U.S. Court of Appeals Rules on EPA CO2 Regulation

[WeatherRusty]

Had to run an errand earlier. As I drove to my destination, I quickly thought of all the sources I was going to quote. But then it occurred to me, you probably won't change your reasoning regarding CO2 and AGW. Whatever I information I provide will be discarded as someone who is a skeptic. I would think it an honor in the scientific field to be a skeptic. It is the skeptic who makes science sound. Galileo was a skeptic. He had to basically create an instrument to prove his point. As is now, the instrumentation and perspective is simply not good enough to make generalizations that will impact the economies of every country on the planet. Thus, I respectfully disagree with the US Court of Appeals on this matter. I work in a field in which "research" supports everything under the sun, some of it so erroneous it boggles the mind. Many in my field are fearful to challenge research that is presented. I would hope that our country is full of skeptics on all levels of academia. However, know this. If in the future, science definitively (no purse strings attached) proves that CO2 from fossil fuels is going to warm our climate to devestating proportions I will most certainly would change my viewpoint. My question for you is this, "If science produces alternative and correct theories to to CO2 induced AGW, would you change your mind?"

Lastly, just because a court system upholds or strikes down a case does not necessarily mean the science has merit. Unless a judge studies climate for a lifetime, he or she probably doesn't have the knowledge to even make an appropriate decision. Science should never need a courtroom to uphold its findings. The rigor of the research should be such that even the skeptics among us would have to capitulate to its law.

The clean air act was taken to court in an effort by 'conservatives' to prevent the EPA from protecting society from the threat imposed by accumulating atmospheric and oceanic CO2. In effect scientific deniers have taken the scientific community to court in an attempt to win a judicial judgment, since they can not effectively change the science.

"If science produces alternative and correct theories to to CO2 induced AGW, would you change your mind?"

Absolutely, we follow where the science and physics forces us to go.

You hold a lot of opinions which reside outside the scientific mainstream and which remain unsupported by evidence. You also appear to lack a basic understanding of the physical basis for AGW, and why scientist are confident in what the science is telling them.

[Carvers Gap]

links to proof about the magnetic Sun claim?

I can imagine Galileo (of who I claim not to be in any shape or form) would have been asked for links when he said that the planets did not revolve around the sun. I'll have to do some digging, but I'm pretty sure that some folks on the main board suggested that the minimum preceeding cycle 24 had impacted stratospheric warming events two winters ago and maybe even this past winer as sunspot activity increased. Due to the rarity of such minimums, this was probably the first time that such a connection could even be made. Two links:

AmericanWx Discussion

Journal of Atmospheric Science (from the same discussion)

[Carvers Gap]

most assuredly, it does. people who have fact-based rebuttals will always provide them. people who don't will start whining about being criticized for posting nonsense. happens all the time in this subforum.

Posted two above...

[Carvers Gap]

The clean air act was taken to court in an effort by 'conservatives' to prevent the EPA from protecting society from the threat imposed by accumulating atmospheric and oceanic CO2. In effect scientific deniers have taken the scientific community to court in an attempt to win a judicial judgment, since they can not effectively change the science.

"If science produces alternative and correct theories to to CO2 induced AGW, would you change your mind?"

Absolutely, we follow where the science and physics forces us to go.

You hold a lot of opinions which reside outside the scientific mainstream and which remain unsupported by evidence. You also appear to lack a basic understanding of the physical basis for AGW, and why scientist are confident in what the science is telling them.

It is people who think outside of the box and do things differently that change the world. I refererence the entire Steve Jobs biography. As for the rest of your comments, won't touch it.

[cmc0605]

Well, Merlin's beard! Do we know everything about the sun? Our knowledge of the sun is growing, but very few(if any) scientists could predict the way that cycle 24 has behaved. One could make a reasonable argument that the deep minimum that just occurred and the subsequent "ramp up" of sun spots had significant impacts on the stratosphere in the northen polar regions. The magnetic field of the sun has gone haywire over the past year...but I'm sure it had no impact on the weather.

