When will "Manmade Global Climate Change" next be disputed by a major media source?

Looking at the pic for this question, brought to mind what we need for the election questions: the same world globe with a PLUMBER'S FRIEND on top of it...

When will 1 + 1 = 2 be debunked? When the level of education is low enough for people not to believe in the well-founded. If one looks at the level of education, the % believing in global climate change, global warming, or the Greenhouse effect varies directly with this factor. What do you have in mind? Everyone must agree? Or democracy?

bigken1,

There was supposed scientific consensus on the world being flat, manmade global cooling, manmade global warming, and now it's supposedly manmade global climate change. There are many credible climate scientists who disagree with those who say that climate change is manmade. LOOK OUT FOR THE WOLF!

whaaaaa?

We need a definitive settlement source for this. I'm thinking publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Any suggestions?

Any major mainstream news source (NY Times, FOX, CNN, AP, etc...) is obviously going to have a credible source. I specifically didn't want this too be settled on any research, journal articles, or the like from any scientist (or group of scientists) because there is disagreement on the subject. And some bias on both sides.

You wrote "There are many credible climate scientists who disagree with those who say that climate change is manmade." I suppose that *could* be true to some extent, but only if one uses a very liberal definition of the words "many", "credible", and "scientists". When taken as a whole, the vast majority of *all* true scientists--and by that I mean ones who are trained in the proper areas and who aren't supported solely by corporations with the most to lose if the 'man-made' part is proven correct--believe that A) climate change is real, it's B) accelerating, and C) it's caused by humans.

mein super-kruijs,

This question is not about scientific consensus, it is about MEDIA reporting. "A major mainstream news source" is not a scientific consensus of all the worlds scientists.

Although that probably would make the news.

sqlman,

How about Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Max Mayfield, and Dr. Kerry Emanuel for starters. If you want to look into their credibility go ahead. They are extremely qualified.

I don't think this question makes sense the way you put it.
how do you determine that debunking? what kind of reports do you expect and what, if not scientific, media do you want to report it?
But it's up to Tisha to decide anyway. I cannot void questions, just suspend them for being reviewed by an admin.

Sorry if you don't agree. I think the topic is a good one (although very long termed).

"Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, are overstated."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_smoking)

I've explained it as best I can. It's pretty cut and dry. This question might not be too long term.

Lets try an example: If the NY Times had a headline that read "Mankind Is Not Responsible For Climate Change" and in that article it listed an IPCC report, a list of credible scientists, scientific foundations, and government agencies that agreed with the findings, this question could be settled. Also, Al gore apologizes to the US automobile industry.

What I meant in comment #6 was that I didn't want this to be settled on any ONE research paper, journal article, or the like from any scientist (or group of scientists) because there is so much disagreement.

I think I understand what you want to achieve, pullover (that ain't meant negatively) - but I still do not think that the question is able to be settled.

I think this is a good general idea for a question, but there really needs to be some sort of concrete settlement criterion.

Thanks Kruijs and potatp - I agreed that some major constraints needed to be placed on this market to allow for non-objective settlement in the future. So the nature of the question has been edited to talk specifically about whether the top few mainstream media sources will report climate change skepticism. Here is the clarification:

The settlement requirements for this question are very specific to ensure non-objective settlement. An article must be published by the NY Times, BBC, CNN, AP, Reteurs or The Independent, only. The article must, as its main point, state/argue that Global Climate Change is not the result of mankind (not just state it as one side of the argument). It must not be an opinion piece.

> The article must, as its main point, state/argue that Global Climate Change is not the result of mankind

I'm still not sure about how objective this criterion is. For example, what if it states that Global Climate Change is, say, 50% the result of mankind, 50% the cause of natural cycles? 90%? 10%?

Thank you tisha. That is exactly what I had in mind as good settlement sources. Some people will argue that the sky isn't blue and grass isn't green because it's raining in Kentucky.

@neuronexmachina - it's obviously going to be pretty hard to dissect an article, but the gist of my point is that it's essentially going to have to be close to 100% to settle this question. We were talking about 'debunking' climate change, after all, not just providing a potential alternative theory. Otherwise, I think the starting odds would be misaligned.

"How about Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Max Mayfield, and Dr. Kerry Emanuel for starters. If you want to look into their credibility go ahead. They are extremely qualified."

Okay, I think I'll do that. Lindzen has long accepted fees from oil companies and right-wing think tanks. His testimony is--by most accounts--tainted. Mayfield has wavered on the whole issue of manmade climate change, and some believe he was coerced by the Bush administration not to change his story (though he denies this). And Emanuel hasn't stated that climate change isn't cause by human activity; he's only stated that he doesn't think it plays as large a role in the recent uptick in hurricane activity as some think.

At any rate, even if all three of those were perfectly unimpeachable witnesses, the vast majority of climate scientists think climate change is caused by man's activities. Getting the better part of those learned folks to change their minds ain't gonna be easy, so I think this is going to be tought to settle.

What a great example of how alarmists try to silence dissent. By questioning the credibility of two MIT professors. It's especially ridiculous when you have plastic surgeons, landscape architects, and hotel administrators signing on to reports that were cited by Gore as proof of "consensus." If you want to talk about having a vested interest lets talk about all the grants these scientists who agree with you would lose if they were proven wrong. Keeping your job is a pretty good reason to agree with someone. Increasing hurricane activity is climate change, so whether or not it's manmade is a factor in "manmade global climate change."

I don't think there's going to be a flat-out non-opinion piece in one of those periodicals asserting that this, or any other, controversial matter is settled. That would violate journalistic standards. They'd always include "on the other hand" testimony for balance, or place the piece in the op-ed section. The most they'd do would be to slant or spin the story one way or the other. Even the pro-warming articles they've published in the past haven't flat-out presented the case as closed.

I think a better way to pose this question--and a way that would be easier to settle--would be to focus on judging only the headline. Something like, "Scientists Cool on Global Warming" would suffice.

IMO, what will turn opinion around on this will be two or three notably cold years. 2008 is shaping up to be sharply cooler than recent years, and some mainstream scientists are predicting this lower temperature will prevail for a few years more. This will embolden the silent majority of scientists, who are cowed by the hysteria of the Insisters, into sticking their heads above the foxhole and making a peep. Then the issue will fade away--if lower temperatures continue--like the alarmism over acid rain, the risk of heterosexual AIDS, etc.

Incidentally, I just discovered a great Cool-ist website yesterday: http://wattsupwiththat.com There's a high level of discussion there--way over the normal level of Internet discourse.

