Al Gore compares Doubters of Global Warming to Racists

I think a huge marjority of americans voters have manbearpig pegged perfectly. He is just trying to scam the gullable out of as much money as he can.

It is a fact today that much of what he had on his movie was in fact created, manipulated and just flat wrong. He is chasing the money he would see if a carbon credit was ever put into place....but as have been proven in Europe it doesn't work.

This guy is a fool and doesn't live the life of one who truly believes that man is causing harm to the world, if he did wouldn't he give up all his big suv's, quit using as much as a 100 average familes to each year on energy and quit flying all over the world.....what an idiot.

I don't think Gore is comparing global warming to racism, at all. Read your quote. He is referring to how supporters of civil rights eventually won the argument by confronting ignorance. He is urging those, who accept the science (accepting science - what a concept), to speak up against the corporate-speak that the right spews right out of Fox. That's all.

Steve I didnt see your comment when I commented. I firmly agree with you.

Steve,

Accept "the science"? Don't you mean accept the word of some supposed authorities? You don't even know the science itself, do you? Have you actually investigated any of "the science"?

Why yes I have John. Have you?

Lori - ditto.

John. Every major scientific organization in the world knows something about the science. If you want to argue science with them, then send your research to their publications. I'm sure they'd be willing to review your findings. So far, a handful of "skeptical" scientists haven't convinced their peers. Maybe you can do better. In the meantime, I know all about how interested industries mount campaigns to "challenge" science. I watched the tobacco industry deny a link between tobacco and cancer. Did you know they're starting that all over again?

do they take things written in crayon, though?

I can't believe you, Lori, cause I have looked into a whole lot of the science, and there' no freakin' way anyone that has kept up with the matter, would not know that the GW alarmists have taken several major hits over the last few years. The theory is on the ropes, big time, really.

I was once rather receptive to the theory myself (and could go get comments made on this site to demonstrate that), but what I have seen has left me extremely skeptical. The science is far from "settled", and the whole "consensus" thing was hype all along. We are being conned, whether or not the theory pans out eventually . . We are being pushed into accepting something that is simply not scientifically valid at this point, I tell you. Big bucks are behind this, major big bucks.

I don't believe any of you knows squat about the science . . It's all political/media echo chamber stuff to you guys, and that's obvious by the way you speak . .

I'm always amused when political ideologues accuse scientists and their institutions of playing politics. For more on what the scientists think about it, see:

The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change

John exactly what has any one of us said that lead you to believe that we dont know squat about science?

The message most stuck in the echo chamber is the well funded coal/oil company propaganda! It sadly has gotten people to mock real science in favor of greedy corporate agendas.

None of you are talking about the science. Your' talking about what you were told scientists agree to. That ain't the science, thats the media . . your accepting authority, not science. You have to actually learn the science itself, to accept the science,

Scientists know science, John, and overwhelmingly, the most active researchers in that field of science agree. Sorry, but a scientific survey of researchers has confirmed that.

Expert credibility in climate change

Beg to differ with you there John but I am talking about science...the real stuff such as oceans warming, greenhouse gases and other sciency things.

and frankly unless you have some sort of mind reading device or a crystal ball there is no possible way you could know what one person is thinking or how great their knowledge on a subject is.

But I am interested to know John on what do you base your conclusions that global warming isnt real? Is there a particular scientist or group that you have extensively read and base your opinion on that?

If so who or what and do you have a link to a site or article(s)?

Look, guys, I can't possibly bring you up to date on all the stuff the IPCC claimed that has been debunked, cause there;s tons of it, and that's what all those other scientists were basing there agreement on, to a great extent. Here's one little example to give you a feel for what has been going on. Please read it carefully;

http://www.iceagenow.com/World_misled_over_melting_Himalayan_glaciers.htm

'World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown'

Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."


This is just the tip of vast iceberg, so to speak ; ) All sorts of claims made in that 2007 IPCC report, and assumptions made by those computer modelers that are actually the only ones that reached any "consensus" about human generated CO2 being the cause of global warming as well, have been proven wrong. The theory is in big trouble at this point. But the people that have heavily invested themselves in it, are not going to be real anxious to let you know, as long as there;s a chance they can get their pay off . .

And that's why, I believe, Mr Gore is telling you to close your ears . . . there's going to be some very quite un-consensusing going on ; )

Here's a link to a very recent study that I looked into rather carefully, that is really serious trouble for the theory. This one is not going to be easy to get around, when serious scientists see it;

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

"Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate."


That's the very heart of the theory being savaged . . Until I saw that paper, I was still halfway convinced . .

So one paper convinced you John? I have read many books on the subject.

This might help enlighten you.

Or this.

Are you unable to read simple English, Lori? I told you there's tons, and that I have looked into all sorts the actual science . . I could post this stuff for hours on end.

I'm telling you the truth, the scientific community has been duped by the IPCC . . and Mr, Gore knows the jig may be up, if you DON'T close your ears, I am quite sure, and that's why he's getting all jiggy with it now. That's what's behind this bizarre appeal to racism . .

