't trying to prove it in that particular post. I was just saying that just saying his disproof of AGW was a logical fallacy. Nobody thinks the ice ages and the warm periods between them were caused by CO2. They were caused by Milankovitch cycles.

[skierinvermont]

OK this proves it...

that is not what they are saying. Nor do they have the right to say and do that .

It isnt there Job .

In the first email They do NOT say the Studies were flawed or not.

Maybe they were.

But that is not what JONES and MANN are talking about

pay attention. You said you know of NO instances ... not one.. of any AGW scientists trying to supress reasearch or interfere with Peer Reviewed research

whether that journal is baised or NOT is that THE issue.

You said it didnt happen.

You said there are NO known cases

NOW you are saying well it did happen but it is Justified

admit it.

You are wrong

Ok yes - I am technically wrong. But I would not consider the journal or papers in question to have been peer reviewed since they were corrupted by oil industry funded science

[BethesdaWX]

Changes in the earth's tilt largely caused the past warming and cooling (Milankovich cycles). It's all in there. Read it!

Also we weren't 2.5C warmer than present 4,000 years ago... the warmest period in the last 10,000 years was 8,000-10,000 years ago known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum. During that period temperatures were just slightly higher than present temperatures (0-1C warmer). The last REALLY warm period was prior to the last ice age 125-150,000 years ago.

Huh? The RWP was twice as warm as today, and The proxy data demosntrates 2-3C jumps in GTA during the orbital changes.

I never once stated CO2 Caused the previous warm spells, I'm saying we're not nearly as warm now as he have been as recently as the RWP, and Obviosly, despite 400ppm of CO2, we fail to warm much above the mean set on the proxy. In fact, the trend over 10,000 years is down.

[skierinvermont]

What does "twice as warm" mean? Considering current global temperature is something like 300K .. are you saying it was 600K?

Sorry.. no reliable reconstruction shows global temperatures in the last 10,000 years 2.5C above present.

You originally stated the fact that past ice ages and inter-ice age warm periods were not caused by CO2 is some kind of proof that our current warming is not CO2 related. All I am saying is that is a logical fallacy. Nobody ever said or thinks that the interglacials were caused by CO2. That does NOT mean our current warming is not CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

What does "twice as warm" mean? Considering current global temperature is something like 300K .. are you saying it was 600K?

Sorry.. no reliable reconstruction shows global temperatures in the last 10,000 years 2.5C above present.

You originally stated the fact that past ice ages and inter-ice age warm periods were not caused by CO2 is some kind of proof that our current warming is not CO2 related. All I am saying is that is a logical fallacy. Nobody ever said or thinks that the interglacials were caused by CO2. That does NOT mean our current warming is not CO2.

No "reliable" recons have really been done besides Volstok Ice Core, not saying its truly global, but......Yes. Our current Global anom in the means is about 0.5C...RWP had it around 1C in the means based on proxies, this without UHI.

Also, I agree..... it DOESN'T mean our warming is not CO2 caused/related. but at the same time, it doesn't mean it is CO2 caused/related. We'll know eventually what it is, but for now, our warming is not unprecedented, and In My view, its predominately natural/solar caused. Just my view

[skierinvermont]

No "reliable" recons have really been done besides Volstok Ice Core, not saying its truly global, but......Yes. Our current Global anom in the means is about 0.5C...RWP had it around 1C in the means based on proxies, this without UHI.

Also, I agree..... it DOESN'T mean our warming is not CO2 caused/related. but at the same time, it doesn't mean it is CO2 caused/related. We'll know eventually what it is, but for now, our warming is not unprecedented, and In My view, its predominately natural/solar caused. Just my view

There are lots of others, but they all show pretty much the same thing as Vostok. Global temperatures were slightly higher (~.5C) at the peak of the holocene thermal maximum. Vostok isn't really meant for the last 10k years, it's meant for the last 500k years.

[BethesdaWX]

There are lots of others, but they all show pretty much the same thing as Vostok. Global temperatures were slightly higher (~.5C) at the peak of the holocene thermal maximum. Vostok isn't really meant for the last 10k years, it's meant for the last 500k years.

The MWP & RWP are both missing in the Diagram on the top right. The RWP was twice as warm as the MWP, which as warm as today. Problem is, today we have UHI, extrapolations overdoing the warmth, deforestation...... (I actually think it was warmer, but I'm going to compromise in saying it was as warm, since you obviously think it was not as warm)

Either way, this is a HUGE Pet Peeve of Mine! I hate when "scientists" takes a few decades and puts it at 0.5C. Since these guys choose 2004, the decade between 1994-2004 avged like 0.2C above avg. Do you think the proxies would have picked upon the span of a few decades avging 0.3-0.4C as we are now>>>............. The 1940's were progged to be Almost as warm as we are now, and years between 1939-1944 could easily have avged 0.5-0.7C.