This article pretty much says it all:

The killer frost for global warming

Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/the-killer-frost-for-global-warming/

notablenotices,

Thanks for the link, that article is great. One of the best I've seen. From the same article:

"The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995. You may have noticed, in fact, that Al and his pals, having given up on the sun, no longer even warn of global warming. Now it's "climate change."

I can't wait for the latte sipping liberal elite to flip there wigs when they realize they bought a Prius for no reason.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

I love these quotes from the link chatarra provided:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

Of course we're talking about climate change and not warming but after so long hearing all the bs about global warming this just warms my heart.

For anyone that's wondering: yes it is great to always be right.

Here's a question for all you "Manmade Global Climate Change" fanatics: Since Manmade Global Warming has been proven false (even Al Gore calls it "Climate Change" now), how does man affect the environment? The previous theory was the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Since there is no Global Warming (the earth hasn't warmed since the mid 90's) that theory is obviously wrong. So I ask: How does man affect the environment?

sqlman?

5-ton ice sculpture of a “shivering” Gore
http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jan/19/al-gore-ice-sculpture-unveiled-fairbanks-invitatio/

Czech president attacks Al Gore's climate campaign
"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."

Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.

"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a18bbb18df8422d8340c4db2e8eb4388.1131&show_article=1

And a priceless comment from below the article:
Pres. Klaus; Move here, claim you were born here, refuse to reveal your real birth certificate and then run for president of the U.S.A. You would be such a refreshing change from the pseudo-intellectuals who are now in control of this country. This country is doomed if we allow it to be overtaken by BHO's posse of tax cheats, lobbyists, and just plain stupid people.

I did a little snooping around at the CV for Vaclav Klaus. I'm not sure where you came up with the 'Liberal' tag; he's a member--in fact, he's the cofounder--of the right-wing Civic Democratic Party. Add to that the fact that, while he's armed to the teeth with degrees in economics, he doesn't hold a single one as a climatologist or scientist of any type, and that he's in bed with Big Oil and Big Tobacco on both sides of the Atlantic, and it'd be very easy to dismiss anything he says about Climate Change as the words of an anything-but-objective, highly-biased nutjob. In fact, I think I'll do just that. ;)

Algore doesn't hold a single one as a climatologist or scientist of any type, and that he's in bed with Big Carbon and Big Government, and it'd be very easy to dismiss anything he says about Climate Change as the words of an anything-but-objective, highly-biased nutjob. In fact, I think I'll do just that. ;)

Oh, that's funny. ;) Gore never claimed to be a scientist; he gathers information from many independent scientists in various climate-related disciplines, then passes that info onto the public in as non-biased a way as possible. OTOH, Vaclav and many others of his ilk--that is, folks who stand to lose economic standing if GCC is real, such as those involved with non-green energy, etc--spend inordinate amounts of time searching for tiny scraps of data from climate-change-denying scientists that will back up their agenda, then spend equally inordinate amounts of time trumpeting those bits of data to the world, as if a few scattered peeps from agenda-driven, bought-and-paid-for scientists somehow magically offsets and triumphs over the thousands of reams of peer-reviewed studies published by independent climatologists, meteorologists,oceanographers, etc., all of which point to the simple facts that A) global climate change is real, and B) it is, for the most part, in an accelerated-by-man phase.

The thing that bothers me most ab out deniers is this: if those who believe in climate change are wrong--that is, if there is not climate change going on, and/or it's not caused by the activities of man, all we will have succeeded in doing is bringing change and cleanup to heavily-polluting and highly inefficient industries and practices around the world, making the globe a better place for our children and grandchildren. On the other hand, if the deniers turn out to be wrong--that is, if, as believed, change is both real and man-made--and we've done nothing about it, the world will be in a sorry, troubled state for hundreds of years to come. I'm not always a safe-bet kinda of guy; just look at some of my wagers here if you don't believe me. But while I'll gamble heavily with pretend money here, it's not worth it to me to gamble with the lives and lifestyles of billions. I'm not sure how it can be for anyone... ;)

"Gore never claimed to be a scientist; he gathers information from many independent scientists in various climate-related disciplines, then passes that info onto the public in as non-biased a way as possible"

Excuse me while I go puke...
(wiping mouth with clean towel) Ok, now I feel better.

You have got to be kidding me - I hand it to ya. You do have a real sense of humor. For a minute I thought you were serious.
When anybody challenges Al Gore, his response is "read the book". He does not have the courage to defend his position in public, because it is so biased and based on a singular agenda, on which he is getting rich.

"Believe it or not, it is possible that aspects of the traditional greenhouse gas explanation could be largely wrong, and if you think we are crazy, let’s visit an article just published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics."
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/

You have been had, my friend.

@chatarra,
claiming Gore being a biased guy - I think you might even be right - and blaming him for that, and you cite a lobbyist website which promotes climate change denying media.
you are making the same mistake which you claim sqlman makes.

From the about us page:
"This popular web log points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States."
Just take a look at the promoted books/dvd's.

You have been had too, my friend.

@chatarra

Are you *really* going to quote the "World Climate Report"? Can't you deniers find any real science? Quoting a posting on a blog paid for in its entirety by an astroturfing coal services cooperative (the Western Fuels Association. Motto: "Coal is where your power begins!") is hardly the way to gain credibility, my friend.

Every time--every single time--a climate change denier has shown me 'proof' that climate change isn't real and/or that it's not caused by man, they've quoted some person or group with direct or roundabout ties to Big Energy. I'll challenge you as I challenge the rest: show me some numbers proving that a majority--a simple majority; it needn't be overwhelming--of objective, non-biased, independent, climate-related scientists believe that I'm wrong on climate change, and I'll switch sides. I promise. But until such time, deniers are going to have to come at me with more than slickly-written pseudo-science from a Big Energy-funded blog. Sorry...

Dear Kruijs & Sqlman,
I am guilty of using the first credible sounding link that I found on Google.
You are both correct in that I did not research the website before submitting my rebuttal.

Founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman comes to mind next.
He posted this on ICECAP
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.
By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

I am still laughing at sqlman's "unbiased" Gore! LOL

That has really made my day! Thanks!!!!

Well, Coleman's better, I suppose. My problem is, though, he's not a scientist by any means--he holds a journalism degree, and worked in the early days of television as both a weathercaster and as the host of 'At The Hop", a local bandstand show, and he's credited in part with the creation of the modern local TV news 'team' format. His Weather Channel pedigree gives him a bit of cred, but he was booted from the joint after just a year, and speaks very poorly of the network now. He currently makes well-publicized speaking appearances at events such as the International Conference on Climate Change, which is sponsored and hosted by the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute (a group, funded in part by ExxonMobil, that also opposes restrictions on smoking), and appears on Fox News regularly to deny GW//CC.