That first link is to something based on the very models that have been demonstrated with real world data from NASA to be wrong, for goodness sake;

"An estimate of the forced response in global mean surface temperature, from simulations of the 20th century with a global climate model, GFDL’s CM2.1, (red) and the fit to this evolution with the simplest one-box model (black), for two different relaxation times."


The second is just some guy bitching about some other guy's bitching about the the alarmists . . Who cares? That's not science, it's opinions . .

What I meant by halfway convinced, is that I thought there was at least some significant truth behind all the hype . . I long ago came to realize the IPCC was a scam set up . . but I thought they were exaggerating a relatively small problem into a catastrophic one, to get more funding for climate science, and to get our money for this carbon market scheme. Now, I doubt the whole concept that human generated CO2 is a threat at all. It may actually be a harmless minor change in the atmosphere, that helps plants grow and produce food . .

Oh, so you conducted your own "literature review". Funny, so did the IPCC. Hundreds of scientists did the same thing. And they concluded that we have a problem, which we are causing. Again, please submit your review for evaluation by the IPCC, or the U.S. Academy of Sciences, or the Royal Society, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the Geophysical Union, etc., etc., etc. You are only asking me to be "open" to the fantastic possibility that you know better than all of the above mentioned. When you submit your research, I'll consider it.

From the "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" article: [author] "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute"

From SourceWatch:

"A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility: 'Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.'" …

The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert," James M. Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida."

Taylor's bachelor’s degree is from Dartmouth College and his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law.

And also, "The Heartland Institute 'global warming experts' list contains vanishingly few researchers who consider themselves climate scientists and who regularly publish papers supporting their climate science views in reputable peer-reviewed journals (e.g., not Energy and Environment)."

The "study co-author," Dr. Roy Spencer, is a board member and roundtable speaker at the George C. Marshall Institute. From SourceWatch:

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.

Its nominal creators, aside from Exxon-related entities and others, were William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow. This industry and right-wing front group has described its role as encouraging "the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The institute makes claims about "national security and the environment", generally to the detriment of the latter.

The institute purports to investigate what it calls "facts" about global climate change, which is largely attributed by others to the burning of fossil fuels. The institute also focuses its resources on making claims about the effect of the Kyoto Protocol upon "national security."

Some good info there Dave.

John you accused me and everyone else of being closed minded yet when I get links that disagree with your myopic view you get angry.

In a guest commentary in RealClimate, two working climate scientists, Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, review Spencer et al.'s paper (it was published in "Remote Sensing," which is not a climate science journal), discuss the data analysis in detail and conclude, "the bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper."

Thanks, Dave. A couple of other articles, exposing the link between "skeptical" scientists and fossil interests:

Some Like It Hot

Newsweek cover story focuses on the global warming denial machine

Dr Fred Singer, leader of denialists, believes in Intelligent design, saying there is MORE scientific PROOF God made man than evolution.

Astute readers will notice that the first article Dave linked to in order to "rebut" the one I posted about the NASA data study, says nothing at all about anything that study actually finds, or proposes from a scientific standpoint. (And neither does Dave). That is not a response to "the science", but just more trumpeting of the supposed influence of some mysterious "big oil" conspiracy to derail this GW crusade. (the second is basically an opinion piece by a couple climate scientists, not a peer reviewed anything . . like we didn't know there were folks that would find a problem with any paper that "deniers" can get published) Conspiracies of the sort that enhance the idea that money influences science, seem to only work one way, in the minds of some folks . .

In truth, the entire "global warming" movement, has been an incredibly profitable occurrence for the climate scientists, and the whole IPCC apparatus, and all the climate institutes and publications, (and Mr. Gore) beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Why that long standing self interest aspect is chronically ignored as potentially corrupting influence, while some vague supposed interest on the part of "big oil" and so forth is hyped to high heaven, can only be wondered about . . . It isn't even clear that "big oil" will actually mind having stuff like carbon markets put in place, and the major investors in such corporations can switch to anything they like, if there is some significant threat to profits through those particular ones . . The weather folks can't do that, for the most part, and their self interest is generally directly tied to the whole climate change alarmist movement, in ways that are not transferable. This is their big money/career maker, and there is much to be gained or lost throughout the entire camp . . and they all know that, all the time, and always have known it.

The logical conclusion, is that many people simply assume that "scientists", and UN bureaucrats, and big money investors in all this global warm9ing stuff, are saints. A childish "racism" like special treatment is applied, in regard to anyone associated with pro-global warming camp, and those not in the tribe, are treated like another freakin' species. It does not dawn on people that the tribe has long ago taken up using slurs, like denier, and greedy, and ignorant, and Luddite, by people supposedly enlightened and sophisticated . . and now the racist card is being played, like this is all that can be mustered by the camp . . It's all self aggrandizing trumpeting of the pro-GW climate scientists, and tribe in general, and name calling for anyone that doubts the great saviors . .

