"So do us all a favor, stop promoting propaganda and start promoting science.  Science IS debate and scepticism is at its heart.  Win the debate and your communications problems go away."

I agree totally. First I heard of AGW was "the debate is over". My thought was "what debate?". Then you look at the research and you see it was ALL funded to the tune of billions of dollars to see if CO2 could explain the warming that started in the 1980s. I didn't see any government funding at all to check and see if the warming could be explained by natural causes. So... WHAT DEBATE? There was no one to debate with! Then you get the likes of Al Gore who are global warming hypocrites to the max and stands to become a billionaire if he can get the so called "solution" to global warming enacted. You also get scientists who refuse to debate when challenged claiming "the debate is over".  Then you get an upper level IPCC scientist saying in essence, each one of us scientists have to decide for ourselves just how much we should lie to convince the public that AGW is catastrophic.

I also believe however, they CAN"T win the debate, which is why they didn't go that road.

Google as "Big Brother"??

These fools get to decide what and what is not "science"??? It was always a junk science narrative with a well understood statist policy endgame. It failed, the IPCC will be exposed and the data and corruption will continue to be revealed.

We're still in the denial phase of the collapse of the socialist left.

Quote from your article: "People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."

For those unaware of it, this talking point was essentially created by anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan back in 1996, a person who is described at the epicenter of the '96-to-present smear of skeptic climate scientists. See this article:  "How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM"  http://bigjournalism.com/rcook/2010/11/02/how-an-enviro-advocacy-group-propped-up-global-warming-in-the-msm-a-nov-2-election-connection/

The "denialist claims" are based on real science.

The reason that Google will fail is not that we "denists" have closed minds, but that we know what is real science and what is junk science. The AGW-IPCC claims , call them the "bedwetters," are based on a set of false assumptions which cannot be defended as real science and are not supported by unaltered and unbastardized real world data. 

Bedwetters believe that if they simply publicized their fabrications and advise people to understand science by emotion, they will be better off.

If you are standing on the railroad tracks and a train is coming, you can pray all you want, but you will still die. It is up to you to remove yourself from the tracks, based on our instinct for survival. Of course, the religious will then claim that God "inspired" you to save yourself. Which do think came first, the instinct for self-preservation or self-serving platitudes from religion?

My self-preservation instinct tells me that, before I make important decisions regarding major local and world policy, I want to see and understand the real world science and not "science" produced by a political propaganda body called the IPCC which has a political agenda that has nothing to do with preventing global warming - they know that as they also know that we have not warmed since 1995 and that a trace gas cannot drive the climate. 'Climate change" is a political agenda and not a real world climate concern.

All it takes is *one* inconvenient fact to take down the whole edifice of a theory. That temperature does in no way track the modern upswing in CO2 concentration is that inconvenient fact. There is no upswing in temperature trend. The global average tells the story, as long as you plot it fairly instead of using graphsmanship tricks to make modern warming look like it's extreme instead of a mere continuation of the pre-WWII trend, before CO2 kicked in big time: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg

Yes, it's warming. That's a straw man argument you are presenting. Who denies that climate is changing? How can you deny simple charts of temperature? Oh, sure, NASA's is too hot, blah blah blah. Little adjustments. But post Little Ice Age warming is part and parcel of the skeptical argument already and always has been. Since there is no change in trend, the alarmist side must by rights claim that there would have been a downward change in trend without CO2. Prove *that* one!

-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. (Chemistry etc., Columbia/Harvard)

And ARGO says you are full of poop. The oceans are cooling.

Loehle, Craig. 2009. Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20(1&2): 99-102.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152

I did spend a few days, not hours, at RealClimate and that convinced me that it was a propaganda blog, not a scientific one.  I then went looking for real scientific debate instead of sham ridicule of anything other than the party line and found it elsewhere.

I suspect RealClimate has converted more scientists and engineers into AGW sceptics than any other project.

Google will fail as long as websites such as www.climateaudit.org www.drroyspencer.com www.wattsupwiththat.com

(and others) are up and running. As long as people with inquiring minds and a real interest in knowing whether AGW is real or not care to examine the data as discussed from both points of view, most will be convinced that AGW is NOT catastrophic afterall. Once you study websites from both sides, it is easy to see the warmists sites are moslty propaganda because they have a knack to hide, bury or ignore any data that goes against the AGW religion.

Until Google and the warmists can shut down the skeptic websites, they can't win, because the data  which would validate their computer models is NOT on their side. Truth, if it is heard, eventually trumps falsehoods everytime.

How can Google associate itself with such idocy as "Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change ..." ? A change of perhaps 1/500th of our temperature over more than a century with no change in more than a decade ?

Any of Google's numerate employees should be able to look at the highly saturated CO2  spectrum in the graph below and see that the only appreciable effect of more of the molecule upon which all life is built will do nothing other than additionally "green" the planet .

 If you decide to go down this road, Google, than I will just have to take my business to another search engine without an agenda. What's next, you're going to manipulate what sites come up when people search these subjects? You have betrayed your user's trust and I will be sure to let my friends and family know of your actions.

I could care less if Google shows youthful exuberance and responsibly reflects what most scientific bodies promote.

My ex-lover of 17 years is actually now their senior Adwords attorney in NYC. Million dollar contracts. Total hottie Korean chick with freckles, even. She politely chuckled at my early Global Warming Farce discoveries over dinners she paid for, out on the town. I loved those Grateful-Dead's-cook gourmet sandwiches she fed me from the Google cafeteria for a year. I wouldn't marry her since she was passive aggressive, but boy did she even both bring home the bacon and make me feel like a man. She was miserable in big city law firms. Now she's over 40, looking 28, hanging out in a youthful environment. Google rocks! She was too dependent on me, psychologically, to split, until Google took her on. I sent her firewalking and coached her to reject job offers from the likes of oppressive Nokia, until Google finally got back to her after many weeks after her couple of interviews. Long story! Google helped create a long overdue split with a gal I no longer got along with that well as a best buddy. Long live Google! Where else could I have sent her?

http://oi53.tinypic.com/2hrpqxh.jpg

http://oi54.tinypic.com/20fq6xe.jpg

Uh oh, my unfair bias is showing!

Did I mention that Global Warming is a scientific fraud?

If Google communicates the real science of AGW then the public will learn that it is a complete scam.  So Google, what are you actually trying to communicate?

Some facts in the AGW debate are generally agreed on by both sides of the debate. One of those facts is that the concentration of CO2 has a logarithmic warming effect, where every doubling of CO2 causes roughly 1 degree Celcius in warming.

Under that model, it would take a quadrupling of CO2 from current levels to get 2 degrees C of warming, and a sixteen-fold increase in CO2 levels to get 4 degrees C of warming. A 2 degree C level of warming is universally agreed upon as safe, while fossil fuels would likely have run out long before a sixteen-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 levels could be realized.

What the debate is about is whether there are other factors that amplify or weaken the CO2 induced warming. The computer models predicting doom and gloom rely on the presence of strong amplifying forces. However, there appears to be little to no physical evidence that such amplifications actually exist, and just as much evidence for forcings causing negative feedback.

Another factor is that the earth was already in a warming phase (coming out of the little ice age) when people first started burning coal. Depending on whether you believe the earth would currently still be in a warming trend, or back to cooling down if left alone, anywhere between 10% and 130% of current warming is attributed to people. Using just the pure CO2 induced warming, without forcings, people attribute maybe 30% of the warming.

In short, using just the agreed on CO2 warming, without the unproven positive or negative feedbacks, fossil fuel use will warm the earth slightly.  However, we would run out of fossil fuels before having caused disruptive warming.

I'll add it to my Planetary Temperature page .

You can add Uppsala in Sweden to your list . Temperatures from 1722 -2005, one of the longest and best temperature series in the world, courtesy of SMHI, the Swedish Weather Service (which is rather pro AGW). “

http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/upps_www.pdf

The problem with reasonable debate is that a debate usually involves two points of view, not a real point of view (real science) versus opinion (junk science and political agendas). To debate a warmist is to actually suggest that they have even a slightly valid stand, which they do not.

The warmist, bedwetter tactic when they start to lose a "debate", as they will always, is to attack the opponent's character and motivation the ad hominem attack is not debate, it's a clear sign of losing, as is when they declare that the "debate is over."

My motivation is integrity and promulgating honest real science. It is hard to discuss junk science with people who cannot afford to have their (junk) science be wrong. This is not unlike religion in which religious people cannot admit when their religious construct is not perfect. You cannot debate religion is an Orthodox Jew because they are incapable of ever accepting a middle ground or changing any of their thinking - it is against their religion.

The reversal of proof is indicative of the atrocious warmist use of post normal science. You have to prove your hypothesis, not the other way round.

You can start by admitting the very basis of your modeling - the concentration of CO2in ppmv is deliberately wrong and therefore all your posturing and posing amounts to a fart in a hurricane.