My point being? I'm still waiting for someone truly credible to come along and tell me I'm wrong. If/when that ever happens, I'll publicly eat my words.

the funny thing is that the perils of mankind (global warming, wars, poverty....) are all directly and/or indirectly the results of "educated" people making efforts to improve the human condition.

munch, munch, munch

@Sqlman
The only people you will consider credible, now believe the same way you do and only if they change their minds will you consider changing yours. That is a tall request and not one I will be holding my breath for.
I propose using the earth as a model of comparison without listening to anybody tell either of us what is going to happen in the future.

Are the oceans going to rise and flood the low lying areas anytime soon?
No.

Will it snow again in UAE this season?
Probably not.
Interestingly enough, recent news is that big, chunky snowflakes were falling on a mountain in the United Arab Emirates for only the second time in recorded history. (thousands of years. . .)
The occurrence this weekend was so rare that local residents say they do not have a word for snow in their local dialect.
Hard to make a case for Global Warming until summer comes around again and people are looking for air conditioning relief.

@MeanderingSearcher
You are so right. I think we can probably add many diseases to your list as well. One thing that has really struck me lately, is how our leaders on both right and left side of the isle have huge agendas that they will protect us from. It gives us (the populace) reasons to vote for them the leaders). In general - the right has a lock on the "war on terror", which like the war on drugs cannot be won. The left has adopted climate change as their pet project to save the world.

Heaven help the rest of us. . . .

@chatarra,
Thanks for being honest and admitting that you fell for the climate change denier's line yourself. This shows that you intelligence is higher that many other people, even many other hubdubber.

In the same time it shows the insidious strategies lobbying groups follow: Pretend to be something which they certainly are not: impartial. If someone doesn't take a closer look, he could get the impression, he's dealing with a credible source. In this case, it was very obvious, it is not a credible source. In many other cases, these circumstances are less obvious (like here http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7).
What I consider dangerous for our society is, that many people lack understanding that they must alway question the credibility of the sources and unmindful take publications for granted.

"Are the oceans going to rise and flood the low lying areas anytime soon? No."
What do you base this conclusion on? What means "anytime soon" here?

"Hard to make a case for Global Warming until summer comes around again and people are looking for air conditioning relief."
I repeat what Global Warming deniers tend to ignore, to disavow, or just do not understand: "Global mean surface temperature" means that the average temperature around the globe rises in a statistical way. It doesn't mean that every year, every day on every spot around the world, temperature rises. It means that there is a tendency, for example, that freezing periods get shorter (in days). Or even that winters are colder on one place. There will still be variance throughout the years. If you have rigged dice which tend to show the 6. They will not show the 6 with each throw. Actually, you will need many throws to measure a difference.
Climate Change can be made very seizable in one word: Kathrina. For north-west Europe, climate change means, that winters will be milder, summers might periodically get hotter or dryer - certainly, there will be more stormy weather and rainfall. This can already be seen when studying flora and fauna. Recent study results show similar effects for the US too http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5913/521 .

Let me add one more thing.
Assuming Global Warming and Climate Change do not exist: Why are so many people opposing the idea of using our fossil resources more efficiently and of trying to keep our environment intact - just for the sake of our descendants?

its so reassuring all the global warming folk think that "estimates" based on "models" are the absolute truth. man can't give an accurate 7 day forecast of the weather. how does anybody believe they can accurately forecast the weather years or decades from now? just another scam to give govt more control over the people imo.

@diesel:

why do you oppose the idea of using our fossil resources more efficiently and of trying to keep our environment intact - just for the sake of our descendants?

@chatarra--I figured you might say that. The causal observer might look at this discussion and say, "Oh, look, they're both arguing from the same basis." But that's not the case; you and the rest of the Deniers constantly tout 'statistics' and pseudo-scientific claims from non-scientists, and when you *do* use credentialed scientists, they are *always* on the payroll of Big Energy. On the other hand, those who believe as I do use *real* science from *real* scientists, scientists not fighting to pad the pockets of some corporation, but scientists who've made it their life's work to A) see what makes our planet work, and B) do what they can to protect it. When it comes to the unimpeachability of witnesses, the Deniers simply don't have a leg to stand on.

Kruijs has alreayd addressed your comment about the oceans not rising; I, too, am unsure where you would get that, as it's been proven that ocean levels have risen: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html or http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/25/frontpagenews.research. Now, few are claiming that we'll face some rapid Doomsday scenario, with tsunamis washing across every coastal city. No, the result has been and will continue to be much more insidious: quicker beach erosion, saltwater intrusion, etc. Yeah, an inch doesn't seem like much...but over time, even just that extra inch can erode an extra 50 or 100 feet of shoreline...and multiply that times all the shoreline in the world. And scientists are talking about a rise of far greater than an inch.

@dieseldog (and chatarra): weather is one thing; climate is another. When you're driving along the highway, you may find yourself at times moving ten miles per hour under the limit, and other times moving ten miles per hour over the limit. That's the weather. Overall, though, your speed over the entire length of your trip may average out to exactly the speed limit. That's the climate. Yes, there'll be periods of unseasonably cold weather in places, but those are anomalies, and it's simply not logical to make a case against GW based on just those anomalies.

Kruijs stated something which I myself have stated elsewhere in these comments: where's the harm in conserving limited resources while at the same time preserving the environment? What do Deniers have to lose should GW prove true?

you and the rest of the Deniers GW believers constantly tout 'statistics' and pseudo-scientific claims from non-scientists, and when you *do* use credentialed scientists, they are *always* on the payroll of Big EnergyCarbon.

Big Energy Carbon.

This is a rubbish question, but an interesting discussion.

There are still many people who deny Darwinism so of course there are people who deny climate change. In both cases on one side is just about all of the relevant science and most people who have bothered to try to understand the subjects, and on the other there are large bodies corporate. These institutions have there own rather selfish reasons for fighting their corner.

@dd agree with you (for a change) Mother nature does her own cleaning up; hence the cold spell this year (even in Florida it has been unusually cold) agree with Krujis on our own conservation of natural resources.. Many believe this global warming is nothing but a money making scheme; ie GE, ethanol, etc. Windmills are great and there are other legitimate conservations for natural resources. IMHO

Just a few questions for this audience:

Since our industrial age are the worlds waters just as pure?
The bee colonies flourishing?
Plants and animals just as 'natural' anymore?
Soil just as uncontaminated?
Is the air just as clean?
Are Fish full of less toxin?
How are the coral reefs and plankton doing?