This is fun. I think I'm going to be your version of a skeptic. Maybe I'll be a black hole skeptic. I mean I don't know the subject right now, and haven't taken any graduate courses or picked up a textbook, but I think I'm going to make up some speculative claims with absolute confidence .

When someone who knows what they are talking about tells me I'm wrong, I'll just talk about how we don't know everything about the universe, and pretend that gives my idea more credibility and their decades of research less weight. Maybe in 40 years we'll know enough though, you know once we get chaos and fusion down. That'll make me look like I know what I'm talking about. When people tell me I'm an idiot, I'll remind them that Galileo was a skeptic. If they still don't believe me, it must be because they aren't thinking enough outside the box.

Today's internet skeptics got it so easy these days. Galileo would be jealous.

[Carvers Gap]

This is fun. I think I'm going to be your version of a skeptic. Maybe I'll be a black hole skeptic. I mean I don't know the subject right now, and haven't taken any graduate courses or picked up a textbook, but I think I'm going to make up some speculative claims with absolute confidence .

When someone who knows what they are talking about tells me I'm wrong, I'll just talk about how we don't know everything about the universe, and pretend that gives my idea more credibility and their decades of research less. Maybe in 40 years though we'll know enough though, you know once we get chaos and fusion down. That'll make me look like I know what I'm talking about. When people tell me I'm an idiot, I'll remind them that Galileo was a skeptic. If they still don't believe me, it must be because they aren't thinking enough outside the box.

Today's internet skeptics got it so easy these days. Galileo would be jealous.

Please refer to previous link regarding sun's influence on stratospheric warming.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree with your last sentence. It is difficult to understand the emotion connected to this part of the scientific field. I would guess that many who have challenged the establishment have been called such. Namecalling should probably be reserved for when we run out of ideas.

Oh please, how have you challenged the establishment other than saying you disagree with it?

No one anywhere has been able seriously challenge the science where it would actually have an impact. In the scientific literature.

[cmc0605]

Please refer to previous link regarding sun's influence on stratospheric warming.

It's irrelevant. Keep trying though. In the meantime I'm going to go be skeptical. All the kids are doing it these days.

[Carvers Gap]

Oh please, how have you challenged the establishment other than saying you disagree with it?

No one anywhere has been able seriously challenge the science where it would actually have an impact. In the scientific literature.

Overstated - agreed. This board is really not the establishment - no insult intended.

[WeatherRusty]

Overstated - agreed. This board is really not the establishment - no insult intended.

Not the point. You represent a larger ideology who's purpose is to cast doubt on AGW. You work places like this.

You have no scientific basis for your skepticism because there is precious little.

[Carvers Gap]

Not the point. You represent a larger ideology who's purpose is to cast doubt on AGW. You work places like this.

You have no scientific basis for your skepticism because there is precious little.

No, I don't work places like this. I participate on the SE board as a regular. As for who I represent, we don't even know each other except for a few keystrokes today. I don't even know who you represent. Disagree totally w/ your last point, but won't resort to a personal attack. Have a good evening - truly.

edit: I would add that I hope those in the scientific fields (and those who follow it) would doubt their findings until air tight.

[WeatherRusty]

No, I don't work places like this. I participate on the SE board as a regular. As for who I represent, we don't even know each other except for a few keystrokes today. I don't even know who you represent. Disagree totally w/ your last point, but won't resort to a personal attack. Have a good evening - truly.

Are your proclamations here truly of your own making? Mine certainly are not. I learn from others. I assume so do you. Your talking points are clearly out of the 'skeptic playbook'. Mine come from mainstream science.

The well of information on climate change has been poisoned by an ideological viewpoint that lacks a basis in science. We have heard your ideas before and we know where they come from.