"should I take, therefore, your words as "a clear sign of losing"."

The comment to which you were referring was truly hypocritical. But for a moment I thought it was going to be a "warmist" attack on skepticism. It is frustrating and ridiculous how low the 'debate' has sunk. Both sides are mightily culpable.

"I would be thrilled if you could demonstrate that the Theory of Global Warming is wrong.  To date, there is no other explanative discussion that meets what is going on in the real world. "

That doesn't mean there isn't one. Sometimes the only honest answer is "we don't know". What really grates on me is:

- the insularity americans have on this argument. It is divided along political boundaries which don't exist in other countries. I am pretty skeptical, but I am pretty left wing in my politics. If I were in the US I would likely vote democrat. There is a presumption that skepticism is entirely political in its motivation but I can assure you that is a uniquely american phenomena.

- the presumption that skepticism equates to ignorance of the science. I was very much a 'believer' until I started to investigate the science (in fact to counter arguments from my skeptical retired engineer father). It turns out to be the opposite - the more you look into it the more you realise that the science really does not support CAGW.

The are other competing hypotheses as to what has influenced our climate. Some of them are just as plausible if not more so as the feedback mechanisms required for CO2 emissions to have a dangerous effect on climate.

The main reason why the "Theory of Global Warming" as you put it is wrong is because observation does not fit with the theory. For CO2 forcing to be dangerous, climate sensitivity must be high - higher than natural forcings. But over the last decade there has been no warming and in fact even a slight cooling, yet CO2 levels have continued to increase. That means that natural variability is more dominant. Just because it is not understood exactly what causes the warming (and not warming and sometimes cooling) does not mean it is by default CO2. For the 'alarming' theory (ie CAGW) to be correct, we most certainly cannot have had a decade of no further warming while CO2 was increasing. Since we didn't the theory has been falsified. There are other reasons why the theory is doubtful - but that one alone quite sufficient.

Other science investigating the influences on our climate variability are concerned that we may actually be entering a cooling phase. Cooling is not good. Cooling means shorter growing seasons during a period where the worlds population is going to reach its maximum. The extra CO2 we are producing ironically may be beneficial; both warming us a little (but less than we have been led to believe) and providing fertilizer for plants. What's dangerous about getting the science wrong on global warming is that the policy decisions such as bio-fules (because they are considered carbon neutral) during a period where we are cooling and the attendant reduction in crop yeilds is potentially much more harmful than any imagined consequence of warming.

As explained in great detail by Roy Spencer in his book "The Great Global Warming Blunder," those who believe that manmade CO2 will cause a serious rise in temperature lack the physical hypotheses which could be used to explain and predict the "forcings," such as changes in cloud cover, that increased CO2 concentrations are supposed to bring about. Without such physical hypotheses, there is no science which holds that increased CO2 will cause a serious rise in temperature or in "climate disruptions." The ball is in the Warmista's court. Produce the physical hypotheses or have the honesty to admit that you do not at this time have a science that is up to the task of predicting and explaining the effects of rising manmade CO2 on Earth's environment. There it is guys. It could not be simpler. I have been begging folks to produce those physical hypotheses for years now and the only thing I get as a response is "What do you mean by physical hypothesis?" If you have to ask what a physical hypothesis is, you should not be pursuing a career or avocation in any field of science.

Is this another George Soros Funded effort?

I too shall quit using anything associated with GOOGLE.

Do they (Google) completely ignore the peer reviewed studies disproving more than 90 percent of the AGW theory and phony basis for the AGW conclusions? There is at least an equal number of degreed scientists that are not "in consensus" with the AGW theology as those that push this propaganda.

At least Wikipedia saw the light and got rid of the blatant lies (most but not all) from their website. Some of the ministers of AGW spent as much time spreading lies on Wikipedia as supposedly doing research. They removed all references to or discussion of "The Little Ice Age," "The Mediaeval Warming Period," etc, etc., anything that went against their propaganda. Is this what the 21 GOOGLE Fellows are going to do? Reeducate us on the lies we were taught, and facts that have been proven over and over again for 50 years that do not support the AGW Theology?

How terrifying to see how well organized the people denying climate change are (and how badly they spell!), that a few of them are hijacking this comments board with their idiotic faux science. Just the fact they they insist on viewing climate change only in terms of temperature change shows how ill-informed they are. The earth's environment is a delicate balancing act, and we humans have been throwing it out of balance for centuries. This past winter's fierce storms are only one of many manifestations of that. So discouraging that the ignorant minority shouts more loudly than the informed majority. Good for Google for this important initiative!

Global Cooling was never more than a 'hypothesis' (yes, one hyped by such leading scientific journals as Newsweek and Time, but nothing more than hypothesis). Do you know the difference between Scientific Theory and a hypothesis?  See http://getenergysmartnow.com/2007/01/26/confronting-a-global-warming-ske... and http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/21/will-ful-deceit-three-blunt-exam... See George Will and the Global Cooling Scare http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...

By the way, your post is incredibly revealing. Do you even read what you write?  Sentence 1: "global warming liers" and then last sentence "name calling seems to be the way of shouting down the truth."  Those words are about the only truthful ones in your post.

"the ignorant minority shouts more loudly "

So, the warmists are funded 1000 times the skeptics and the media ia all about climate change. And you are whining about us being organized and too loud. It is out truth and real science that you cannot deal with!

Who are you shilling for?  BP wants climate controls and it would not suprise me to see other oil and GAS companies advocating for the same thing.  The most llike outcome of legislation to reduce greenhouse gases would be to convert coal fired powered plants natural gas.  (In fact, all new base load generation is natural gas.)  BP wins and Peobody coal loses.  Exxon also wins as it has large reserves of natural gas but little oil.  And by the way, you don't need to pass legislation to push this conversion.  Natural gas has plummetted so much in price that you can buy the same amount of heating for one quarter the price of oil. Economics took care of this one for you.

Big oil funds AGW. There is a lot to be made, just ask BP and Shell in particular. Appart from Government handouts, they put more money in to this than Google.

Other than being utterly disruptive.

Your invective adds nothing to the discussion.

Come with facts and truthful discussion, then you will contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Are you so fearful that truthful engagement will highlight the absurdity of your perspective?

Kayla is responding to a comment that highlights Larry T's language and hypocrisy of it.  Are Kayla and Larry T the same?

Yes, over the Earth's billions of years, we have been warmer and colder. However, the scientific record does not support that we have been warmer during the development of human civilization (e.g., in 'history' as opposed to pre-history).  We are going into uncharted territory in terms of the human species.

Each decade that passes has been warmer than the preceding decade for those 30 years (plus). Hottest 10 years in the modern temperature record are all since 1998 (and 1998 is roughly 3rd or 4th in that 10).  Your assertion is that the PDO explains everything?

Not really. Such short term trends are meaningless in the big picture. Put any 30 year or even 100 year trend in the context of the ice core data rollercoaster and that becomes clear as a bell.

This will become more blindingly obvious if we are entering into another cooling trend as some suggest. If so the AGW supporters will be explaining that short term trends don't matter.

Then in the next warming phase they will say they do matter again.

See. Its a cycle.

Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of "wealth redistribution".
On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing.
The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun….
This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option.
After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming......the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc.
In 1992 Al Gore said that "the time for a debate is over, the science is settled".....
This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled.
Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy.
If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.
I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin.
When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him...in the end he was right and they were wrong.
When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy...but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong.
After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the "scientists" noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to "Climate Change", just in case, to have all possibilities covered.
Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud.
People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused.
Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years.
There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam.
All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

That statement is only true if you ignore the Medieval Warming Period.

... both of which were global phenomena, not "North Atlantic" anomalies.   You have been taken in by pseudoscientific rubbish.

Your argument of warmist ever relies on the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick being an accurate representation of recorded history. If you use the temperature graph (from 900AD to 1900 AD) in IPCC 1990 as a more accurate historical representationyou can readily show most of the warming (except for ~0.3 degrees) during the 1900 to 2000 was entirely NON CO2 in origin. Heck, using that graph it even shows a degree or so of cooling starting at ~2000 and continuing thru 2100.

Read about the little ice age.
Google it while you can - before they prevent any responses for that search.

Now ask yourself "Why do all of the AGW "Prove"
that there is global warming by explaining that the temperature has risen X.X
degrees since 1850?"

Is it just a coincidence that the end of the Little Ice Age
is the beginning of their data on how the global temperature has warmed?

Why do the rarely (almost never) show any temperature charts
or graphs before 1850?

Why do they deny the Medieval Warming Period?

I watched a NatGeo film on the recovery of Vikings buried
during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) from the permafrost. (This show
indicated how warm it was then, and that is why they settled there.) If there was no MWP - How did they bury them more than 5 ft deep in dirt that was as hard as solid ice. No one digs in
Alaska in the winter (they can and occasionally do but they have to heat the
ground for a week or so and then only get down a few feet). So how did the Vikings
do it with wooden shovels in frozen ice? There would be traces of a fire if they had
burnt wood, dug, burnt wood, dug, etc. and this was not mentioned in the film.
Besides there was not that much wood to waste that way!