Personally, I think People ruin everything.

kruijs - where did i say i support wasting fossil fuels?

sqlman - the question shouldn't be "What do Deniers have to lose should GW prove true" you should ask what deniers have to lose if it ain't true? i would say money, more govt control over my life, less choices to buy want i want in the market place..etc

the problem i have with GW is that the people pushing won't be around to be held accountable if it turns out not to be true. i could say a giant meteor is going to destroy the earth's atmosphere in 2084. get a bunch of scientist to agree with me, then sell a product that will clean the air afterwards. i get rich off of causing a false fear. i won't be around in 2084 so i made out like a bandit and suffer no penalty.

sqlman,
You said:
"I'm still waiting for someone truly credible to come along and tell me I'm wrong. If/when that ever happens, I'll publicly eat my words."
How about over 650 truly credible scientists? That is 12 times the number of the IPCC. Even you have to admit that at least 1/12th of them are credible.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

You are saying Global Warming skeptics use questionable science? How about the letter from 2,600 climate "experts" that Gore frequently cited as proof of scientific consensus? As it turns out 90% of those "experts" are landscape architects, plastic surgeons, traditional Chinese medicine doctors, etc.

The Hockey Stick Graph that has been proven to be complete BS.

The Global Warming theory was formed at the same time the USSR was collapsing (and therefore shutting down temperature measuring stations in some of the coldest places in the world).

Also, scientists "forget" to use empirical evidence when they come to the conclusion that climate change is manmade. During the mid-evil warming period and the little ice age, for example, the climate changed drastically and quickly. You ever seen a painting of a knight holding his lance out of the window of a Hummer H1 or George Washington touring a power plant?

Doesn't anyone remember the Manmade Global Cooling scare? We are supposed to be in another ice age right now according to scientists from the 1980's. Doesn't anyone remember when it was Global Warming. Well the earth hasn't warmed since the mid 1990's. Doesn't anyone remember Y2K? My cell phone never stabbed me in my sleep and my VCR didn't eat my family. So we move on to the next sky-is-falling theory: Manmade Global Climate Change. And what do people do? They eat it up like the gullible little lemmings they are.

The problem with environmental legislation is that it cost to much. Especially right now. When people finally come to their senses about this climate change crap they will be appalled at how much taxpayer money the government spent for no reason. Also, much of the policy backed by green groups is invasive and restricts consumers' choices.

conspiracy,
Wow. Twice in two days I've agreed with you... well partly. The part about the water and the fish. The thing is though that's more of a localized problem. Foundations, such as Save the Bay, are working on cleaning up our waters but it is still a problem. A problem definitely not caused by "greenhouse gases".

Oh and sqlman, you acting like the pro-Climate Change scientists don't have a motive to fudge the science is a joke. How much grant money do these scientists stand to lose when Manmade Global Climate change is proven false? I'd say keeping your job is a good reason to lie.

@diesel, I just wanted to make sure that we've actually got a common ground. :-) I'm glad you agree with me on that, at least.
But "the problem i have with GW is that the people pushing won't be around to be held accountable if it turns out not to be true" - the other way around is even worse, because people will say that we didn't care. People = our children.

@pulloverthatasstoophat
you associate the link to that blog you provided to the word "credible"?
let alone this sentence: "How about over 650 truly credible scientists? That is 12 times the number of the IPCC"
12 time the number of the IPCC?
"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors. Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors)
And even IF it were true it wouldn't matter. I would be glad to have 1 Einstein over 12 times a donkey.

"you acting like the pro-Climate Change scientists don't have a motive to fudge the science is a joke." is actually true. nowadays. nobody remembers these people were around here even before Al Gore made it popular - and in those days it was economically disadvantageous for a scientist.

kruijs,
"12 times the number of UN scientists" is the quote from the article. The EPW website (http://epw.senate.gov) is a government website and yes it is credible. Much more credible than wikipedia. You are seriously going to question the credibility of the EPW website then cite wikipedia as a source? You also gave another great example of how the alarmists try to silence dissent. krujis actually thinks that everyone who agrees with him is Einstein and everyone who disagrees is a jackass. Wow. I mean wow.

@pullover

Actually, yes I do trust Wikipedia more than I trust any Government.
I mean, you say "'12 times the number of UN scientists' is the quote from the article. The EPW website (http://epw.senate.gov) is a government website and yes it is credible".
In this sentence you say the website is credible. Does that mean you are not sure whether the article is credible? If a Governmental website publishes an article, the credibility of the article is transferred to the website. Did you just try to disconnect that?

And if you think you are a donkey and I am Einstein, that's fine with me, but I assume that you don't - just like I do not. I just wanted to say that the number of persons thinking in a certain way doesn't tell me anything about right or wrong. And if you read carefully, I said before that there were many more scientists supporting the GW than there are deniers; So if you like you could argue against me with that.

@kruijs

So who are you calling Einstein in the GW field? Mr. Gore?

and to answer:

why do you oppose the idea of using our fossil resources more efficiently and of trying to keep our environment intact - just for the sake of our descendants?

Personally, I do not oppose more efficient use. However, we shouldn't lose sight of what that efficiency costs. Especially when other countries stand to benefit from our economic turmoil. Refusing to drill for the last decade or so for example has done nothing but cause economic strain, giving money to the worlds evils who use it only to fund their wars while we are being accused of taking oil to fund ours. (still hasn't happened btw)
----------

I find interesting:

Discover Orwell [Chris Horner]

An ICECAP reader e-mails its publisher, who kindly passed it along:

Subject: Discovery.com Newspeak

I found a Discovery Channel version of the AFP story “Earth’s Magnetic Field Changes Climate,” but they apparently decided the story was better with a different conclusion and so edited it to spin it 180 degrees the other way.

The original said the new Danish research findings “could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming", but the Discovery version deleted that in favor of “that is unlikely to challenge the notion that human emissions are largely responsible for global warming.”


Also:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/global_warming_ice_age/2008/04/24/90591.html

" "All four agencies that track earth's temperature [the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California] report that it cooled by about 0.7 C in 2007." This, he says is "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over." "

And:

http://www.junkscience.com/
--------------

It seems to me as though people never stop and consider that humanity IS natural. It isn't humanity VS nature.... humanity = nature. People don't ruin everything... People are making life more comfortable... just as they should be. Just about every animal would agree with you there, because in case you haven't thought about it...