[Carvers Gap]

The subforum was originlly listed to discuss the US Court of Appeals Ruling. I discussed the topic and then answered your questions as respectfully as possible. You are making a lot of assumptions over one day's worth of conversations. I'll be around. Don't even know what the Heartland Institute is and don't care to either. And I can assure all, I don't do anyone else's bidding. That's unfortunate that is happening, but it's not me. You should also be able to go back and see that I post in other forums and have done so for a while. You never did comment on the solar min/max connect to stratospheric warming episodes. I actually have followed that quite carefully. I didn't just provide the link, but it's something I've read on AmericanWx's main forum. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on all things meteorological as I'm not a met. I just didn't cut and paste the article as I'm sure it's copyrighted. So, there is some linkage of weather/climate to the solar cycle though weak at this point in the research. But, it does provide a "link" to the solar cycle as you requested. As for the response I generate, I think I have answered respectfully and honestly to each question. I don't know that I can say the same for everyone else. Honestly, it seems that some on this board want to "talk at people" versus debating a point. We can all learn here. If we were all experts we wouldn't be debating on a climate subforum. Coming down here is kind of like taking a trip into the basement of the house. This subforum is different and not a bad place to hang out until winter comes. Bit drafty though. Over time I will provide links and research. But I'm not going to be one of those folks that comes in every day to cause problems.

[cmc0605]

The subforum was originlly listed to discuss the US Court of Appeals Ruling. I discussed the topic and then answered your questions as respectfully as possible. You are making a lot of assumptions over one day's worth of conversations. I'll be around. Don't even know what the Heartland Institute is and don't care to either. And I can assure all, I don't do anyone else's bidding. That's unfortunate that is happening, but it's not me. You should also be able to go back and see that I post in other forums and have done so for a while. You never did comment on the solar min/max connect to stratospheric warming episodes. I actually have followed that quite carefully. I didn't just provide the link, but it's something I've read on AmericanWx's main forum. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on all things meteorological as I'm not a met. I just didn't cut and paste the article as I'm sure it's copyrighted. So, there is some linkage of weather/climate to the solar cycle though weak at this point in the research. But, it does provide a "link" to the solar cycle as you requested. As for the response I generate, I think I have answered respectfully and honestly to each question. I don't know that I can say the same for everyone else. Honestly, it seems that some on this board want to "talk at people" versus debating a point. We can all learn here. If we were all experts we wouldn't be debating on a climate subforum. Coming down here is kind of like taking a trip into the basement of the house. This subforum is different and not a bad place to hang out until winter comes. Bit drafty though. Over time I will provide links and research. But I'm not going to be one of those folks that comes in every day to cause problems.

Carver,

I appreciate that you may want to learn or not cause problems, but with respect, your comments indicate to me that you are very new to climate science. Personally, I am not an "expert" but I am a PhD student in this field and feel that I can point you in the right direction on many issues. The same applies for others here, notably WeatherRusty whose responses I tend to find quite accurate. However, those discussions won't go anywhere if you want to appeal to e-mail scandals, pretend that "uncertainty" is an automatic get out of jail free card to just make things up, insult the discipline which I am a part of, etc. The claims are neither accurate nor productive. You may disagree with the mainstream science concerning the attribution of modern climate change, but people will expect you to bring some actual arguments to the table that we've not seen 100 times before (originating from several central sources and spreading like wildfire amongst bloggers who don't know better) and avoid arguments rooted in your personal feelings about the conduct of scientists, conspiracies, fears, and the like.

It is no surprise that the 11-year solar cycle has an influence on the stratosphere. There is a maximum response of ∼2 K is found in the tropical upper stratosphere, in addition to ozone changes (since the UV changes over the solar cycle can modify the ozone production rate through photolysis of molecular oxygen). There are also impacts on winds, and evidence for dynamical feedbacks that may propagate onto the surface-troposphere, although the actual temperature changes on a large-scale are not evident near the surface. Moreover, to make a climate change, you need some sort of long-term trend in the external forcing of sunlight, and this is absent from the evidence we have (in addition to indirect solar mechanisms); moreover, fingerprint studies that look for a solar-signal in observed spatial and temporal patterns of climate variables attribute a very small percentage of modern climate change to the sun. This conclusion is robust to a wide range of studies. Even more fundamental however, any solar effects would only add to the CO2 signal, since forcings are approximately additive...you cannot simply "replace" one known effect with another thing, but rather you need to put them together in a physically self-consistent way.