Problem is, we have WXstation contamination/UHI, Deforestation (yes it has an effect), and f**khole data like the debunked hockeystick....so, technically,......its bad data. If the CPC/Gov'ts want to lower the 1940's, they can go ahead, but I have the old data saved on my old hard drive, and the lowering of global temps in the 1800,s ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE 1940's Suggest global anoms were below normal for about 1/2 of the industrial revolution.

The Temperature rise actually began after the little ice age, and had remained steady upward until reaching a peak at this decade....and has now begun to drop again. We've warmed much more rapidly, Much Hotter, and have had Much higher sea levels not too long ago (that by earth standards), so, there is no reason to use a Theory in which CO2 and 0.28% WP induced by humans is going to end the world. Bullsh*t.

[JBG]

While this is obviously a skeptic view and will focus on the most outspoken opinions supporting that view, it does capture quite a bit of what we already knew anyway about what is going on with IPCC and the disintegration of science as politics has gotten too involved...most notably the peer reviewed paper issue. They essentially have been black balling a lot of "skeptics" and their papers so they don't end up in journals.

Its a total embarrassment to the scientific community. Luckily the worm seems to be turning now, and more papers are starting to get into the system...slow process but its happening now.

First of all, the established "scientific community puts publicly funded scientists under immense pressure not to cut off their source of funding. If they find that climate is naturally quite variable, why th enee to fund studies at university, governmental and U.N. levels? There wouldn't be any such need. No problem = no money.

Similarly, if the "problem" of climate change is cyclical, trying to change it is not feasible. For example, if we do have a new Ice Age, and the glaciers do get to their old extent of places like Long Island (east of New York City and including NYC's eastern boroughs) the dislocation will not be some nomadic hunter/gatherers. It will be close to 200 million people. Why? Because areas such as Washington D.C. would have climates akin to Kugluktuk or at best Iqaluit if NYC is glaciated. Think Ellesmere Island's proximity now to Kugluktuk or Iqaluit. If contrariwise warming of that magnitude kicks in, sea level cities such as New York, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Franciso and Vancouver will, as Al Gore points out, be submerged. There isn't much we'd be able to do about either development, one or both of which in some historical sweep is almost inevitable.

The point about the Ellesmere forests article, about an island in Canada near the North Pole, that I posted elsewhere (link) is that the most likely explanation is either some earlier warming, or perhaps another location for the North Pole. Neither was caused by nor preventable by man.

[BethesdaWX]

First of all, the established "scientific community puts publicly funded scientists under immense pressure not to cut off their source of funding. If they find that climate is naturally quite variable, why th enee to fund studies at university, governmental and U.N. levels? There wouldn't be any such need. No problem = no money.

Similarly, if the "problem" of climate change is cyclical, trying to change it is not feasible. For example, if we do have a new Ice Age, and the glaciers do get to their old extent of places like Long Island (east of New York City and including NYC's eastern boroughs) the dislocation will not be some nomadic hunter/gatherers. It will be close to 200 million people. Why? Because areas such as Washington D.C. would have climates akin to Kugluktuk or at best Iqaluit if NYC is glaciated. Think Ellesmere Island's proximity now to Kugluktuk or Iqaluit. If contrariwise warming of that magnitude kicks in, sea level cities such as New York, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Franciso and Vancouver will, as Al Gore points out, be submerged. There isn't much we'd be able to do about either development, one or both of which in some historical sweep is almost inevitable.

The point about the Ellesmere forests article, about an island in Canada near the North Pole, that I posted elsewhere (link) is that the most likely explanation is either some earlier warming, or perhaps another location for the North Pole. Neither was caused by nor preventable by man.

If you'll notice, aside from the fact that only 52 scientists worked on the 2007 UN IPCC report........... Scientists that once worked for Gov't, and retired, are now skeptics!

In this instance, over 1000 scientists, many of them who worked for the UN IPCC, have become skeptics. Al gore was sued by over 30,000 scientists.....aside from the AGW Gov't Crew & all the big funding, the scientific population is by no means in consensus! Not only is the skeptical science comminuty growing, but its growing at an ever increasing rate.

Meteorologists have just as much understanding as Climatologits........and we still take gov't officials over them?

[Guest someguy]

not really....science is intrinsically conversative and skeptical.....CO2 theory relative to warming is not new and has been generally accepted....burden of proof is on contrarians to dislodge this.

let me see if I have this right

a theory/ paradigm that says the world is about to become dangerously warm... experience massive widespread prolong droughts and seas rising

is CONSERVATIVE in your views?

[Guest someguy]

not really....science is intrinsically conversative and skeptical.....CO2 theory relative to warming is not new and has been generally accepted....burden of proof is on contrarians to dislodge this.

Sure ... and when the Predictions made by CRU and IPCC about how much warming we should be experiencing turns to be wrong

it does not seem to matter.

to you.