They need to convince people there was no MWP because all
SCIENTIFIC DATA shows that it was 2 to 4 degrees warmer in the MWP than their
doomsday prediction from CO2!

It is your post that must be a BOT.

Thank you for your excellent contribution to this thread. This explains SOOOOOOOO much!

The comments here from climate change deniers is frightening. I applaud Google's efforts, while at the same time am concerned they are doomed. The article's premise that the public and politicians are uninformed is only half-true... The public is generally being misled by politicians who fully understand global warming is a real and human-caused phenomenon, but because they are beholden to the businesses that profit from producing greenhouse gasses, they lie. No amount of training scientists will overcome the powerful monetary inducement that causes right-wing politicians to falsely decry climate change science. And while gullible, selfish right-winger masses listen to climate change denials from their politicians, we'll continue to have this frustrating and pointless debate about whether or not this very real preblem exists - let alone what we should do about it.

What is the proper temperature of the earth? How did the previous Ice Ages come and go before man, cars, factories, etc? Why have the last few years been so cold in North America and Europe? When the global warming believers can answer these questions we might have a starting point.

The cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be passed on to the consumer -- everyone will pay.  It's going to increase prices of goods for everyone, it's not going to take away any profits from business.  Saying that business profit is the motive for being against carbon dioxide regulation is ridiculous.  In fact, many businesses support carbon dioxide regulation because they stand to massively profit from it, like renewable energy companies, wall street firms that stand to earn trillions (with a capital T) from cap and trade, and other politically powerful companies like GE who will arrange sweetheart deals to get emissions exemptions for their own business, at the expensive of their competitors.  Then of course the scientists themselves have a profit motive for promoting the AGW scare -- their salary is directly dependent on it, which represents a huge conflict of interest.

Besides that, the real problem is China and India.  Unless you can convince them to stop emitting carbon dioxide too, any emissions savings here will simply result in production being shifted to those and other third world countries.  And they've said they have no plans to stop.  First, give us a plan to stop China from emitting (and having us go off the economic cliff first to show them it might not be so bad is not a "plan").

The best you can do is throw up a drug-related insult?

Weak.

The vitriol and vehemence which your lot is spewing is frightening. Your children will inherit the world you're making now. The problem is, mine will also inherit the broken Earth you seem to have no problem ruining.

Have you no conscience or morals?

The instrument record tells us that since 1850 the world's climate has warmed by a little over 0.7°C  That works out to a climate sensitivity of 1.5° per doubling of CO2.  Furthermore, common sense tells us that not all of that is due to CO2.  Afterall, it has warmed and cooled before the current rise in CO2.  

In order to get to higher sensitivity numbers positive feedbacks to temperature increases are claimed.  It doesn't add up.  Relatively stable systems such as world wide climate maintain that stability through NEGATIVE, feedbacks.  If negative feedbacks weren't in operation, the world would either freeze or bake.   That hasn't happend and there isn't any reason to believe that it's going to happen now.

Bing is starting to look better all the time. And, as far as I know, Bill Gates is too smart to be an AGW clone and has devoted his philanthropy to real issues.

But who isn't playing nice with China these days? Follow the money. Great to see Government Motors and Government Electric providing so many jobs there. (sarc)

Just cancelled six gmail accounts - feels good.

It's very simple, none of the FACTS support any of their research or conclusions. Anything else you'd like to know?

You have a great deal of catching up to do.

Start at judithcurry.com.  The past two weeks have pretty much covered every topic you can name.

Your fears are unjustified. Most people who can ask a healthy question already understand this.

Please, catch up.

Two points:

1. Yes, they are hard working folks who will lose their well-paying job if they didn't investigate man-made global warming: that's how they get their money.

2. Government takeover of academic funding during the socialist period from the end of WWII 'til now. This has politicized science. The politicians and bureaucrats pay for the scientists to provide them with the answers they want. Scientists have become subservient to politicians and bureaucrats. That's wot went wrong.

As with everything Google, they are a propaganda machine to be feared and avoided. This incessant stubborn refusal to accept that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the greatest SCAM in world history is dangerous. These people need to be stopped at all costs. There are THOUSANDS of credible, educated and ethical scientists that have poked holes in every single aspect of the AGW SCAM. Is is a sad reflection on the stupidity of people in general that they can and will be manipulated by shallow and superficial attempts like this to brainwash them back in to believing this SCAM.

Good Luck World! We're up against Google now!

All that computing power - backed up by so little intelligence.

Says Higgins: ""The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."

The climate debate puts two groups of people against each other: the critical self-thinkers, and the authority-seekers.  The above statement is patently absurd for those able to analyse things and determine their essential bits.

It is true for those who think that all information is equally essential, and that long study is required to get a grip on the subject. The first is about certainty of general principles, the second, certainty of detail.

Climate skeptics rightfully recognize that the CAGW case relies on only a few points:

1) that a SIGNIFICANT rise in world temperatures has occurred since 1850,

2) that the rise is UNIQUE to the post-1850 period in magnitude and style of rise,

3) that the co-committant rise in temperatures is linked in a CAUSITIVE WAY physically to CO2 increases as measured,

4) that the CO2 increases in magnitude and style of rise are ATTRIBUTABLE to fossil fuel burning, i.e. mostly anthropogenic in origin,

5) that the CO2-temperature rise linkage will increase the surface of the world to a SIGNIFCANT level at a SIGNIFICANT rate, such that

6) the effect of the temperature (and CO2) rise will be, on the whole, DETRIMENTAL to the multitude of life on Earth.

7) that if any of the above 6 propositions can be determined to be untrue, CAGW is untrue, and AGW is either untrue or unimportant.

A critical thinker looking at the basis of the propositions knows that he can, with diligence and work, determine the certainty, if not the truth of each proposition; the self-confessing non-analytical, recognizing his inability to absorb and understand the detail required to make a determination, must place his confidence in the authority figure, whether in a lab coat like Mann or an Armani suit like Gore.

Almost all climate discussions are not about causes but about consequences.  They are also not about options except for one: stopping.  A look at the David Suzuki Foundation even briefly reveals not a moment about "if": all is about "what happens since";the DSF specifically does not take a stand on the truth, but only on what "peer-reviewed" work has revealed.

The DSF is a corporate example of the non-analytical authority-seeker, despite the attempt to clothe its leadership with the "Dr.", white-coat-of-science mantle. The skeptic is all about "truth", determining what is from what might be. The hallmark of the liberal eco-warmist is not truth, but "justice" or "fairness". Being "good to the planet/our children/the future" is a moral concern, of which the truth about one point - in this case CO2-induced detrimental planetary temperatures - is not terribly important.

There are many ways in which we can be truthful yet unjust or unfair, it would be said, ex. by saying someone knows eating DDT is harmful does not confer righteous innocence on the providers of DDT when someone does eat it. Even it's poisonous nature is not really important when moral values are involved: it might be poisonous, and any "right-thinking" person would stop a potential problem, not just an actual one.  Hence the Precautionary Principle.

The GOOGLE people, and the ones they supply with their info, are of the authority-seeking group.  They cannot be convinced with facts: the "issue" is greater than the facts to them, and largely irrelevant.  A small problem, or even a possible problem, demand similar treatment to an actual, large problem.  Morality or righteousness are not limited: a relative immorality is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "somewhat damaged" planet Earth, or an "acceptably compromised" environment, people or animal.  In a practical, analytical world, morality, damages and compromises do have meaning, largely defined in terms of effort and displaced income. Therein lies the intractable conflict.

GOOGLE will do what they will do, and warmist sympathizers will learn what they have already learned: something bad and confusing is happening, the certainty of which has been determined by others smarter than themselves.  It is up to the skeptics specifically and the critical self-thinkers in general to keep our lawmakers grounded in the realities, not just the costs or ideals involved.  We can be "good" and yet not be CAGW supporters.
One day - personally I estimate it to be 2015 - the disconnect between the CAGW meme and the "truth" will be too large to dismiss.  Then what is will replace what if.  Until then the GOOGLEs around us will have to be resisted knowing there is no defeat, only delay until the world sorts itself out.

The AGW conconclusion that only CO2 explains current warming relies ENTIRELY on the widely discredited Hockey Stick.

No, it doesn't.  It's relies on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we've been increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, and that the natural factors that can affect climate have not been acting in a way that can explain the recent warming.

Using that 1990 IPCC graph also indicates we should now be entering a cooling phase for the rest of this century.

Also false, where do you get that idea?

ANd guess what, it has been cooling for the past 10 yrs now.