[Carvers Gap]

Carver,

I appreciate that you may want to learn or not cause problems, but with respect, your comments indicate to me that you are very new to climate science. Personally, I am not an "expert" but I am a PhD student in this field and feel that I can point you in the right direction on many issues. The same applies for others here, notably WeatherRusty whose responses I tend to find quite accurate. However, those discussions won't go anywhere if you want to appeal to e-mail scandals, pretend that "uncertainty" is an automatic get out of jail free card to just make things up, insult the discipline which I am a part of, etc. The claims are neither accurate nor productive. You may disagree with the mainstream science concerning the attribution of modern climate change, but people will expect you to bring some actual arguments to the table that we've not seen 100 times before (originating from several central sources and spreading like wildfire amongst bloggers who don't know better) and avoid arguments rooted in your personal feelings about the conduct of scientists, conspiracies, fears, and the like.

It is no surprise that the 11-year solar cycle has an influence on the stratosphere. There is a maximum response of ∼2 K is found in the tropical upper stratosphere, in addition to ozone changes (since the UV changes over the solar cycle can modify the ozone production rate through photolysis of molecular oxygen). There are also impacts on winds, and evidence for dynamical feedbacks that may propagate onto the surface-troposphere, although the actual temperature changes on a large-scale are not evident near the surface. Moreover, to make a climate change, you need some sort of long-term trend in the external forcing of sunlight, and this is absent from the evidence we have (in addition to indirect solar mechanisms); moreover, fingerprint studies that look for a solar-signal in observed spatial and temporal patterns of climate variables attribute a very small percentage of modern climate change to the sun. This conclusion is robust to a wide range of studies. Even more fundamental however, any solar effects would only add to the CO2 signal, since forcings are approximately additive...you cannot simply "replace" one known effect with another thing, but rather you need to put them together in a physically self-consistent way.

That is good to hear that you are working on you PhD. However, as in all fields, I find it possible to learn from others around me. Learning to question is not a bad thing. It is true that some of the climate data has been tampered w/ in the infamous, much publicized Climategate. And certainly it does not reflect poorly on everyone in the field, but this was a reasonably well-orchestrated cover-up by some top institutes in the field. I think what is concerning is that many folks may never completely trust those sources again. Read a good article yesterday in regards to climate databases. One of the the points that the article discussed is that the some of the best climate databases from strong research are kept under lock and key. The article stressed that those databases for climate need to be opened-up to researchers across the world and stored in a way that once they are published they are not tampered with. I definitely will comment on the conduct of scientists as many are funded by government grants and the like, directly or indirectly. As for mainstream science, it is perfectly ok to be in a minority opinion. It doesn't always mean someone is wrong. Also, thank you for your comments in regards to sustained warmings and the solar cycle. I think that research has some potential both on small and large scale modeling. This past minimum most certainly had some effects on the weather as I think long term minimums would have also had. Lastly, I still think that we are so small when compared to the known universe we may have trouble seeing some big picture things because we are "in the model" and "not outside of it." In other words, we are the ants on an ant hill and cannot see from a "human's perspective."

[cyclonebuster]

Look, I believe in AGW and agree actions should be taken, but you're dreaming if you think all our energy requirements will be met instantaneously from renewable sources. Our best choice to maintain our economic dependance along with a smoth environmental transitions is going to be a rough process. The best logical choice in order to maintain a balance between economics and environment would be to radically switch all fossil fuel energy to the cleanest fossil fuel source available which is natural gas. Eliminate coal, and petroleum based energy for both transportation and electricty useage. Plastics can still be derived from natural gas while we encorporate better cleaner plastic technology. Our energy dependance is going to have to bridged from oil/coal to CNG to renewable, there is noway financially or infrastructurally we can make a direct 100% renewable society with current technology. Natural Gas is the future until we can make a full transition to renewable energy, there is no denying it. Running CNG alone for transportation will almost 1/2 the CO2 emmissions from transportation derived energy and not to mention practically elliminating particulate pollution and dramatically increasing air quality.

Our country is in desperate need of improving the efficiency of our power grid, definetely need a smart grid.

Wind and natural gas will be the 2 main future players for our electricity, bank it.