If you can't turn that critical eye on both sides of the coin, so to speak, I don't care what self congratulatory authority worship games you play . . I ain't blind. This alarmist deal will probably get shoved through (already has to great extent) . . and the cost of basic commodities will rise even more . . and the poor will die, in even greater numbers that were forced below subsistence levels by the great "bio fuels" debacle, that is acknowledged to have killed many many thousands that could not afford to feed themselves and their children . .

If the global warming "taxes" go through in full . . many millions will die. That's what I worry about. Mr. Gore can play the racism card, but it's overwhelming people not of his race that have been squeezed off the planet by him (he was a big driver for the bio-fuel misstep too) and the clan, but he will profit very handily, when it happens.

Try to be objective, and scientific (not authority worship of some folks with jobs in science related fields) if you can. You may be surprised at what you find is really going on . . I sure was.

The first comment showed that the press article was written by a non-scientist shill for fossil fuel companies and right-wing corporatists. The second comment showed that the author of the "research" is an apologist for Exxon Mobil and at the beck and call of these same corporatist interests, on the chicken plate speaking circuit. The third comment showed that the "research" paper appeared in a periodical about geography and not environmental science, probably to escape any chance of peer review. The review goes into detail on the deep flaws that render the paper of no scientific merit whatsoever.

Certainly a "man of science" is capable of discerning the flaws that were pointed out in such detail--without instead resorting to ridiculous comments about the entire scientific community. How come Dr. Spencer wasn't caught in that sweep? As a producer of junk pseudoscience, he had motive as a sycophant for Big Energy, means with his nominal association with academia and right-wing corporatist institute, and opportunity, in a non-peer reviewed journal.

Your comment here demonstrates conclusively to me that you are not only unwilling, but incapable, of understanding what climate science is even about, much less to be in a position to offer insulting comments to others on their bias and lack of knowledge. You've been "outed." I recommend a new epiphany.

One other thing: if you honestly don't understand the players on both sides of the political debate on AGW, or their motivations, then there's little expectation that your comments on the political arena could ever be taken seriously. You purport to have a keen eye for the untoward motives of those who say things that you don't like (although precious little data to back up your sweeping claims about climate scientists, for example). If you don't understand why Exxon Mobil would be funding denialist pseudoscience and lack of regulation while promoting fossil fuel consumption and dependence, there is little reason anyone should listen to you.

"...if you honestly don't understand the players on both sides of the political debate on AGW, or their motivations, then there's little expectation that your comments on the political arena could ever be taken seriously."

I've said it this way - the real debate on climate change is in regard to the policies that will address it. There is no debate re: the science. So as long as climate cynics fail to comprehend the scientific warnings and choose to pursue fake scientific "debates" on social websites, such as this, then they have already failed the credibility test. Therefore, they forfeit any credibility they might have otherwise had, in discussing the policies needed to address the problem.

"Astute readers will notice that the first article Dave linked to in order to 'rebut' the one I posted about the NASA data study, says nothing at all about anything that study actually finds, or proposes from a scientific standpoint."

Of course, NASA can speak for itself. It doesn't need an interpretation from the Heartland Institute.

The authors of the earlier article, "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown," that JK quotes, Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings, write for the Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch News Corporation-owned broadsheet that has gained fame over the years for such content as the (fake) Hitler Diaries in the 80's, and articles doubting the link between HIV and AIDS in the 90's. Jonathan Leake's education or expertise in climate science is "unclear."

Numerous sources have complained about misquotes and misrepresentations of their work by Leake.

According to RealClimate, the referenced article points out a legitimate error in the 2007 IPCC report, comprising about two sentences erroneously brought in from an external source, in a 2,800-page, multivolume document. 45 pages of valid information about the Himalayas are said to appear in the body of the document. Leake's misrepresentations about many other portions of the document have been pointed out.

You laughably call this the tip of the iceberg, while the load of erroneous reporting has been patiently corrected and dismissed. I guess the exception (an error in a 2800-page document) doesn't prove the rule. That's known as confirmation bias, and it's on display in your comments.

In June 2010, the Sunday Times printed a lengthy retraction and issued an apology for Leake's writing having to do with Prof. Simon Lewis' work on the Amazon. A paper in Germany earlier printed a retraction of another story by Leake.

No wonder, JK, that you're so confused about climate science. Taking your cues from sources like Leake, Hastings, Taylor and Spencer is sure to keep you firmly mired in the denialist camp and maintain your own credibility at low ebb.

Dave,

"The first comment showed that the press article was written by a non-scientist shill for fossil fuel companies and right-wing corporatists."

The point is moot, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care about your childish beliefs in the inherent goodness of your preferred "corporatists", and the inherent evil of "corporatists" you don't like . . That's kid stuff to me . . The white hat, corporatists, and black hat corporatists . . Amazingly naive in my eyes.

"The third comment showed that the "research" paper appeared in a periodical about geography and not environmental science, probably to escape any chance of peer review."