Besides the fact that this is blatant cherry-picking (it's the long-term trends that are important, and they are robustly positive), it's also false.  The 2010 increase blew this already specious "skeptic" claim out of the water.  All global temp records now show a positive linear trend for the past decade.  See this graph.

I plotted it through the end of 2010 - sorry, the tabular data from woodfortrees.org did not have the most up-to-date datasets, but just for you I have gone and looked for them.  The March 2011 monthly means are obviously not out yet. HadCRUT has released up through January 2011 and the rest are available up through February. But plotting to the most recent available data does not change the facts that the trends are positive, and agree well between the different records (again, these are 12-month running temp anomaly means, with offset applied to account for the different baseline periods for HadCRUT and GISS):

What you are describing - looking for ways to make the trend negative - is a classic example of cherry-picking.  In 2009, and 2010, the "skeptics" often started their linear trendlines at 2001 (rather than 2000) to show the "decade of cooling".  Now that that no longer works, they're looking for new starting points to make the warming trend go away.  Like starting it at a peak that's way above the trendline, in 1998 (when the ENSO index was about twice as high as in 2010, and the second-strongest on record).  I notice that you didn't ask for the trend from a comparable El Niño in say, 1994-5 or 2007. Come on, man.

That La Niña/El Niño is responsible for a lot of the short-term variation around the trend is non-controversial.  However, what is important in the context of climate change is the long-term trend, and cherry-picking does not make that long-term positive trend go away.

do you realize how much good could have been done with all the money wasted on the AGW boogeyman?

clean drinking water for everyone on the planet is but one item.

Really, why does the CEO of a computer company choose to force his political and religious superstitions upon his customers; he will lose customers. He should stop dining with Al Gore.

OK SOme basic points:

1. Global planetary temperature is a meaningless measure - it's interesting to note that the most "warming" has occured in regions with the fewest thermometers.

2. CO2 is cool! It is plant food and essential to ALL LIFE on this planet.

3. Climate models do not do clouds well.

4. The argument from ignorance "The warming can't be due to anything we know of, therefore it must be due to human produced CO2" is, well, ignorant.

5. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%, of which, 5% is, contraversally attributed to humans. That is insignificant. The planet Mars contains 15 times the amount of CO2 than the Earth does, so don't go quoting Venus.

Dr Roy Spencer (drroyspencer.com) tends to think clouds are a net negative feedback.

Spencer: "The “best fit” I got after about an hour of fiddling around with the inputs is represented by the blue curve in the above chart. Importantly, the assumed feedback parameter (5.5) is solidly in “negative feedback” territory. IF this was the true feedback operating in the real climate system on the long time scales of ‘global warming’, it would mean that our worries over anthropogenic global warming have been, for all practical purposes, a false alarm."

One would naturally assume until proven otherwise that there would be predominantly negative feedbacks in a system that is stable. Afterall, positive feedback systems tend to quickly end up at one extreme or the other. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable. This doesn't prove CO2 does not lead to positive feedbacks and catastrophe, but certainly are going to need some real proof to show otherwise.

So Google is going to jump into the Global Warming fray?  That is all well and good, so long as Google is not just jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, and blindly taking the word of the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, and Michael Mann.  We sure don't need another biased group, parroting positions for political-gains, notoriety, and/or financial gains.

Perhaps Google with all its search capabilities, and computing powers can do some serious data mining to separate mere claims from actual science.  The last thing that is needed is more "rubber-stamping", F.U.D. declaring, like we already have with media outlets looking to sell copies.

Perhaps, Google can also show who (as in Scientists) are basing their positions on proven science vs. merely using Global Warming as a means to gain funding for job security, pay, and financing of new equipment/tools (aka toys).

In short, Google could really help, assuming it enters into the fray, unbiased, open-minded, demands statements are back by real science and facts; and does take the word of people or organizations based on "majority vote" or "the in thing" science or the all to abused "peer-review" articles <i>(you review mine, I'll review yours, and we both agree each is right)</i>.

Follow the money trail. The Google boses have made a bet on the economy, and invested there money in Green Tech. They stand to lose a fortune if belief in AGW at the Government level collapses, and the Government subsidies are withdrawn. Look at Al Gore's almost palpable fury when the Chicago Carbon exchange collapsed with nearly a billion in profits up in smoke. (Read up on which Leading US polititian had a large part in setting it up - conflict of interest in US politics seems to be a problem).

So expect Google exec's to spend a lot of money on AGW, it is in there financial best interests. And yes, you can search for this on Google and read about it.

So follow the money people.

That and ideology is what it is all about,

On the one hand we have educated scientists, working at places like NASA, studying the science and confirming what should be common sense: that when we put the carbon back into the atmosphere that was there eons ago, the temperature on the planet will go up like it was eons ago.

On the other hand, we have uneducated media clowns like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, who are obviously progaganda agents for the interests of big business, assuring us that the guys with the PhDs are wrong.

And the punchline is the anti-intellectuals, who choose to believe their uneducated, anti-intellectual heros.  Not only do they reject climate science, half of them think the earth is only 6000 years old, and that humans cavorted with dinosaurs.  In that, they reject the sciences of geology, paleontology, genetics, evolutionary biology..  Its time to take America back from the those who distrust science; who try to make villians of the educated and heros of the ignorant.  Let the rightwing nutjobs stand on a hill and wait for jesus to return.  We need to get the republicans out of office so that educated people grounded in reality can solve serious problems.

"should I take, therefore, your words as "a clear sign of losing"."

The comment to which you were referring was truly hypocritical. But for a moment I thought it was going to be a "warmist" attack on skepticism. It is frustrating and ridiculous how low the 'debate' has sunk. Both sides are mightily culpable.

"I would be thrilled if you could demonstrate that the Theory of Global Warming is wrong. To date, there is no other explanative discussion that meets what is going on in the real world."

That doesn't mean there isn't one. Sometimes the only honest answer is "we don't know". What really grates on me is:

- the insularity americans have on this argument. It is divided along political boundaries which don't exist in other countries. I am pretty skeptical, but I am pretty left wing in my politics. If I were in the US I would likely vote democrat. There is a presumption that skepticism is entirely political in its motivation but I can assure you that is a uniquely american phenomena.

- the presumption that skepticism equates to ignorance of the science. I was very much a 'believer' until I started to investigate the science (in fact to counter arguments from my skeptical retired engineer father). It turns out to be the opposite - the more you look into it the more you realise that the science really does not support CAGW.

The are other competing hypotheses as to what has influenced our climate. Some of them are just as plausible if not more so as the feedback mechanisms required for CO2 emissions to have a dangerous effect on climate.

The main reason why the "Theory of Global Warming" as you put it is wrong is because observation does not fit with the theory. For CO2 forcing to be dangerous, climate sensitivity must be high - higher than natural forcings. But over the last decade there has been no warming and in fact even a slight cooling, yet CO2 levels have continued to increase. That means that natural variability is more dominant. Just because it is not understood exactly what causes the warming (and not warming and sometimes cooling) does not mean it is by default CO2. For the 'alarming' theory (ie CAGW) to be correct, we most certainly cannot have had a decade of no further warming while CO2 was increasing. Since we didn't the theory has been falsified. There are other reasons why the theory is doubtful - but that one alone quite sufficient.

Other science investigating the influences on our climate variability are concerned that we may actually be entering a cooling phase. Cooling is not good. Cooling means shorter growing seasons during a period where the worlds population is going to reach its maximum. The extra CO2 we are producing ironically may be beneficial; both warming us a little (but less than we have been led to believe) and providing fertilizer for plants. What's dangerous about getting the science wrong on global warming is that the policy decisions such as bio-fules (because they are considered carbon neutral) during a period where we are cooling and the attendant reduction in crop yeilds is potentially much more harmful than any imagined consequence of warming.

They are bringing in scientests, not marketing people.  I think you are thinking of Fox "News".

You have no clue,most have no credentials in climate.What does politics have to do with science.Check the facts climate change  man made is a fraud.

[A]ll predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

-Freeman Dyson

Open letter to Al Gore

 Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of "wealth redistribution". On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing. The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun…. This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option. After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming......the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc. In 1992 Al Gore said that "the time for a debate is over, the science is settled"..... This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled. Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy. If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right. I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin. When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him...in the end he was right and they were wrong. When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy...but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong. After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the "scientists" noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to "Climate Change", just in case, to have all possibilities covered. Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud. People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused. Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years. There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam. All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

Can it be true that Google are actively supporting the discredited notion that CO2 emissions are causing global warming to a dangerous extent? Will my searches on global warming now be biased towards the Google preferred sites?

If Google are supporting the AGW notion then they should also have the same funding put towards finding the truth on AGW. That is, no significant global warming for the last fifteen years, increasing Antarctic ice levels over the past century - not melting, sea level rise now at 3mm a year as it was over the same period, no Himalayan glacier melting, and that we are at a 30 year low for tropical hurricane strength. No cause for alarm if you look at the facts and the science.