99.99% of our worlds suffering is done in the "natural" (if that is the only word suitable to distinguish us) settings, where animals fight for resources with tooth and claw instead of hard work and money. The environment is definitely worth defending, but let's not refuse to question anything that is "pro-environment."

Because hey, It's not like Big Oil is the only business at stake here. Gore happens to own a firm selling Carbon Offsets. In fact, its the firm he chooses to do business with:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

kruijs,
Yes kruijs the article is credible too. You compared people who agree with you to Einstein and people who disagree with you to jackasses. Don't deny it man I actually respect the amount of arrogance it takes to actually believe that. That is just impressive.

"Especially when other countries stand to benefit from our economic turmoil."
Economic crisis is actually caused, or at least initiated by the popping US mortgage bubble and spread with the greed of the large investment banks.

"giving money to the worlds evils who use it only to fund their wars" as if the CIA hasn't done that to Osama Bin Laden, or to Saddam Hussein.

"However, we shouldn't lose sight of what that efficiency costs." But we shouldn't also not lose sight of when we really are in a need of more efficiency and alternatives. This day will come sooner that many think. And if you invest in these areas now, you will make large gains then.

And, yes, if you would measure by the success of his PR, I'd say Al Gore actually is Einstein.

@pollover
I didn't compare anyone to jackasses. I compared to donkeys. But I could also have said lemmings.

... but donkeys are actually quite intelligent animals.

no, pollover, I didn't want to compare you with a donkey. nor with a jackass.

A jackass is a male donkey. I did not realize I had to point that out.

oh, nevermind. sorry. me donkey.

"Economic crisis is actually caused, or at least initiated by the popping US mortgage bubble and spread with the greed of the large investment banks."

Another case of you missing the point. I did not refer to the current Crisis, but was instead referring to the 2 Billion dollars a day that we send to other countries for oil. With that kind of money we would pay for the "stimulus" package in a little more than a year. And if you want to talk about the crisis, then we can do that, but you will only find original fault with regulation, not greed, which was much more of a consequence.

"as if the CIA hasn't done that to Osama Bin Laden, or to Saddam Hussein" sure, but those conflicts were for much different reasons wouldn't you agree? Another important fact is that that was by Choice! Being unable to drill and paying Russia to do it for us has forced a transfer of wealth which they used to invade Georgia.

"But we shouldn't also not lose sight of when we really are in a need of more efficiency and alternatives. This day will come sooner that many think. And if you invest in these areas now, you will make large gains then. " Sure. I'm totally content with a free market approach. Let the investors of green energy become rich, but it shouldn't be by forcing the change when it isn't necessary. Rushing that switch will only COST earnings, not create it. Like you said, large gains can be made so why is it unreasonable to question the motives of those that create green companies while simultaneously spreading green propaganda? Is it really that much different from all the fingers being pointed at Big Oil?

Is the view only objective when they agree with you?

On Gore: I asked if you think Gore was an Einstein in the climate field, not the PR field. Britney spears is an Einstein in PR field, I don't think we trust her even with her babies.

"2 Billion dollars a day that we send to other countries for oil."
that is your choice too. could be less if the oil was used more efficiently.

""Osama Bin Laden, or to Saddam Hussein" sure, but those conflicts were for much different reasons wouldn't you agree?"
yes, by choice you supported these too just too make them big selling them arms. and than, oh crap "the spirits that I called" ...

"Is it really that much different from all the fingers being pointed at Big Oil?"
yes: Big Oil is unlasting and destructive

"I asked if you think Gore was an Einstein in the climate field"
No, you asked whether I compared Gore with Einstein. Not a specific field.

"Being unable to drill and paying Russia to do it for us has forced a transfer of wealth which they used to invade Georgia."
I knew there would be a link to make the US responsible for that too! Dang! there it is! Bush invaded Georgia!

"Is the view only objective when they agree with you? "
Hu? where did I say something like that? I am well aware that my view is biased and supposedly not objective.

Roba, you and me, we won't get together, I fear.

Well I don't know why you think that, I get along with plenty of people I disagree with. I have a good friend who is majoring in labor studies...

But as far as your responses... they seem rushed.

"that is your choice too. could be less if the oil was used more efficiently. " Our demand goes up much faster than you could ever reduce with efficiency. This is why I never said efficiency is a bad thing. However, in no way will it cure the problem, it will only make our current forms of energy less harmful as we use more of it.

"yes, by choice you supported these too just too make them big selling them arms. and than, oh crap "the spirits that I called" ... "
This means little to me. I know we sold them arms, but you do remember the conflict right? I mean ... I don't because I wasn't around, but surely you know there was more to the story than us simply giving them weapons.

"yes: Big Oil is unlasting and destructive"
First off unlasting is not a word, but I think I get the motive.
Secondly, the reasoning that because one thing has more impact on the environment than the other means that the motives are more genuine is nonsensical. The motive can be seen as money on either side of the aisle, and it seems you wish only to see it on one side.
Thirdly, how do you know the green scare isn't more harmful? By not being able to drill we have basically said we want others to drill for us and they will choose to do it with far less ecological standards than we would. So now we damage our economy and the planet in one blow. That's not to mention any nations that are in the path of these aggressive countries we wind up paying for oil.

"No, you asked whether I compared Gore with Einstein. Not a specific field."
Fair enough, I guess you missed the context and seems that you did not feel like answering anyway. Let me ask then, is Gore the Einstein of the Climate field? If not, who?

"I knew there would be a link to make the US responsible for that too! Dang! there it is! Bush invaded Georgia!"
Purposely irrelevant? I think its quite clear Russia invaded Georgia, and our economic dependence on them is only helping them do it.

"I am well aware that my view is biased and supposedly not objective."
Best answer so far.

"Roba, you and me, we won't get together, I fear."
Listen Kruijs, tone can't be heard on the internetz. Since we disagree, there is very little in my arsenal to remind you that I am not trying to be aggressive. I do disagree with you... a lot. But, I don't think that makes us enemies of any sort. Like I said, I have plenty of friends that I disagree greatly with.

apart from all this stupid rhetoric why is it that meanderingsearcher has been given the chop, if it carries on like this there will be NO one left. as to the question we have a classic of not being vetted before, let out on us poor MEMBERS all should not require clarifications you can read yes /and no on this subject every day

It snowed over the weekend… in the desert! To be more exact… in the UAE! As the headlines indicate it doesn’t do that often. As a matter of fact it has only done that one other time since man has been recording history. We think this is just one more indication that we have been correct in declaring that the earth is on the cusp of a re-freeze, another ice age… not a planet wide warm-up or “Climate Change” as the adherents to the gospel of “Global Warming” have taken to calling it (since so much of what they have declared has been debunked and more debunking is happening every day).

a item from one of your wanted resources

Isn't it quite warm in Australia at the moment Curios?