Again, silly talk, just obfuscatory BS, to me. The essential question to me is whether there is a scam going on to begin with, and if there is, it would necessarily involve those "environmental" periodicals. That's a key thing that would need to be controlled by those in on the scam. Just the fact that you are claiming some people have gotten/allowed a paper to be published, due to some with ulterior motives controlling such things, but FAIL to grant that the reverse could be done by people with ulterior motives . . removes you from the class of rational observer of these matters. I don't care what you blabber about ulterior motives . . if you cannot grasp the concept that those you happen to believe could also be corrupt.

You betray the belief that the very thing I believe happened with the "global warming" alarmist clan, is possible, when you accuse those not in the clan of corrupting the debate . . but turn right around and speak as though it is utterly impossible that anyone could have corrupted the debate in the first place . . pfft, what a sappy man of science you are . . Objectivity is always called for in scientific matters, always. Not easy to do, but always called for nonetheless.


"You laughably call this the tip of the iceberg, while the load of erroneous reporting has been patiently corrected and dismissed. I guess the exception (an error in a 2800-page document) doesn't prove the rule."

How exactly do you know that is an exception? If stuff so utterly unreliable as that claim about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, slipped through to the final report, how do you know any of it is actually reliable? Have you not wondered how that could have happened, if the claims this IPCC makes about what it is, are true?

And if each time another "exception" is revealed, folks like you cry; OK that's one. the rest of the gazillion pages must be beyond your rebuke . . Then simply by making a gazillion pages, it cannot be challenged . . And each time some supposed "world class authority" in charge of what the various "groups" end up "reporting", is revealed to not even have a PHD yet (as has happened) folks like you cry; OK, that's one, the rest of the great authorities must be beyond rebuke . . Then obviously there is no way to demonstrate the report is crap, whether its crap or not, simply because they list a lot of names on the reports . . .

Things like water levels rising precipitously can easily be shown to be exaggeration (they actually dropped a quarter inch last year), no such thing has yet happened in reality-land. The islands have not been submerged, the great hordes of refugees have not fled (populations actually rose significantly in almost every place they were supposed to be decimated) most glaciers studied, and the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have been gaining mass in reality-land . . but the media just don't report it . . Instead they put out junk like this article is about; A totally conflicted individual, and a "scientist" talking utter gibberish . . when there is a freakin' hurricane . . or a drought . . of freeze . . somewhere . . Weather basically, that has always been fickle . .

That global climate catastrophic stuff, is all projections based on those same computer models. Not stuff that has been demonstrated scientifically, in the observational sense. Just projected . . So, all those scientists supposed "consensus", is essential based on what those models have predicted . . . Not on what has been observed. If those modelers (you know, the ones involved in the "climate-gate" e-mails) were corrupted . . then the whole can of worms could be, logically speaking. 'Cause at the IPCC, that's the only "group" that actually arrived at a "consensus" about human generated CO2 being responsible for global warming . . Those are the guys that deal with the "attribution" aspect. Not all those scientists that work on anything . . It's just those guys that deal with the "Why" question . . All the rest who contribute tin some way to research or "edit" the report sections, are just listed as having arrived at a "consensus" . . but they did not agree that that human generated CO2 is responsible for the general warming over the last century or so . . in reality-land;

The very notion that there ever was a meaningful "consensus" about global warming, is a myth, plain and simple. Here is a portion of an April 2010 paper written by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and prominent participant in the IPCC itself;

"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf


But those "disingenuous" claims were what hit the media, and what people are still accepting, and expanding on . .

Something was set in motion, I say, and those that hopped on board were rewarded, those that did not were demonized. This emperor is just wearing underwear, as far as I can see ; )


Nut now you are being encouraged to keep up that approach, and are complying like good little bigots . . But those millions will still die, if this goes through in full . .

"The point is moot"

Nope, that escape hatch to the corner you've painted yourself into is no longer available to you, JK. Why? For two reasons. First, you've fantasized about the untoward motives of the scientists with whom you disagree without support, which opens the door to looking at the influences on your pseudoscientists Secondly, I've shown the paid influence on your pseudoscientists by the corporations and right-wing corporatist backers. It's not a question of "goodness." It's following the money, in reality-land, and not in your silly projections. Rude, loud-mouth comments can only get poor logic and lack of support so far. And you're out of fossil fuel, pal.

"The essential question to me is whether there is a scam going on to begin with"

You have to say that now, because of the bogus "evidence" you cluttered the thread with. Maybe a shiny object will distract the readers from that Maybe not.

"those you happen to believe could also be corrupt"

I thought you were a "man of science?" Here I thought you could muster your own opinion about the quality of the work. But even if you are now admitting that it is beyond you, it doesn't follow that it is beyond everyone else.

"you accuse those not in the clan of corrupting the debate"

No, I'm accusing you specifically of some bogus comments with corrupt sources and an unfounded self-important attitude. Come back with decent support or get to that epiphany that your opinions are not valid.

"How exactly do you know that is an exception?"

Two ways. First, of many other attempts to attack that document have been mounted, only very minor discrepancies have been identified and corrected. Your authors have been turned back on numerous counts. Secondly, that was a 2007 report. It's been four years, and with all the denialist sharks in the water, and more importantly qualified scientists that have looked at this thing, we'd have heard about any "icebergs" by now. You enjoy your tip, won't you?