However, I suspect that this is not relevant to Google who have other agenda.

If Google persist in this stance, Google will not be my searcch engine, because I can no longer rely on them. Once lost, trust is difficult to get back.

I too am switching to BING

You said it!

But how many of the petition-signers are actually scientists in related fields?  And what percentage of the total number of scientists in the word does 30,000 make (hint: very small)?

On the other hand, a recent survey found that 97.5% of climate researchers who were actively publishing in that field agree that humans are significantly contributing to global climate change:

Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Yes, I have no doubt that public opinion is continuing to diverge from the views of scientists who work in that field.   The "skeptic" community is much more effective at communicating its message (which is inherently more appealing, in any case).   Although frankly, the "thinking about what is said in the news" part confounds the issue somewhat, at least for me.  Mainstream science journalism is notoriously bad, and they tend to exaggerate pretty much everything - something I've run into in my own field.

I would hardly expect them to say otherwise, as their access to publication might be affected of they do not follow the orthodoxy.

What's that about 87.6% of statistics being made up?

A classic case of "poisoning the well."  It's very convenient to your point of view, when you can dismiss the opinions of hundreds of qualified researchers in one fell sweep like that.

And why did the survery question not ask "Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant controlling factor affecting climate change and is likely to lead to catastrophic warming and death of billions of people if we don't cut CO2 production drastically before 2050?"

Afterall, that is what they are using the results of the survey to insinuate.

There are lots of things that may have an effect of climate, including deforestation, land use, soot as well as CO2. Even if CO2 is only causing 0.3 degrees of warming, most scientists would claim that it is "significant".

Ha, I thought at first the list of associations whose members supported the political statements of their politically appointed representatives was not displaying properly. But then I realized that it was. So sad.

Selecting images - GOOGLE "submarine north pole" Look through the the hundreds with OPEN water and the date many in the 50's and 60's. Look at the thickness of ice in those with no open water.  Compare this with the propaganda that the ice is melting and ther will soon be no ice at the north pole!

Since the earth has warmed considerably since 1970, it should absolutely come as no shock that the ice area has decreased as well. Ice has gone up and down in substantial amounts even in one persons lifetime. You can find all kinds of evidence in history of vast differences in ice cover. However, now that the earth is once again entering a cooling phase, you will see ice coverage once again increasing in area within a few years time. (Because the earth is still relatively warm.. ie still close to its peak temperature of the past 40 years it would not be unreasonable to expect ice coverage to still be decreasing for another few years).

When it warms, ice might melt.  No one is saying that no warming has occurred.  How much and why is the question.  Skeptics are always accused of denying warming, which is just another falsehood spouted by the warmists.

The amount of ice that is melting now seems like alot, but as a percent of the total mass of ice, I don't believe it is all that much.  I saw some figures some time ago that indicated it is only a tiny fraction of the ice, esp. in Antarctica.  Sorry, don't have the numbers handy, but I'm not applying for peer review so I'm willing to let it go this time.

The assumption that there is something different going on now than in th past is a stretch.  Since the earth has been warming and glaciers melting since the end of the Little Ice Age, I suspect that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of what was happening naturally.  To argue otherwise requires making the assumption that all warming is due to CO2, but that is anti-scientific so we don't do that, do we? 

I don't have data on the extent of Arctic ice during the MWP, or the Roman Warm Period, but would be willing to bet that there was even less than today.  Romans must have burned a lot of coal!!

Questions.  I saw a picture of a submarine surfaced at the North Pole, dated 1964.  Very little ice.  No satellites then, so no record of true extent.  Might ocean currents have at least as much to do with ice cover and therefore air temperatures as general warming?  Is the cause of warmer Arctic air really due to the reduced ice rather than the other way around?  Open water in the Arctic is known to raise air temperatures.  This fits in well with the fact that global average ocean temperatures are falling (warmer Arctic in winter, more heat lost to space). Some negative feedback by mother earth?  Also in play, reflected heat is up, highest in the record apparently (short record).  Is low cloud cover up, increasing reflection and reducing net warming from the nuclear furnace.  More negative feedback?

See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatu...

Other sources point to lower heat figures (black line) and a non-rising pattern after corrections for instrumentation bias were taken into account. Did you know about those?

A closer interpretation may even show a cooling of the oceans.....

From Loehle, C. 2009. Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003. Energy & Environment 20:99-102.

Sailrick said:

' This winter, the Arctic had really warm temperatures, the kind unheard of in generations of native people. '

And you were saying WHAT exactly, in regards to anecdotal evidence ?

And by the way, the RCMP St Roch sailed the Northwest Passage.....in 1942. And it completed the journey in both directions.

http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm

Problem is models say the troposphere should be warming a lot faster than it actually is, and that it should be warming faster than the surface. Something is obviously wrong with the model.

Why stop at 2006. Look at how well the troposphere temps match the models all the way up to 2011 (drroyspencer.com and the warming expected from average of IPCC models http:///www.climateaudit.org). The divergence is getting worse and worse as time goes on. Better scream louder because your ship is sinking.

I agree that long term trends are the more relevant. The troposphere is currently only 0.1C warmer now (2011) than it was at this time in 1980. According to the average of the computer models its supposed to be at least 1C warmer already. It would definitely appear that the actual warming rate is well below model predictions.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

Abstract

"Some important recent findings in climate studies
are the warming trend in the troposphere and the
cooling trend in the stratosphere. However, the evidence
for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere
is slightly warming since 1996."

Stratosphere is supposed to be cooling, and it was following the models nicely for a while up until 2006 but then it switched from cooling to warming.

If the recovery of ozone is used to explain the recent warming.. then couldn't the loss of ozone be used to explain the cooling?

Also, sorry bout the missed reference you requested. I provided it and clicked submit but it didn't appear, Ill provide it again shortly.

Reference is Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

"...models show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39°C/decade."

Thus I would expect something on the order of 1C increase since 1980 would be consistent with the model.

Also from same Wiki reference:

"GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends are +0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively"

"lower troposphere trends calculated from satellite data by UAH and RSS are +0.140 °C/decade[40] and +0.148 °C/decade".[41]

According to models Troposphere temperatures are supposed to be increasing faster than surface temperatures, not the other way around.

Quite surprised at the many negative comments. Perhaps there is hope for our society after all. AGW politics, like most socialist derivations, will enrich the few at the top, while causing harm to many at the bottom. It's heartening to read that many are recognizing just how wrong this all is.

Bing has now become my search engine of choice. ByeBye GooGoo. 

The whole premise that the 20th century warming cannot be explained by natural causes rests solely on the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick temperature construction being correct.

No, you're mistaken about that.  Climate change researchers do not assume that climate chnage hasn't happened in the past, nor that ONLY carbon dioxide affects climate.  It can't be explained by natural causes because scientists have observed the natural causes of climate change, and they have not been acting in a way that can explain the recent warming trend.

Guys, I'm sorry, but the "hocky stick" graph is not that important.  It's funny, I don't run into this claim on other sites that much, but it's shown up a good half-dozen times here.  It doesn't matter which reconstruction you use, they all show that the global temp trend has been robustly positive since the 1980s.  Meanwhile the natural forcings have not been increasing over that time period. 

Of course, other natural forcings have been responsible for climate variation in the past.  But there aren't any that explain the warming of the last few decades.

I'm not saying that the "hockey stick" graph is bad, but it's not what AGW attributions are based on.  It's a just a summary graph to communicate a single point, that the recent warming is remarkable in the context of the past 1K years.  

That the warming of the last few decades is attributed to human effects is not based on simple extrapolation or line-fitting (like your "model" based on the 1990 IPCC graph), but on a mechanistic understanding of the natural forcings and feedback that affect climate, and observations which indicate that they have not been acting in a way that can explain the warming trend, which is consistent with what would be expected from the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Love or hate the "hockey stick", I don't particularly care, and it's a topic unto itself.  But the important thing to understand is that attribution of recent trends AGW is not based on that graph.

Then what graph do you use to show what your background (ie natural) temperature variations are and therefore current warming trends are not likely to be of natural origin?

Again, that isn't quite how attribution works.  You don't just look at a graph of past variation, and see whether the current temperature trend resembles trends in the past, because there are many factors that can be (and have been) influences on global climate.  The issue is, what factors are at play now? 

What you have to do is look at how the natural forcings are behaving in the period in question (the last few decades).  Physically speaking, can one account for the current warming trend based on them?  In this case, no - based on measurements and observations, there are no natural forcings that have been increasing in the past few decades in a way that can explain the warming trend during that time.  You can't explain it mechanistically without including the effects of human effects such as the increase in CO2.

If you're asking how they develop their models for how each of these forcings and feedbacks interact to affect climate, that's a complicated topic - but it's not based on the hockey stick graph, either.

AGW supporters maintain the Hockey Stick (or a hockey stick clone) is their basis for saying the current warming is unprecedented.