It is to late for natural gas. The Co2 and other GHG's that we have already spewed into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is here now, it is going to take hundreds of years to dissipate or purge that out. Even now, if we were to change over to gas it is to late and burning gas still makes Co2 because it is still a carbon product. We gain nothing if we burn any carbon based product.

[cyclonebuster]

Totally agree w/ natural gas as a main fuel source. In addition to being cleaner, its availibility would provide energy independence for the US. Areas where the US could begin saving money on energy is w/ rooftops going solar as well as hot water heaters going solar. The technology is there. Somebody needs to make it cheap and available. It would keep homes from pulling as much power from the grid. If Thomas Edison were alive, he could find a way. I don't think most folks would need much encouragement if it was affordable. Very true that we don't have the technology to be renewable - yet. Nuclear energy has potential if it can be controlled and have less lasting impacts in terms of radioactivity.

Listen to what I say. Zero carbon based products are to be burned. They still produce Co2. We already have to much Co2.............

[cyclonebuster]

Keep in mind, its 0.8 degrees of warming, so the entire science is just splitting hairs to begin with.

In C or F and since when?

[Carvers Gap]

In response to wxtrix...

but if you are wholly ignorant of the basics, as your posts indicate you are, your challenging accepted findings isn't helpful and is in fact a nuisance.

That is an incorrect opinion of yours. You still have not commented on the paper I linked to regarding solar mins and maxes.

no. no, no, no. the investigation into the leaking the emails cleared all of the scientists involved of wrongdoing. you are repeating Heartland-sponsored denier nonsense. stop.

Who is Heartland?

those same 'folks' also believe the president is a Muslim born in Kenya. there will always be people who simply refuse to acknowledge reality.

As you say, not a political forum. He is my President, and I respect the President and his office. There is no evidence to the contrary in regards to his citizenship.

please give us the link so we can read it.

As evidenced from yesterday, you get a link and won't comment. You complained that it was just more of the same. When I provided legitimate, rigorous science to support my claim about the sun...you wouldn't answer. I can provide e-mails, but I won't as I'm sure you've read them.

and many are funded by the oil/gas industries. will you also comment on them?

I agree. Those studies would be not be considered rigorous. Special interest money can corrupt science.

it does in this case though.

[ben4vols]

and many are funded by the oil/gas industries. will you also comment on them?

Comparatively, the money spent by oil/gas is miniscule. This is another classic lie the alarmists like to pull out.

I also find it funny that YOU of all people are talking about reality. The alarmists don't want to deal in reality they want to deal in the realm of modeling (computer not catwalk). Of course if reality doesn't fit the models prediction, it can't be the models that are wrong because the science has been decided so it must be reality that is wrong. So of course the next step is to bastardize reality so that it better fits the models predicted outcome.

[Carvers Gap]

Listen to what I say. Zero carbon based products are to be burned. They still produce Co2. We already have to much Co2.............

Intestingly, I don't disagree that should be our goal but based on a different premise. It's just better for the environment. Where I suppose we disagree is, and is related to this thread, that I feel the market will drive this and not the EPA. I am not totally against the EPA. It has its place. But I'm not in favor of big government as you might guess. How would you suggest we power our planet in the meantime, until those alternative energy sources are met?

[Carvers Gap]

several people had already commented on the links you provided--they have nothing to do with C02 forcing. do I need to say it too? OK: the links you provided are not germane to your assertion that global warming is not caused by increased C02.

Did you read it?

now please provide the link to the article that says that the climate databases need to be protected from corruption.

Here you go...

why aren't you railing against those scientists and their distortion of facts?

In short, I have a problem with energy groups that want to destroy our last untouched natural resources. I strongly believe in setting aside public lands for the next generation. Many of those energy groups would seek to undermine that.

...And still, what is that group you refer to?

[Carvers Gap]

I'm getting ready to move on for the day. I'll check back later this evening. Don't want to be dodgy, but I have other responsibilities.