@Sqlman - You constantly say that my sources are bad but yours are good. Yours are credible scientists while mine are only interested in promoting an agenda. But you also say that Al Gore is unbiased, so your concepts are questionable to begin with. It would be like me using Sean Hannity as an unbiased source of information, but I think that you really do believe Gore is unbiased. If so, I would enjoy hearing how he supports anything that is conservative. Hopefully, your definition of unbiased is more than simply "I agree with him, so he is obviously, unbiased".

John Coleman, is founder of The Weather Channel now works for ICECAP - International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public.

We spotlight new findings in peer-review papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

From their website:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

Saying this is proof of my biased "scientists" while Al Gore represents the honest truth . . . .
Damn, but I am starting to laugh so hard that I cannot type any more.
My eyes are tearing up so bad that I can hardly see the screen anymore.
gotta go - bye bye.
Bwaaaaaahhhaaahhhaaahhhh

@Kruijs:
I have no problem with conservation efforts. Higher efficiency helps all of us. All of the car makers are producing automobiles with higher mileage now, than just 10 years ago.

Like RobAMichael says, one of our biggest problems comes from restrictive liberal legislation requiring that we cannot drill for our own oil on our own soil. This has caused us to use foreign oil, which has led to huge amounts of money going overseas, instead of our using the resources that are located here, in the first place.

One of the biggest hurdles of switching from dino petroleum to vegetable based petroleum is that the corn based ethanol simply does not have as much energy. I am not a scientist but if you doubt this, there are plenty of articles on google about it.

Shipping (spilling) oil from overseas has led to more ecological disasters than we would have if we drilled for our own oil. In my state, Colorado, it is said that we have upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Again, I agree with RobAMichael. My biggest beef is with the environmental legislators that prevent us from drilling for our own oil, in favor of purchasing foreign oil, which has given us many of the international problems that we face today.

@C2R
"Personally, I think People ruin everything."

We have been very good to the house cat population.

@robamichael: here, another case of quoting a far-right website (newsmax.com) as though it's got some scientific credibility; fer cryin' out loud, the site is populated with article written by such fair and balanced intellectualo heavyweights as Bill O'Reilly, David Limbaugh (yeah, his baby brother), and Laura Schlesinger. Yessir, impeccable scientific credentials, those. :)

At any rate, the opinion piece by Chapman from which you quoted has been soundly and roundly rejected as false. I won't quote the entire article here, but please read this:

"...the main flaw in Chapman's opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one year) variations of global temperature. It is well known (among climate scientists) that there are large inter-annual variations of global temperature caused by a number of factors, including El Nino, big volcanic eruptions, or just the chaotic variability of the climate system. It is not possible to make conclusions about long-term climate trends from inter-annual climate variations. Many lines of evidence support the conclusion reached last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", referring to changes over the past 100 years. Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming...Most of the increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This long-term increase in global average temperature will continue throughout the 21st century because of further increases in greenhouse gases. Yes, there will be year-to-year natural climate variations, with some colder years, but the long-term warming trend will continue."

As has been stated above several times, short-term weather and long-term climate are not the same. Trying to discuss global warming--or, heck, global cooling--with someone who doesn't understand and accept that basic point is--as has been highlighted here--rather pointless.

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html)

True....I do love cats. Any cat that winds up in my house see's his world so improve.

@sqlman> i see you have been taught well, hit the site running just a bit of advice i saw a site you voided , but not only that in your new found elevation you also got rid of all the comments on that page tut tut a no no
@cooki yes its b hot over a 100 or 38 cel now for over a fortnight

+ how the hell can this be decided weld the axe

@curios: Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying. Please steer me to any market which you think I've wrongly voided; I'm curious, curios... ;)

@chatarra

hey you understood my handle as my full name! cool :)

@sqlman

I said I found all of that material interesting. I never said my goal has been to find unbiased sources. That was a discussion between other members. I did however question how anybody could find Gore as being unbiased and without financial reason to stake the claims he has. More importantly, the Chapman article was not supplied as proof of any kind. I instead use it to show that there is absolutely not one side to this argument.

I find this declarative statement amusing: "Most of the increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." As if it were a fact! Everyday there is more saying this is not true, not to mention that the earth has done nothing but steady course or cooling for the last decade! As much as Karoly does a decent job refuting Chapman, it is still apparent that he has his OWN stance that he is afraid to falter from. Since you read the Chapman article so well, it might do you good to try the other link i posted. junkscience

@robamichael:

You wrote "Everyday there is more saying this is not true, not to mention that the earth has done nothing but steady course or cooling for the last decade!"

I challenge you to prove that statement. Now, by 'prove it', I mean show me a preponderance of real, peer-reviewed scientific data, not something written on a right-wing blog or energy industry website. You can't do it, my friend. Not because of any shortcoming on your part, but because--quite simply--it can't be done. The earth has gotten steadily warmer over the past decade, period. Arguing that is like arguing that water isn't wet. ;)

sqlman,

You know how ridiculous it is to ask people to search through databases to provide you with a specific tidbit of information that must be peer-reviewed. Although you will probably claim that every scientist in everyone of these studies is paid by Exxon I already had a fairly nice collection of peer-reviewed articles on "Global Warming" that I am kind enough to provide you with. Not what you asked for (regarding warming in the last decade) but since you seem to like peer-reviewed articles here are a few peer-reviewed articles. They all disagree that "Global Warming" is manmade.

-“Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” by Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
-“Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz
-"Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate" by Richard Mackey


Also, here are some quotes from some experts that are relevant to your search for proof (I know I know, they're all on the take):

UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures,"

"The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the IPCC show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Also, satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 percent). " -Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter-

"Arguing that is like arguing that water isn't wet."

This is for absolute funzies, but....

wet (wt)
adj. wet·ter, wet·test
1. Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water.

Can water be covered or soaked with itself? Water certainly makes things wet, but is it wet itself?

I know how ridiculous this is, but I don't have time to research right now and thought I'd lighten the mood. Besides, looks as though asstoophat has covered what I was thinking and more.