"they list a lot of names on the reports"

The names are important. Your inability to understand that in selecting your sources is telling. You don't seem to understand the makeup or role of IPCC.

"folks like you cry"

You're projecting again, JK. You cry like a stuck pig when people do that to you. Are you bothered that I pointed out the lousy credentials of some of your sources? You do remember that it was you, and not I, that relied on uncredentialed sources with poor track records? Put the shiny objects away, JK.

"the observational sense"

This is getting embarrassing, JK. The data are observations. Your pseudoscientist worked with a dataset and a model--one that was oversimplified and populated with reverse-engineered parameters fine-tuned to produce a desired result. You didn't read the critique, did you? He was outed because the range of error in his model was too large to say anything meaningful. You said, "if those modelers (you know, the ones involved in the "climate-gate" e-mails) were corrupted …" Have you been asleep for a long time? Those researchers have been 100% cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Your comment is ignorant and fallacious. Your pseudoscientific study was corrupted. It is peer review, something that these ya-hoos strenuously avoid, that provides a shield against bogus papers. The lack of peer review doesn't stop Fox News from reporting on this effluvia or you from getting confused about their validity.

I don't recall arguing that every climate scientist agrees with every other scientist on all aspects of AGW (excepting the denialists, of course). If one were to stop and think about the myriad projects that are going on, it's unlikely that each scientist would be aware of every development simultaneously. There is lots of evidence that significant warming is going on, and that human activity is a big part of it. But I don't know that many people think that more research isn't needed.

Pfft,


"No, I'm accusing you specifically of some bogus comments with corrupt sources and an unfounded self-important attitude"

You accuse me of a self important attitude? Who the hell do you think you are? The Pope of Eruk?


"Those researchers have been 100% cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Your comment is ignorant and fallacious."

100% cleared . . wow, sounds real officious . . You sure are a gullible one . .

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

The head of one "clearing" committee;

"Lord Oxburgh was identified in the UEA press release as being ‘President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewables’, a company involved in construction and operation of windfarms. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that Lord Oxburgh is also a member of an organisation called GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation or a Balanced Environment) and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission, a body which works to promote environmental taxes."

Real handy having that fellow lead the "clearing" process. eh?


The head of another "clearing" committee, Phil Willis, discussing the upcoming inquiry with journalists;

“There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying."

Always good to have a guy that casually uses the term 'deniers' leading the clearing process, eh, Dave?


Here's a little "kicker" that I found particularly amusing. There was a freedom of information request made later, that resulted in some e-mails among the people setting up one of the committees to investigate the climate-gate emails, and we get a peek inside how they went about "stacking the deck", so to speak;

"“Out of these 13 [candidates for the panel], we would hope to get 6 with a suitable range of expertises, and a range of ‘attitudes’ towards recent warming/greenhouse gases – from those who already see it as a problem, but without being right in the middle of the climate science community, to those which [sic] will come to it with a questioning objectivity"

Cute, huh? A range from those who see it as a problem, to those which will come to it with a questioning objectivity ; )


And here's a sample of the "scrutiny" applied to the conduct of the 100% cleared e-mailers themselves;

"On 29 May, Phil Jones, in an email entitled ‘IPCC & FOI’, said the following:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.”116

201. The Science and Technology Committee asked the CCE panel to report back conclusively on the question of whether, aside from the six-month statute of limitations, an offence would have taken place under the Freedom of Information Act. 202. The panel concluded that nothing untoward took place:

“There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.”117

203. The second part of this finding is extraordinary, since the email quoted above was clearly a direct response to David Holland’s Freedom of Information request just two days earlier. Even more remarkably at the press conference releasing their report, Muir Russell admitted that Jones had not even been questioned on this subject."



Conclusive exoneration? In the media maybe ... but . .

"The Oxburgh panel’s report consisted of a total of twenty-five paragraphs of text, which barely filled five small pages when printed. Even with the addition of a page listing the panel members and another page and a half of references, its output was widely seen as something of an embarrassment. One American climatologist said in an interview,

“When I first read the report, I thought I was reading the executive summary and proceeded to look for the details; well, there weren’t any. And I was concerned that the report explicitly did not address the key issues that had been raised by the skeptics."



If anyone can stomach it, I suggest a careful reading of the whole thing . . It's pretty telling stuff.

Thing is Dave, when the question is about a potential "culture of corruption" problem, you don't just accept "findings" by that culture . . You would surely not accept similar "committee's" findings 100% without skepticism, if done by the so called "deniers" camp . . which you accused of being essentially a culture of corruption deal, right? Objectivity is called for in these matters, not "team spirit" for goodness sake . .

John,
Veering off topic to underline points you are making, a story today reports The Phillip Moris Corp. are using the UJ Freedom of Information act to gain access to research data carried out by the University of Stirling into the attitudes of teenagers to smoking.
Needless to say the political left, leders of the campaign or an FoI when they thought it would help expose the malfeasance of those they hated are screaming "unfair" when the act turn out to work against their efforts to hide data.