[WeatherRusty]

That is good to hear that you are working on you PhD. However, as in all fields, I find it possible to learn from others around me. Learning to question is not a bad thing. It is true that some of the climate data has been tampered w/ in the infamous, much publicized Climategate. And certainly it does not reflect poorly on everyone in the field, but this was a reasonably well-orchestrated cover-up by some top institutes in the field. I think what is concerning is that many folks may never completely trust those sources again. Read a good article yesterday in regards to climate databases. One of the the points that the article discussed is that the some of the best climate databases from strong research are kept under lock and key. The article stressed that those databases for climate need to be opened-up to researchers across the world and stored in a way that once they are published they are not tampered with. I definitely will comment on the conduct of scientists as many are funded by government grants and the like, directly or indirectly. As for mainstream science, it is perfectly ok to be in a minority opinion. It doesn't always mean someone is wrong. Also, thank you for your comments in regards to sustained warmings and the solar cycle. I think that research has some potential both on small and large scale modeling. This past minimum most certainly had some effects on the weather as I think long term minimums would have also had. Lastly, I still think that we are so small when compared to the known universe we may have trouble seeing some big picture things because we are "in the model" and "not outside of it." In other words, we are the ants on an ant hill and cannot see from a "human's perspective."

Carver,

Let's start over if that OK with you.

First I would like to welcome you to our discussions. You certainly are well spoken and clear in your viewpoints. I must say however, I find your viewpoint on the subject matter we have discussed annoying to say the least. I find most of it to be rooted in ideology and politics rather than solid science.

That being said, I apologize if I came of as being rude. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that even if I vehemently disagree with what you say.

For one I disagree with the bolded sentence in your latest post. I assume your are referring to Michael Mann and the 'hockey stick' graphic. Well accepted scientific technique has been distorted by certain entities to give the appearance of data manipulation so as to "hide the decline". I will not go into the whole story here, but rest assured no less than four official, independent and authoritative investigations of the climategate 'scandal' have cleared the scientists of any scientific malfeasance, while affirming the personal behavior of some of the scientists to be less than professional. That behavior was a result of constant badgering of these scientists by those seeking only to disrupt and discredit their research. They in turn behaved rather badly as did I yesterday....

[cyclonebuster]

Intestingly, I don't disagree that should be our goal but based on a different premise. It's just better for the environment. Where I suppose we disagree is, and is related to this thread, that I feel the market will drive this and not the EPA. I am not totally against the EPA. It has its place. But I'm not in favor of big government as you might guess. How would you suggest we power our planet in the meantime, until those alternative energy sources are met?

Solar,Wave,Tidal,Wind,Hydro,Geothermal,OTEC, or even OTEC combined with Gulfstream kinetic energy. Not necessarily in that order....

[Carvers Gap]

Carver,

Let's start over if that OK with you.

First I would like to welcome you to our discussions. You certainly are well spoken and clear in your viewpoints. I must say however, I find your viewpoint on the subject matter we have discussed annoying to say the least. I find most of it to be rooted in ideology and politics rather than solid science.

That being said, I apologize if I came of as being rude. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that even if I vehemently disagree with what you say.

For one I disagree with the bolded sentence in your latest post. I assume your are referring to Michael Mann and the 'hockey stick' graphic. Well accepted scientific technique has been distorted by certain entities to give the appearance of data manipulation so as to "hide the decline". I will not go into the whole story here, but rest assured no less than four official, independent and authoritative investigations of the climategate 'scandal' have cleared the scientists of any scientific malfeasance, while affirming the personal behavior of some of the scientists to be less than professional. That behavior was a result of constant badgering of these scientists by those seeking only to disrupt and discredit their research. They in turn behaved rather badly as did I yesterday....

I am in total agreement w/ the bolded print. Sometimes its difficult to know the person sitting behind the other keyboard. I'm not new to AmericanWx and don't have an agenda. I normally post about winter storms. Now, let me be clear about where I stand. I do agree the globe is warming, especially in the Artic. Anyone can see the ice is not where it was in terms of area thirty years ago. I just disagree on the cause. Now, here is the other thing. I totally agree that burning fossil fuels in large amounts around the globe is not good for the planet. It's not good for our health, the ecosystem(...and I loosely subscribe to the idea that the planet is one living organism), and future generations. If CO2 is at the root of this, it needs to be proven in a manner that the public can ingest and digest. Better computer models and stronger data should be able to do that. Reducing energy dependence is an absolute must. Alternative fuels and forms of transportation should be developed and I believe that gas companies are against that and sadly so.