I think the above statement is a correct one, that's the main way that graph is used, to claim that the current trend is unprecendented in the last 1,000 years.  I personally don't think that's a very important point, because we know that climate has seen much greater changes in the more distant past.  In terms of temperature, we're not even yet above the natural range of variation seen in previous interglacials according to the ice cores (although we're way above the previous range of CO2). 

Alright... you agree then the Hockey Stick Graph is not good. Excellent, what graph do you want to use then that shows the natural temperature cycles for the past 1000 years? You must have some graph that shows the natural temperature variations before you can even begin to say with any confidence what is natural temperature rise and what is not. Since I don't believe in the Hockey Stick graph either, I chose the one the AGW people came up with in 1990 and published in the IPCC report. Using that 1990 graph as the source for natural variation for the past 1000 yrs... well you know the rest of the story.

What the AGW scientists would have us believe is that Earth's temperature for the past 1000 years has been almost flat with a very slow cooling trend up until the 1900's (ala Hockey Stick graph). The only way one can account for the "blade" on the reconstruction is by invoking CO2 induced warming. This graph has been shown to be fraudulent yet the warmists still rely on it.

On the other-hand, by using the pre Hockey Stick reconstruction (1990 IPCC version), which shows significant ups (MWP) and downs (LIA) in the global temperature (naturally caused) it is simple to show that most of the current warming (except ~0.3 degrees) is entirely of natural origin.

Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many of you with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.

These 32 conservative think tanks have all been involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.  And they are the vehicle the fossil fuel industry uses to "wipe the oil?" off the money.  It's how the handful of contrarian scientists are funded.   After at least 4,000 hours spent studying this subject and reading probably at least 4,000 articles, mostly written by scientists, I still haven't heard of a well known skeptic scientist  who is not funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation


# 5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers and they have their fingers in several others.

#24 is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News features as a climate change expert.  He has no science training, but is a professional PR man and a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests. 

So, any organization that opined that people should have a right to decide for themselves whether to smoke and die of cancer, or stop, must be corrupted and inherenly wrong in any and all things?  You warmists sure like to make assumptions. 

You really need to reference your sources on this one.  I am really, really skeptical about your claim. 

Warmists also like to imply that anyone accepting money from almost any source other than a government is necessarily corrupted.  It would be easier to make the conclusion that any organization funded by government is far more corrupt.  NPR comes to mind.  When was the last time our Federal Government funded reasearch specifically to falsify AGW, and how much did they spend?  When was the last time they funded research to further the claim of AGW?  How much did they spend?

sailrick said:

' Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many of you with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.'

Hang on here - I thought the 'science was settled' 25 years ago ? What the ???

Funny, because I just looked at the paper you cited (Jevrejeva et al. 2008), and it does not support your claim.  In fact, they show that the rate of sea level rise has not been constant, and in the long term has been increasing:

The conclusions of the article are not that sea level rise is unrelated AGW, but that the IPCC estimates of projected sea level rise in response to temperature "are probably too low."

Warmists would have you believe the rate is increasing exponentially again from here to 2100 in order to get their 1meter rise by 2100. Unfortunately for them, the curve is bending down instead of up.

As you can clearly see from both the Jevrejeva et al. graph and the one you linked, there has always been variation around the trend, and given that the global temp was below the trend from 2005 to 2009, it's not surprising that the global sea level rise followed suit.  But in both cases, it is the long-term trends that are important, not cherry-picked periods of a few years.

And again, climate researchers do not think that there has never been natural variation.  That the current temperature trends of the past few decades are largely attributed to human effects is not an assumption, but a conclusion from the study of natural and anthropogenic factors that can affect climate.

I find it enormously troubling that Google is setting itself up to decide what the correct answer about what if any policy should be pursued regarding concerns about climate change. 

This is like the librarian emptying the stacks of only some books in order to correct the message the library communicates.

It makes it hard for me to trust Google as a resource for indexing and discovering facts.

a)it got warmer for a while but there has been no warming for the past 15 years.

Aside from the fact that this is an example of specious cherry-picking, it's also simply false.  All global temperature records (both surface and satellite) show a positive trend for the past 15 years.  See this graph.

b)it gets warmer, it gets colder, look at the ice core data.  Who cares

Yes, and based on our scientific understanding of the natural causes of climate changes such as those seen in the ice core data, the current warming trend is largely human-caused. Milankovitch cycles are thought to be important drivers of things like the glacial/interglacial changes of the Quaternary. However, the current phase of those cycles can't explain the recent warming - nor are they expected to cause a glacial period for another 20-50,000 years, due to the current minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit (and comparisons with similar interglacial periods seen in the ice core records). See Berger and Loutre (2002), and EPICA community members (2004).

c) even if you think it is still getting warmer, and you go even further and you think that CO2 is causing it to get warmer, there is nothing to be done but adapt.  If you think that billions of people in India and China moving into the middle classs are going to forgo air conditioning and refrigeration you are wrong.  If you think that some magic tech is going to create energy without CO2 you are wrong.  Do the math.

We do have technology that creates usable energy without CO2 emissions, and although it's remarkable, there's no magic involved.  Fossil fuels are likely to continue to increase in scarcity and price (which will affect developing nations disproportionately), so we're going to have to make the transition away from them sooner or later.  It would be wise to do so ahead of the need, rather than in response to it.

d) Again, who cares.  I am all for people cleaning up after themselves but CO2 is small beer.  I do not think we can put a giant theromstat in the sky and set the planet temperature to 25C.  Think in the long term of 500 or a 1000 years.  When ( in north america) mammoth mountain or yellowstone blows or the new madrid pops all of north america will be completely changed, (in a bad way).  Similar stuff elsewhere.  foolish to think we can control the planet.  Relax and enjoy the ride.

We can't control everything, but we can control our own behavior.  It may be thousands of years before we would see major climate change from natural causes.  I think it makes sense to give our civilization that time to develop and prepare, rather than rushing headlong with our eyes closed.

The propaganda that many of you talk about is not what you think.  Or I should say, it is what you think, spoon fed to you by the conservative think tanks, that are just industry front groups who always oppose environmental protection, based on their free market- no regulation ideology.

 You see, the real scam is very well documented and detailed.  The denier conspiracy theories are absurd and based on complete conjecture.   How can a rational person believe the whole world scientific community is involved in a hoax, scam or political agenda like world wide socialism?  And they call the climate scientists alarmist.  Wow!

Anyone who really wants to know whats going on with the so called climate change debate, should read these books. 

"Climate Cover-Up": The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"
by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change"
by Clive Hamilton
He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science.

"Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate"
by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery

"The Boiling Point"  and  "The Heat Is On"   by Ross Gelbspan

In these books you'll learn, that if you like scientist who can be counted on to support industry against environmental action, on issue ranging from acid rain, asbestos, tobacco, CFCs, DDT, to global warming;  then you're looking for the likes of Fred Singer, a favorite among climate change deniers. 

Here's some denier logic for you. 

In Febuary 2010, when the lower 48 had a lot of snow and two big snowstorms hit Wash.DC, Republicans were all claiming it proved global warming was over.
Calls to take away Al Gore's Nobel Pize were common. Global warming denier fanatic, Senator Inhofe, talked about making an igloo for Gore in Wash DC.
Other GOP politicians, Glen Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of the extreme right misinformers all jumped on this bandwagon.


And here are the actual facts; Remember we are talking global temps, not the temp at your house.

The past 15 months were the warmest on record (through July 2010)

4th warmest January since 1830.

April was the warmest on record.

Jan-March was the warmest on record

Nov- January was the warmest on record

One of the storms hit on Feb 6, the warmest Feb 6 on record

It snows more during warm winters, because warm air holds more moisture.

It was too warm in Vancouver(55F), where the Olympics were held. No snow.

Vermont had no snow.

No one said global warming eliminates winter. It snows in winter. Duh

This snow was a few days in one region, and is local weather variability, not long term global climate. The U.S. only represents about 2.5% of global land mass.

Climate scientists only say the earth has warmed about 1.4 deg F in industrial times. They didn't say it would be 10 degrees warmer at your house this winter.

Yet that 1.4 F change is enough to melt the glaciers, the polar ice caps, change the arrival time of spring and fall, cause sea level rise, acidify the oceans, screw up the migrating, feeding and breeding of many species because of the timing of spring etc. It is likely a contributor to beetle infestations plaguing temperate conifer forests.

"The Global Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change could not be refuted."

"That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that:
"
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."