We've been here before of course over the efforts to conceal climate data used to build the discredited case for AGW.

Thank you for confirming that the review of the so-called "Climategate" included a balanced range of reviewers and that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientific results were "cooked" in any way. If they had been, you'd be telling me about it. As legendary baseball announcer Harry Caray used to say during a scoreless game, "the big boys have what the little boys shout at--nothing."

"which you accused of being essentially a culture of corruption"

Actually no. I don't see any monolith on any side of this. I see PR-oriented groups like Heartland Institute, funded by Big Oil and corporatist interests, payrolling people to come up with arguments that will derail environmental legislation which in turn might encroach on their profitable business plans. In many cases it is scruples be damned.

Is there "good science" that counters the evidence for AGW? Precious little. It is rather a narrowing probability of how much and how soon.

Thank you Steve for providing excellent - and accurate - points.

Too bad others simply repeat falsehoods spread by lobbying organizations like the GWPF, blogs, and for at least the dozenth time the false interpretation of the Mike Hulme quote that the commenter knows for a fact is false.

It's ironic that someone complaining about a fake "climate of corruption" continues to lie openly about Hulme and use the lobbyist lies as support for his anti-science diatribes.

So Gore is correct in that the kind of willful ignorance that had to be overturned to begin to correct the effects of racism is the same kind of willful ignorance that needs to be overturned to correct the effects of climate denial.

Lord Oxburgh was identified in the UEA press release as being ‘President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewables’, a company involved in construction and operation of windfarms. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that Lord Oxburgh is also a member of an organisation called GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation or a Balanced Environment) and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission, a body which works to promote environmental taxes."

John, rather like a person being on trial for murder and then being able to sit on the jury and influence the rest of the jury that he his not guilty, AND then sitting as judge to pronounce the not guilt verdict.

They are so gullible this bunch of Warmageddonists that they cant see the wood for the trees.

A little reported story about the way increasing sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere has resulted in Sweden withholding an icebreaker from US use in Antarctica.

After increasingly bitter winters that have resulted in more iced over navigation passages, the Swedish government wrote to US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to announce that the icebreaker Oden will be kept at home and not be made available to support the work of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in Antarctica, for the first time since 2006.

The full story can be found here.

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/reality-of-sea-ice-is-starting-to-bite/

However we are all being told that the Ice in the Northern Hemisphere is rapidly melting and soon there will be none left. That's the problem with Climate models if you don't put all the data in them or cherry pick the data that you put in them then you don't get the full picture.

But still the Warmageddonists will refute what I have written and what you have written, you see John it does not sit well in their leftist thinking. I am waiting for people like Mr Gore, aka Mr Pinocchio to pronounce that everyone that does not believe in what he believes in must be terrorists after all it seems we are all now racist, it wont be long you know.

However we are all being told that the Ice in the Northern Hemisphere is rapidly melting and soon there will be none left.

Unfortunately, that is a rather inaccurate statement that suggests a lack of understanding of the issue, which explains the inability to understand the blog article linked above.

The sea ice extent, area, and volume of Arctic (i.e., Northern Hemisphere) has been on a downward trend for some time. This is undeniable. A good example of this can be found here. A current graph through August 31st shows that the sea ice extent continues to drop and is likely to go below the extremely low year of 2007, thus setting a new - and very ominous - record.

The data provided in the article I linked are for July, but the exact same trend is seen for winter ice as well.

And that data clearly demonstrates that the non-science libertarian blogger's statement that the sea ice extent is increasing is patently false. The Arctic sea ice extent is NOT increasing. It is, IN FACT, DECREASING. And has been for years.

This is clearly seen in this graph for February.

And as one can easily find out from the National Snow & Ice Data Center records, every month of the year shows that this decreasing sea ice extent in the Arctic has been going on for the last 3 decades! To suggest otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

Which is why relying on non-science libertarian bloggers is a sign of an intent to deny the real science. As is copy-and-pasting off the blog of non-science lobbying organizations like GWPF that refuses to admit its financial supporters but not coincidentally is housed in a facility rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (a lobbying organization with a mission to protect corporations in the fossil fuel industry).

So the choice is clear. Rely on scientific organizations like the National Snow & Ice Data Center, or rely on non-science bloggers who can't even get the basic facts correct and industry-funded non-science lobbying organizations.

The choice made reflects the intent of the chooser - either to learn about the science or to actively and intentionally seek ignorance about the science.

Dave cracks me up sometimes;

"Thank you for confirming that the review of the so-called "Climategate" included a balanced range of reviewers and that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientific results were "cooked" in any way."

That's how this dude sees a range;

"from those who already see it as a problem, but without being right in the middle of the climate science community, to those which [sic] will come to it with a questioning objectivity"

Anyone with any objectivity at all I say, would recognize that a range from agree to neutral on a subject, is NOT a "balanced range" . . A balanced range OBVIOUSLY would be from agree to disagree . . How dense can a person be about such a simple thing?