@robamichael: Well, I hate to tell you this, but Bob Carter is a paid member of the research committee of the Australian Institute for Public Affairs, a group fully funded by member businesses such as Western Mining, BHP Billiton and a handful in the tobacco industry; forgive me for ignoring him. And Dr. Khandekar is a paid member of the science advisory board for the Friends of Science Society, a Canadian group which has long received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry; forgive me for ignoring him, too.

As I've stated: follow the money. Every single GW denier who's ever been thrown up as an expert scientist--at least that I've ever seen--can be proven to have his or her hands in the pockets of Big Energy.

Here's a nice graphic for you: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/consensus-scientists-endorse-reject-

Of 528 peer-reviewed science papers on the ISI Web of Science, 237 endorsed the idea of anthropogenic global warming, while just 32 rejected the idea. For those wondering, that's better than a 7-to-1 ratio of believers to non-believers. Of course, I expect deniers will look at the chart and claim, "See? Fewer than half of all scientists believe in global warming!" But that's a specious argument; it's clear that the overhwleming majority of scientists who've taken a position on GW believe it to be both real and man-made.

Why of why are deniers so insistent? You guys can't all be on the payroll of Big Energy, so what have you to gain by your denials?

@sqlman - Why are believers so insistent? You guys can't all be on the payroll of Big Carbon, so what have you to gain by your faith? ;-)

The gain for deniers is a reversal of our eroding freedoms. Algore uses fear mongering to dictate what I drive and how I live.

lol
"eroding freedoms"

you can´t choose freely how to live nowadays. you can´t drive what you want on public roads nowadays. so what´s the deal?
and what is more important: if you were a little more concerned about the future of our planet, and would take a little more care of the people surrounding you, and a little less concerned about what you single guy imagine what and what not you believe you could do (which is actually quite limited by law already), you wouldn´t have this kind of "devil-may-care" and egocentric attitude. you wouldn´t be seen like a caricature of yourself. and maybe someone would actually take you seriously.

WHY SO SERIOUS?

kruijis said: "you can´t choose freely how to live nowadays. you can´t drive what you want on public roads nowadays."

Yeah, you pretty much summed it up - eroding freedoms.

What's this Big Carbon thing of which you repeatedly speak? Please--and this is a sincere request--show me some research published (or publicized) by credentialed scientists who are on the payroll of a Big Carbon company. I'll read and heed, I promise.

As far as freedom goes, Oliver Wendell Homes said it best (to paraphrase): your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. IOW, why should someone's choice be allowed to neagatively affect my quality of life, and that of my kids, and that of theirs? It doesn't bother me if you wish to pay $100+ to fill up your Hummer; what does bother me, though, is that Hummer spitting out ridiculous amounts of CO2 and other pollutants that A) I have to breathe now, and B) will change the global environment for our future generations. It's unlawfully shortsighted, it's incredibly selfish, and it's just plain wrong. Yeah, okay, I get it: a lot of you don't like Al Gore. Al Gore's a crackpot? Fine. Al Gore's a far-left, freedom-hating wacko? Okay. Al Gore's a hypocritical fool? Peachy. But anthropogenic climate change began long before Al Gore smoked his first double doobie at Harvard, and the world will still be reeling from its effects long after Al Gore's grandbabies have cashed the last residual check for An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore's not the boogeyman here; bottom-line-over-all, anything-for-a-buck, screw-the-environment, drill-here-drill-now thinking is...and that needs to stop. :)

sqlman,
You really have to stop accusing every scientists who is an anthropogenic climate change skeptic of being on the payroll of Big Energy. That seems to be your only defense for all evidence presented that contradicts your belief. Scientists who claim that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring are all on the take my friend. Let me lay it out for you like this: if one ties one's research project somehow -- even via the most tenuous and flimsy grounds -- to global warming, one's grant proposal will have much greater chance to be selected for funding. Therefore, if we eliminate all scientists who get paid for their research from the conversation we will eliminate about 99% of the worlds greatest experts on the subject.

Some of us value freedom over junk science.

Oh yeah, Hummers are for little girls. The International CXT is man's truck.

@POTATP:

I never accused every scientist denier of being on the payroll for Big Energy; I've just simply and repeatedly pointed out that finding one that isn't has proven thus far to be a fruitless task. And I don't think I've brought up "tenuous" links; when a denier says, "Look at Scientist John Doe; he says GW is bunk!", and I look at Scientist John Doe and see that he's A) employed in full or in part by an oil or coal company; B) a policy-making member of one or more anti-environmental groups; and C) the author of one or more non peer-reviewed articles that has made scientifically invalid claims based on exaggerated or full-disproved 'evidence', I'll dismiss him, as should you. The entrenched energy companies have much to lose if we stop driving our Hummers (CXTs); why not call them on that? ;)

@Sqlman,
". . . bottom-line-over-all, anything-for-a-buck, screw-the-environment, drill-here-drill-now thinking is...and that needs to stop. :) "

My biggest reason to doubt global warming is the messenger - main stream media.
I do not trust them for honest and objective reporting and after watching how the 2008 election was handled, I really don't trust them to be honest and objective about much of anything. [Note to all agenda driven newspapers: you are losing market share because lots of people have realized that your news reporting is so biased that they cannot believe the majority of what you print any longer.]
Sources of Global Warming (hype, fear mongering, etc) comes from the media, or the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". To paraphrase Al Gore: The facts are in and the debate is over". Obviously, those are the words of somebody who does not want debate. Jim Jones also comes to mind when thinking about famous brain washers.

As for the nice graphic that you posted
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/consensus-scientists-endorse-reject-
Majority of comments immediately below seem to reject the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, with references. As such, I am not sure it does your position any favors.

[What's this Big Carbon thing of which you repeatedly speak? Please--and this is a sincere request--show me some research published (or publicized) by credentialed scientists who are on the payroll of a Big Carbon company. I'll read and heed, I promise.]

Al Gore co-founded a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm's finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

An interesting video just released called "Scare" is showing on the website of The Heartland Institute.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/index.html

I encourage everyone to watch it.

"Scare," a two-minute video highlighting the scare tactics of global-warming alarmists, made its debut on the Internet Tuesday, February 3. The video launches The Heartland Institute's online marketing campaign to promote the second International Conference on Climate Change, taking place March 8-10 in New York City. Approximately 1,000 scientists, economists, policy experts, elected officials, and civic and business leaders are expected to attend the conference.

Q: Is Heartland a ‘Front Group’?