[WeatherRusty]

Carver,

These are the type of people making relentless requests of the climate scientists involved in 'climategate'. They seek only to undermine climate science and discredit the scientists with the information they were requesting. Why would the scientists not be reluctant to hand over their research data?

Ross McKitrick

Stephen McIntyre

These people and many top rung 'skeptics' are members of politically orientated right wing, conservative 'think tanks'. The Heartland Institute is one such think tank. These think tanks and their associated members are the generators of much of the skeptical strategy and attack machine. Unfortunately, many innocent people take the bait and this leads to the great doubt that exists surrounding the science of climate change and it's practicing scientists.

[FloridaJohn]

Don't even know what the Heartland Institute is and don't care to either.

Well, you should care, especially since you say,

Those studies would be not be considered rigorous. Special interest money can corrupt science.

Which is a quite sensible approach to take. However, if you are going to form opinions based on research, you really need to do at least some basic Google searching about the source of some of the stuff you read online. Not everyone out there is altruistic in their motives (as I am sure you are aware). So when you read something that goes against mainstream science, you have to be a little more sceptical of it. Eventually, if that new theory proves out over time, then it will become part of mainstream science.

The Heartland Institute is one of the biggest, and most well known, orgainization to try and systematically cause doubt in the work scientists are doing in climate science. They are the source for a lot of misinformation out there. They also fund certain blogs online to help spread this disinformation. That's why you have to be careful about where you get your info online.

People on this forum a quick to be defensive, so let me try to help you out. Here are a couple news articles to give you some background on the Heartland Institute.

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Top US companies shelling out to block action on climate change

Please take the time to read those two articles (they aren't long) to get a background on the PR campagin specifically designed to confuse the public. Here is a quote from the second article:

"The thing we found most surprising in doing this research is just how all 28 companies expressed concern about climate change," said Francesca Grifo who heads the UCS scientific integrity programme. "But when we took a deeper look we found that a lot of the actions they took weren't connected to the messages."

The result of the disconnect was growing confusion about climate science, the researchers said. That made it more difficult to push for environmental protections.

The people here really want to help others understand the science. But you have to be willing to learn.

[Carvers Gap]

Solar,Wave,Tidal,Wind,Hydro,Geothermal,OTEC, or even OTEC combined with Gulfstream kinetic energy. Not necessarily in that order....

Here is the problem w/ geothermal(such as Yellowsonte) and the Gulfstream, they would certainly impact those ecosystems in a negative way. Pulling energy from those ecosystems (in any manner) might damage the planet. Yes, the planet is being damaged now by fossil fuels as well. But let's not trade one problem for another. I really think the answer to this is nuclear fusion or some unknown force. My point w/ gas is that it will have to be our transition until we can develop other energy sources. The uncomfortable reality of the situation is that the planet would starve w/out fossil fuels. But true, it is time to transition from that source as it is unclean and limited in amount.

[Carvers Gap]

Carver,

These are the type of people making relentless requests of the climate scientists involved in 'climategate'. They seek only to undermine climate science and discredit the scientists with the information they were requesting. Why would the scientists not be reluctant to hand over their research data?

Ross McKitrick

Stephen McIntyre

These people and many top rung 'skeptics' are members of politically orientated right wing, conservative 'think tanks'. The Heartland Institute is one such think tank. These think tanks and their associated members are the generators of much of the skeptical strategy and attack machine. Unfortunately, many innocent people take the bait and this leads to the great doubt that exists surrounding the science of climate change and it's practicing scientists.

Unfortunately, and this is where my gripe is, there are big dollars at stake on both sides of this argument. Those entities, hidden or not, are corrupting good science. That is why I say that databases need to be made public in a way that they can understand them. Certainly, scientists would want to keep their research on the low down, but if they want to win this argument then it must be released and cared for.