One more time, for the sleepyheads;

Balanced range; agree to disagree

Unbalanced range; agree to neutral


Dave can't even see something that simple, in regard to a subject where he just so happens to be in the agree clan ; )


Dave, you are being silly . . you know better than that . .

(PS~ I must confess that I intentionally included that portion of the report, to see if Dave would do what he did . . I thought; No, that would be too obvious . . he'll avoid it . . . amazing ; )

Still nothing, even though your seminal "mind-changer" has been outed as junk science of no merit? And yes, I include your inability to cite any fudging of data from EAU scientists. That was supposed to be a smoking gun for the denialists, wasn't it? Just about everybody who has paid attention has moved on, because they have found out that there was nothing to this trumped-up pseudo-scandal. Then again, there are batters who will take a called third strike with two out in the bottom of the ninth and insist on standing around arguing the strike zone.

Dave,

Yer killin' me, dude . .

" . . even though your seminal "mind-changer" has been outed as junk science of no merit"

Some AGW guys write a commentary on a blog, and you think that settles the matter . . You're hilarious, just hilarious . . You figure the guy who did the study ought to be stripped of his credentials and maybe made to clean a couple of Al Gore's swimming pools ; )

None of that junk you wrote about the matter is even relevant . . The study was not done by "Heartland" you sap, that was just something I googled up to get an account for people to read here. The STUDY was done by Dr. Roy Spencer, the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. . and naturally, he publishes his studies in peer-reviewed science journals like Remote Sensing . . That's what he does, remote sensing. That's what he did the study about . .

Here's a link to the PDF file of the study itself, for what it's worth, that's what I studied . . you know "the science" ;

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf


Where you got this kooky idea that people with the word "climate" in their title are automatically the last word on anything to do with climate, such that if they write a damn blog commentary, anyone else's work is "outed as junk science of no merit", I can only imagine . . but honest, he was sensing our atmosphere, and that, it turns out, is where our climate happens ; )

Breaking news: the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing has just resigned, saying that he must take responsibility for having allowed Spencer's bogus study to be published in his journal. His resignation statement is here.

Gather member Chris Wiegard has posted an article about the resignation here.

Not to nitpick but Gore was relating the struggle of accepting global warming to accepting of equal rights. He was drawing a parrallel not saying it was the same thing.

What's parallel, Lori?

To me, he is telling "you", to shut out any evidence that contradicts human caused "global warming" theory, and ridicule anyone that tries to inform you of it . . In other words; be close-minded, and bigoted about it . . That's not what diminishing racism was brought about by, that's what kept it going so long, for goodness sake.

What he is saying John is there are people to this day that feel caucasians are somehow superior to other races irregardless of evidence to the contrary.

Kind of like people today feel that global warming isnt real irregardless of evidence to the contrary.

Close mindedness is what you are being told to adopt, Lori,.

John has it completely backward. Gore is telling you to listen to the scientists, not to fossil interests, which have taken an intransigent stand, and have mounted a denial campaign to influence public opinion. They modelled this campaign on the tobacco wars, undertaken by several of the same people - and at least one pr comany. Science itself evaluates the relevant research, and every major scientific organization in the world is warning us. So John's assertion that Gore is urging closed-mindedness is pure bunk!! That is the kind of ignorance Gore is telling people, who accept the science, to speak up against.

Really John and how is that? Because I can look at al the evidence and draw my own conclusions or because Fox News said global warming isnt true and I should just blindly believe them.

""Because I can look at al the evidence and draw my own conclusions or because Fox News said global warming isnt true and I should just blindly believe them. ""

Actually fox news didn't say global warming wasn't ture. MSNBC said that Fox news said that global warming wasn't true. Try to be more objective and quit limiting your sources of info. It makes you seem close minded. You're better than that...

Jeff....Jeff...Jeff....you should come out of your closet.

Lori, that link hasn't refuted a thing I said. You are better than this...

Umm yes it does Jeff..watch the video.

I began skimming this before bed last night ... when I got up I was at the middle of this sub-thread and couldn't remember what it was all about ... so I went up to Lori's comment here and read down ... (I may go read the rest of it later) ... up to speed on this sub-thread anyway, I will voice my opinion.

In defense of both Lori and Gore ... I agree with Lori. As for FOX versus CNN ... just like our present Political system at the National level, there is no REAL difference in that the very same B$M interests, through the power of their $$$, actually own ad control BOTH sides of the issue and play each side against the other like a puppet show intended for us to believe it is reality ... thus we are divided for control purposes.

In order to make real improvement in our lives we first must "wake-up" to the truth of that.

Nobody denies global warming. My property was under 100 feet of ice just 10,000 years ago and you wide eyes and Al Gore have your undies in a bunch because the average temp is up a degree of the course of 100 plus years.

We question how much man has caused the ice age to end, let alone increse the average temp one degree. (when you use flawed models). Pull your heads out of your asses you flat earthers...

Put in context (but the haters hate to do that) he makes his point and it makes perfect sense.

pretty much. He's not good with words, but I get what he was meaning.

Unfortunately, it's obvious not many people gt what h said.