A: No. Web sites such as ExxonSecrets.org, DeSmogBlog.org, Mediatransparency.org, and Sourcewatch.org claim The Heartland Institute is a "front group" for (take your pick) oil companies, drug companies, telephone companies, fast-food companies, and tobacco companies. These Web sites are full of false and misleading claims about Heartland and other groups that support free-market ideas. The very fact that they attack all free-market think tanks and advocacy groups makes their bias and dishonesty clear.

It is true that interest groups sometimes create front groups that are not really legitimate organizations with real histories, real members, and a real commitment to advancing the public interest. For example, ExxonSecrets.org, DeSmogBlog.org, Mediatransparency.org, and Sourcewatch.org were created by liberal environmental groups and a few foundations strictly to attack conservatives and libertarians. How "real" is that?

I read where the stimulus bill gives 400 million dollars to nasa to study Global Warming. How will this create jobs? It seems to me that the only work generated will be to a select group of scientists who are already employed.

sql,
The scientists who agree with you receive grants. Without those grants they would most likely be unemployed. The best way to get a grant is to claim your study has something to do with global warming. See chatarra's comment above about the 400 million dollars. If you know of any credible experts who agree with you and have never received a grant let me know.

Take a look here, from a critique by The Guardian today (although only of apocalyptic alarmism):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/12/tipping-point-reached-met-office-makes-blistering-attack-on-those-who-make-apocalyptic-climate-predictions/

Take a look here, from a critique by The Guardian today (although only of apocalyptic alarmism):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/12/tipping-point-reached-met-office-makes-blistering-attack-on-those-who-make-apocalyptic-climate-predictions/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modeling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

Here's a long article in the NYT magazine on Freeman Dyson, highlighting his heretical stance on CAGW:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Here's a link to his article "Heretical Thoughts and Climate Change"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

Here's a link to his article, "The Question of Global Warming," in the NY Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

Here's a link to Amazon's listing of Dyson's numerous books on scientific topics:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=freeman+dyson&x=0&y=0

Here's a thread on the Watts Up site by Steven Goddard titled, "Tipping Point in the Media":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/31/tipping-point-in-the-media/

Here's an extract:

"Over the last year or so I have been taking an informal survey of a key news metric - Google news searches for the term “global warming.” A year ago, the ratio of alarmist/skeptical articles was close to 100/1. About six months ago, the ratio was 90/10, Two months ago it was 80/20, and today it hit 50/50 for the first time - including the lead skeptical story “A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming“. One thing that has changed is the rise of blogs written by informed citizens, complemented by the demise of corporate newspapers which make money from keeping people continually alarmed about one thing or another."

Are we to believe this guy did an exhaustive, comprehensive comparison of every Google article he found to be sure his chosen informal "metric" was right? It's possible, I think, he checked just "the first few pages" of every search, but then he'd only be looking at the most popular articles...many of which were written by those same "informed citizens" and not scientists. Sorry; I'll need more proof than that offered by an admittedly unscientific perusal of top Google returns.

Having said that, I have personally noticed an uptick in the past few months in the number of articles/posts/comments put out there by those on the side of the deniers. If so, it seems to me that's because with the highly anti-environment Bush in office, non-scientist deniers felt secure in their position, but now with the science-friendly, no-BS Obama in office, they can sense that position eroding as swiftly as an Anarctic ice shelf, and that scares them. Frankly, I'd expect nothing else. I only hope the believers in science don't become as complacent during Obama's tenure as the deniers did during the Bush years.

Warming Arctic should be cooling, study finds

"WASHINGTON - The Arctic is warmer than it's been in 2,000 years, according to a new study, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight. The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University." MORE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32675876/ns/us_news-environment/

I don't believe anything that MSNBC reports. If I quoted a Fox News article to sqlman I'm certain it would be met with equal or even greater skepticism. You know I'm right sqlman.

Business chiefs urge 'robust' climate change deal

The chiefs of more than 500 global companies called on Tuesday for an "ambitious, robust and equitable" climate change deal, in the spotlight in New York ahead of a landmark meeting in Copenhagen.

The business leaders from over 50 countries including Brazil, Britain, China, Japan, Russia and the United States said measures to spur recovery from the global downturn must be environmentally sustainable.

"Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilised," they said in a Copenhagen Communique, organised as part of a project based at Britain's Cambridge University and backed by Prince Charles.

"It is critical that we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth and avoids locking us into a high-carbon future," they added, calling for "an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change that responds credibly to the scale and urgency of the crises facing the world today".

The call came as world leaders gathered in New York trying to breathe new life into deadlocked negotiations, 100 days before the December Copenhagen summit which aims to seal a successor to the landmark Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyRvjvpnM-gBQ0-P8savtTEdoHRA

Download The Copenhagen Communiqué in your language:
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/our_work/climate_leaders_groups/clgcc/international_work/the_copenhagen_communiqu%C3%A9.aspx

Download the current signatories of the Copenhagen Communiqué:
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/pdf/Current%20Copenhagen%20Communiqu%C3%A9%20Signatories.pdf

Sea ice extent graph, covering 2002 - 2009

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

The chiefs of more than 500 global companies

so the evil corporations has the peoples best interest in mind when it comes to GW, but not healthcare. hmmmm.

no, they just want the situation cleared as soon as possible so they can deploy standardized measures over the world, having similar prerequisites in all countries. and besides, it's great PR. simple.

but only the fact that they do not oppose the idea of CO2 reduction should make you think.

i should think cause 500 evil CEO's tell me to? i'll let you follow their lead. i'll think for myself tyvm.

Corporations love "green" policies because it means more profit for them, ex: Enron.

"Carbon emissions from cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps and imperiling the planet. And by the way, we're joined here by the leader who made that particular truth impossible to ignore -- former Vice President Al Gore, and we owe a great debt of thanks to him. (Applause.)"
http://www.tonic.com/article/obama-clinton-global-initiative-speech-full-text/

oh the glorious tree-huggers and their hypocrisy

The New York Times reports U.N. administrators are attempting to calculate the carbon dioxide produced by the delegates in order to buy carbon offsets: They estimate 461 tons of carbon dioxide, with air travel being the single largest component. However, that tally only includes emissions from one aide traveling with each world leader and not the dozens of staff who frequently make up each country's delegation.

One climate scientist points out that the value of carbon offsets -- a publicly traded commodity -- fell to 20 cents a metric ton late last week: Meaning 20 cents times 461 metric tons would equal spending $92 to offset their emissions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554700,00.html