"When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record."

http://www.desmogblog.com/when-deniers-deny-their-own

It amazes me our upset people get, if the climate researchers and the countless scientific organizations that agree with the IPCC about AGW are wrong why has no one actually proved it. All I ever see are opinion websites that cherry pick data and say it is a global scam. Well prove it, show us the data in a peer reviewed article and hey guess what, that person will become a world famous hero and win a noble prize. I mean it has been at least a couple of decades and still no scientific proof the climate scientists working in the field are wrong. Why has no one stepped up to the plate? Just the same old bogus arguments/opinions which never, ever, stand up to decent analysis.
And you talk about the money, gees how much money behind fossil fuels.
By the way nice move Google, especially as you are using a team of 21 climate researchers.
I expect the usual links to opinion websites and so called experts who put their opinions in books but can they back it up with scientific articles (that don't get ripped apart by scientists who actually know what they are talking about) ........ no. Umm why not?

Ex-Enviro, there is ample evidence in support of AGW theory.  We have evidence supporting these statements:

• That CO2 is a greenhouse gas
• That human activity is dramatically increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
• That average global temperatures have been increasing in recent decades
• That this recent temperature trend cannot be explained by the natural forcings which can also affect climate, such as variations in solar inputs (which have not been increasing)
• That the temperature trend is consistent with what would be expected with the observed rise in CO2.

Thus what is being requested is the evidence that refutes these observations and falsifies the theory.  I'd be happy to go into the evidence that supports them with you.

- It has indeed been shown that natural forces can account for the variation in temperature (warming as well as the current cool spell).

Where and by whom has this been shown?

- The temperature trend since 1998 is certainly NOT consistent with the IPCC's projections in 2007.

Ah, I smell cherry-picking at work.  Did you pick 1998 as your new starting point because it was a spike above the overall trend?   I hope that's not the case, because it would be horribly dishonest. 

- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effect on temperature is logarithmic (i.e. each unit increase in CO2 causes less warming than the previous unit increase).

Yes, which is exactly how it is modeled by climate researchers.

- There's plenty of empirical evidence to show that CO2 change follows, not leads, temperature increase.

Well, it DID, in the glacial/interglacial changes seen in the ice core records.  During those time periods, CO2 is understood as a feedback that magnified the effects of natural forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, rather than a primary cause of climate change.  But that's no longer the case, now that we are directly increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

- Warm ocean surface water absorb less CO2, meaning more remain ins in the atmosphere, therefore elevated CO2 is partly due to warmer ocean surface, not the other way around.

Yes, warmer water will absorb less of the additional CO2, but at this point it is still acting as a net sink for our human sources of CO2 - that's largely why atmospheric CO2 has risen at a rate of about 2 ppm/year, about half of what we've been releasing.

Hi Ex-Enviro,

Millions of species presently thrive on the planet. If rising CO2 can only be a positive feedback and it has been determined there are no checks and balances within the system (which seems to be your position), then what repeatedly caused temps and CO2 levels to drop after rising so dramatically, throught the millenium?

I don't think you've accurately characterized my position.  The theory of climate change through the Quaternary glacial/interglacial changes, to simplify and generalize greatly, is that variations in earth's orbit around the sun (the Milankovitch cycles) triggered changes in temperature, which were then greatly magnified by the feedback response of CO2. 

Contrary to what you said above, this CO2 feedback can be both negative and positive, in response to negative or positive primary forcings.  That is to say, if the Milankovitch phase started a cooling trend, CO2 would tend to decrease, thus magnifying that negative effect.  It takes CO2 a long time to reach its equilibrium response, so we see lags of centuries in the ice core.  The same thing can happen (both negative and positive) with the water vapor feedback, but due to the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere, it reaches its equilibrium response much more rapidly.

And after all that, why do you believe that man's puny (compared to historic periods of intense volcanic activity, where ppm's were much, much higher than today) CO2 contribution poses a threat which this old earth has proven to be more than apt at dealing with ?

This is a great question, and an important point to bring up.  The earth will certainly go on even in the worst-case warming scenario, and life on it will continue, albeit with the likely loss of many species.  As an optimistic type, I'd even say that humans as a species would probably survive and adapt to the worst-case AGW scenario. 

In my view, the concern over CO2 is not based on the desire to preserve current conditions as some sort of "optimum", but rather the desire to avoid causing rapid change.  Major, relatively rapid climate change is likely to have many direct and indirect effects on our economic and agricultural systems.  I think it's fair to say that any major, rapid change tends to be disruptive to those systems.  The earth's climate is likely to change on its own eventually, but I'd rather give us a few thousand years to develop and prepare, rather than rushing into it headlong.

why the fuss said:

' Why oh why do so many science organisations (Someone has already given a list in this blog) support climate change?'

List a single scientific organization which polled its entire membership, in order to determine wording for a public position paper on CAGW.

This premise relies on the thoroughly and completely discredited Hockey Stick temperarture reconstruction being correct.

No, it doesn't.   I don't know why the "skeptics" on this particular site keep bringing it up, it's only one of many global temperature reconstructions, and they all support my point.

If instead of the fraudulent Hockey Stick reco you use the reconstruction from the IPCC 1990 report, you can readily show all but about 0.3 degrees of warming in the 1900s is due purely to natural causes.

Yes, up until about the 1980s, much of the variation can be explained by natural causes.  However, since that time, the temperature trend has strongly diverged from such natural forcings as variations in solar inputs.  Temperature has showed an upward trend no matter which record you look at, while natural forcings such as TSI (total solar irradiance) have not been increasing.  See this graph (data are 12-month running means for both global temp anomaly and PMOD composite TSI).

Using this early reconstruction, it would also predict cooling starting just after the year 2000 and continued cooling (~1 degree) the rest of this century.

I'd love to hear how you come up with that conclusion.

In other words, that prediction is based on a "model" that is completely lacking in any mechanistic basis.  That is to say, no basis in cause and effect from the natural or man-made forcings and feedbacks that cause climate changes.  And thus there is no reason (let alone a "very good" one) to think that it will work at all.

Nonsense, the models are evidence-based.  Your "model" is completely subjective and lacking in any predictive or explanatory power.

Speaking as a scientist, once one observes a trend, it's not sufficient to characterize that trend mathematically.  In order to have predictive and explanatory power, you have to be able to characterize it mechanistically - that is, you have to explain why the observations occur in the pattern(s) that they do.  That's what's missing in your "model".

The model I proposed above is completely evidence based and free of any preconceived (explanatory power) Once you have the data then as a scientist you propose a model that explains the data... and then look for new data especially data that might prove it wrong, not discard all data that doesn't agree with the model.

I'm not so sure Bing is the way to go .

For instance The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a funding partner of The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), which on the face of it is very worthy. But dig a bit deeper and you find that CIFF is a funding partner for The European Climate Foundation, a pro AGW alarmist think tank that aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions.

I've read some of the other comments on here whinging about about big oil funded think tanks. However the real money is with the alarmists. For instance two organisations, The Seachange Foundation and Climate Works each have a pot of over $1 billion to promote the AGW cause. Others include The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Schmidt Family Foundation, The Oak Foundation, Arcadia Fund.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism is where the really big money is at.

Google, a public corporation with shareholders, takes sides in a scientific debate and intervenes in the political process.   So Google comes out of the closet as just another rent seeking corporation.  But actually they have been doing this for years via manipulation of their search algorithms.  Follow the money. 

Not a single Physics or Chemistry department is represented! How can this be, that disciplines with the best understanding of natural physical processes are excluded?

And, the list of fellows, that we are supposed to be so impressed with, shows names and institutions, but not research disciplines (hardly an example of better communication, Google!) - if you want to appeal to authority, at least show some!

Google should use its resources to promote better science, not better communication of a 'science' that is being increasingly scrutinised and shown to be flawed by experienced scientists and the public alike.

This initiative will be seen as partisan, and politically and financially motivated, by the growing numbers aware of the scientific counter-evidence in this heated debate. It is certainly not about science. Get a grip Google!

From the article:  "People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise.

Well now...  the skeptics should not have to DISPROVE the CO2-caused climate catastrophe theory; those who hold to the theory should have to PROVE it! -- before asking us to invest 100s of billions to prevent it.  Isn't that what the argument is about?  Yes, indeed:  there is an argument going on.  And there should be.

The good news is that every news article and blog you review regarding the Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM that allows comments always has the same pattern. Dozens if not hundreds of independent thinkers post credible objections/concerns and scientific proof for their beliefs, and then you have one or two AGW fanatics (sailrick?) who post comment after comment repeating the same discredited propaganda over and over. The are isolated and very alone in their devotion to this false religion and no proof will ever shake their belief. The whole world is turning away from this costly and dangerous SCAM and ethical scientists everywhere are beginning to take back the peer review process and demand accountability for all the lies and data manipulation. Belief in AGW will someday soon be recognized as a mental illness. Those who are not simply trying to gain money and power are in love with themselves and the idea that they are battling 'evil' people to 'save the world'. They think they are in a Star Wars episode and they are the good guys!!! LOL

Delusional!!! (see also...Superiority Complex, Superman Complex...)

Anonymous said:

' Sorry but considering how many countries and scientific organizations believe in climate change we are definitely not alone.'

In May 2010, an open letter endorsed by the membership of the National Academy of Sciences,  was sent to the Guardian in the UK claiming to represent the position of the 'membership', in regards to indescretions by fellow scientists (Climategate), and to reaffirm the 'consensus view' of the membership, in regards to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

FACT: 12.1% of the membership were Signatories to that letter

FACT: The top 7 fields of knowledge represented by those signatories, were fields unrelated to climate science. Geology and Geophysics came in 8th and 9th.

FACT: Only 26.7% of the signatories can be related, by kind criteria, to climate science. 87.9% of members didn't even sign the letter.

FACT: Not a single scientific organization has directly polled its entire membership in order to assemble a public position paper in regards to Anthropogenic Global Warming. By and large, they are assembled by a tiny number of elitists within each organization.

The null hypothesis is that the current temperature falls within natural variation.  Someone proposing a new theory such as AGW must DISPROVE the null not the other way around.

Google has been seen to be biased in the past. It is a huge financial corporation with a huge amount (through directors and associates) invested in the bet on an AGW panic. This means, if they do not like an answer then they will censor it. Has this happened before, sure, just google it. Now they are even more out in the open.

I will change search engines, avoid Android and not believe everything they say. Censorship is evil. Google is just "adjusting" the data to influence our thoughts.

Sorry, typo - 30 degrees should be 430 degrees. For some reason my cut-n-paste didn't work. It is correct in my MSWord doc. (and that is Celsius for the nit pickers.)

Please communicate the science, start with the scientific method, open source your data and methodology and then persuade all you want.Otherwise your fellows attempts to communicate anything at all will just be more noise and googles credibility will spiral.The message has been heard worldwide from IPCC team Climatology and you really do not want to go there again, the art of defending the indefensible being extremely deadly to how you are precieved by others. However I am very receptive to genuine science and would be most greatful if the google fellows would produce some. Especially some that is reproducable, maybe your money would be well spent if your fellows who seem a very clever bunch, would first review and math check the science they intend to communicate. Anyhow great plan google lots a luck with that propaganda effort and goodbye, I will use Bing for now.

When I looked at this blog yesterday (Saturday) there were no charts and graphs, but there are some now. It looks as if the AGW supporters have been prodded into action with the intensity of the scientific sceptical views expressed here.

I welcome this, as at last some of the warmists are responding not with the usual parrotted responses, ad hominem attacks, and quotes from authority figures, but are resorting to a semblance of scientific discourse.

I have replied with a few charts of my own, on ocean cooling and growing scepticism towards the AGW case.

Hi Edward, I've been here for the past two days, posting links to charts and literature references.  I'm used to discussing on Newsvine (which uses similar software but does not allow posting images), so I initially linked to the charts rather than displaying them. 

The  over $75 BILLION spent to promote AGW climate science which the US taxpayer has been soaked for, kinda' makes the $19 million Exxon gave CEI (over a period of six years) to promote its 'agenda'.. look a little more like a drop in the bucket, than a ' well-funded disinformation machine'..dontcha' think ?

Can you say 'Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fourty Seven to ONE ??

Pythagoras said: ' Isn't that the ratio of climate scientists who understand that climate change is man-made, to those who deny it?'  Thanks for that comment, Pythagoras. You've reminded us once again that plenty of money can buy allegiance, but rarely delivers objective science.

By the way, it's likely that alot of the deniers in here are working for PR firms somehow connected to the utility or oil industry.  For those of you who might have heard, Anonymous revealed proof of that when they attacked HBGary's website a few months ago. It's only a matter of time before someone reveals proof that many of deniers are paid energy lobby thugs. 

Studies of the Milankovitch cycles (which are understood as the primary drivers of the glacial/interglacial changes) indicate that they are not expected to cause a glacial period for another 20-50,000 years, due to the current minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit and comparisons with similar interglacial periods seen in the ice core records. See Berger and Loutre (2002), and EPICA community members (2004).

As I said, you have to look at glacial cycles that are similar to ours; the current interglacial is unique within the Vostok core for its long, relatively stable plateau.    But in the EPICA-C record, which goes back further, includes a similar interglacial that occurred under similar orbital conditions.  See the paper by EPICA community members (2004) that I linked earlier:

Some authors suggest that, because the orbital parameters (low eccentricity and consequently weak precessional forcing) are similar to those of the present and the next tens of thousands of years, MIS 11 may be the best analogue for present and future climate without human intervention.

"The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."  Higgins of AMS

How can a model which encompasses as many as 30 disciplines have any chance of being accurate?  Climate forecasting has so many variables that any forecasts are meaningless.  Simple models work.   Complex models fail because their are too many opportunities for mistakes to be made.

There are very few, "climate change" sceptics as such, because anyone with a grain of common sense knows that climate changes naturally.

Those of us who consider ourselves sceptics, are sceptical of the science, its predictions and the numbers it proffers.

With so many different and varied figures and predictions to consider, not even the most informed climate scientist has been able to agree on them.

As for the IPCC, that's another ball-game and with luck, it won't be around for much longer to confuse the issue.

This is an important story that until now has been missed, and was released matter-of-factly by Google. It does a good job of reading between the lines: the war on science is harming the body politic, and especially the war on climate science.

Good for Google in trying to quietly restore rational communication in the face of a ferocious resurgence of America's anti-intellectual demons.

This is high-quality disinformation.  Someone's sponsoring this sort of "grass roots" smear campaigns.  Follow the money!

This is high-quality disinformation.  Someone's sponsoring this sort of "grass roots" smear campaigns.  Follow the money!

Yes, the earth was once a lot warmer.  In the pre=Cambrian for example, there was no ice at the poles.  And the seas covered 1/3 of the land that is currently high and dry.  That might be kind of inconvenient.

Also, it is not true that things have cooled down in the last decade. I'm sorry, but that is simply not the case.

Texas droughts, the worst in history, contine.  What the heck are you talking about?  Your comments are simply drivel.  

Norice that Ben S addresses none, I'll repeat, NONE, of the issues that Joannenova pointed out. He uses terms "more likely" "you better believe", "deniers". He is incapable of making any answer, rational or other, to the factual data joannenova presents. Ben S knows he is unable to address fact, and he knows he can never enter a discussion. He knows his only defence (offence) is make up a silly unrelated accusation, hoping to move the discussion there. Ben's vapidness shows "he has no clothes".

I have long argued that the only people who doubt that cigarettes kill are either working in the killing fields we call the tobacco industry OR have been 'got at' by that same lobby.

With global warming, those with an axe to grind could have their bluffs called; we could put them up against a firing squad of climate scientists who DO have the knowledge.  We could then, in front of TV cameras, ask them exactly how much they know on the subject; we could expose their arrogance or ignorance or bias and show the world that it is only ignorance of some fairly simple facts that allows people to doubt the damage already being done.

I volunteer for one of the places on the firing squad, having a specialism in the world's weather systems (20,000 dissertation in last year at uni.)  Anyone else be on for putting some high profile CEOs etc in front of the cameras?

Of course, if the CEO refuses the challenge we could post that fact on a website so that the world could see the bluff was called.  Our website at www.1worldwise.com would be one possibility - but there are others too.

I wonder how many of these climate change denial posts are written by bought and paid for shills of the Koch Brothers?  Don't know who they are?  Just Google 'Kingpins of climate science denial'.  Also google 'Koch New Yorker Magazine'.  Also google 'Koch Greenpeace'. 

Wake up people and realize that the fossil fuel industry and in particular the Koch Brothers are responsible for paying for all of the climate science denial you hear out of conservative and libetarian yakkers like Glenn Beck and  Alex Jones and Fox News talking heads.

Google will be beaten with it's own tools. Basic sience tells us that the only thing that can make water rise is displacement. Sure if you turn on the tap the water will rise in the tub but use Google earth as a tool, now look at the area covered wiyh water then zoom in on any of these glaciers and you can easily see that all the glaciers combined would not make much difference if they melted. The northern ice cape and half the antarctic is see ice that floats. Put ice in water then mark the level let it melt and the level does not change. The whole climate change issue is only about money. in the 70's we where told the planet was going to freeze. leading up to the year 2000 we where told that everything computerized was going to crash. Now it's global warming, just to make money move around again. Have a look at history. If you were to combine the displacment of every vesel(floating or sunk),bridge pilar,jetty pilar,all the land that has been made by filling in bays or low lying areas or leves beside the sea, every rock wall built to make bar crossings safer. All of these combined will have displaced far more water than the glaciers. We are constainly building bigger ships for industry and pleasure. The only other thing that can displace water is the plates under the oceans moving land mass that we can not see and when new islands are born from volcanos rising from the bottom of the oceans. All of these combined will far out way any thing that a sientist is being payed to tell us by way of the grants recieved to keep them employed(It's about the money not the sience). I wonder what the next get rich money spinner will be!