He can be a total dork the way he talks. I mean, he didn't beat Bush W in the debates, and Bush W talks like a dork ...

Many don't even WANT get what he said, to take it like he meant it, because they just HATE him, LOL

(and they are usually the ones who consider themselves the most Christian, too, the Christians For Oil Companies, LOL)

It's why I say listen to what the man says - or read what he writes. He makes perfect sense.

He didn't sound like a "dork" in An Inconvient Truth", and he didn't sound like a "dork" when challenged a generation to shift to renewable energy. But his critics constantly define him as a radical nut. So it's hard to cut through his critics' bs.

Read this: tell me what's "dorky" about it:

Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis

"He's not good with words...."

Chelsea. He's very good with words. You just have to stop listening to his detractors'.

I like reading him better then listening to him.

Our Choice is very good. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it.

Six Degree-Our Life on a Hotter Planet is also a good book.

Thanks, Lori. I'll look it up.

All the while...

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ALREADY OCCURING ACROSS THE NATION - U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

When you can't win the argument, play the race card. It's all they have left.

Umm ya right. Take it you didnt read the whole article.

Facts don't matter to these dolts, Lori. Gore was attacking their ignorance, not calling them racists. But I'm sure it's too subtle for them. It's like this guy throwing up "it's all they got" after I've posted ad nauseum the simple fact that every major scientific organization in the world is warning us. I do admit, however, that's all I've got.

Bill Nye has a BS in Mechanical Engineering. His doctorates were all honorary. Hardly and expert on climatology or meteorology.

"Hardly and expert on climatology or meteorology."

The study referred to in this article refers to real climate experts - the ones that are actively researching.

Your link doesn't make Bill Nye an expert. Bill Nye was presented as an expert in one of the links in the above article. His education is in Mechanical Engineering.

Actually had you read the rest of the wikipedia article he got a BS in science but started out in Mechanical engineering and studied under Carl Sagan.

Where did you get your Science degree Eamon?

Eamon ignores the link I provided - you know about the climate scientists most active in the research. Why do that, when you can argue about Bill Nye or Al Gore?

"Where did you get your Science degree Eamon?"

Don't have one and never claimed I did.

"Actually had you read the rest of the wikipedia article he got a BS in science but started out in Mechanical engineering and studied under Carl Sagan."

ROTFLMAO. I think the issue here is your reading comprehension. Read the whole wiki article, in your case extra slow, and you will realize that Bill Nye received a BS (Bachelors of Science) degree from Cornell University (which also produced another wizard named Keith Olbermann) in Mechanical Engineering (not climatology, meteorology, etc.). It sounds like you don't understand how degrees are awarded and the meaning behind or difference in a BA, BS, MA, MS, or PhD. I wonder what schools offer the blanket degree in science that you imply. LOL.

"Eamon ignores the link I provided - you know about the climate scientists most active in the research. Why do that, when you can argue about Bill Nye or Al Gore?"

I haven't ignored anything. I have read both sides of the argument and both have merit, which leads me to the conclusion that this is way deeper than my knowledge and understanding go. I decided to leave it to the experts a long time ago. Al Gore, Bill Nye, and all the others making the rounds thumping about global warming aren't experts either. The minute Gore adopted this as his new career, it put a political face on a scientific issue, which only hampers the debate. Why not have the actual researchers, pro & con, go head to head in a debate on national TV? Seems more productive than these bozo's.

BTW, how much you want to bet Gore and his global warming buddies will be trading carbon credits through future's brokers if they get their way? The credits will be sold as futures contracts, just like any commodity. Lots of people are going to get rich off of this.

To sum it all up Steve, if you're that passionate about global warming, maybe you should be investing in land in upstate NY since they'll be growing citrus there soon. LOL.

"I decided to leave it to the experts a long time ago."

The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change

"Why not have the actual researchers, pro & con, go head to head in a debate on national TV?"

The scientific debate has been occurring for decades within the scientific organizations, their publications and conferences. I would welcome, though, those scientists actually doing the research to "debate" the issue on national tv. Perhaps it would finally convince the public that the science is very solid, when 98% of the scientists are seen to be supporting the IPCC, while only 2% are "skeptics".

"...how much you want to bet Gore and his global warming buddies will be trading carbon credits through future's brokers if they get their way? The credits will be sold as futures contracts, just like any commodity. Lots of people are going to get rich off of this."

How to deal with carbon costs is an excellent debate to have - and it is a separate debate than the scientific one, which has taken place among the scientists (the scientists have reached their conclusion). Sam Carana has a very good policy, which he refers to as "feebates". I also liked Sens. Cantwell and Collins bill which was called "cap and dividend"Basically, both approaches would reward consumers for buying efficient and renewable energy products, instead of corporations - like cap and trade did. I agree that there are better approaches than cap and trade.

But the second point I'd make in response to your comment is a question: since when should polluters be the only ones, who are allowed to make money in the energy sector?

"...if you're that passionate about global warming, maybe you should be investing in land in upstate NY since they'll be growing citrus there soon."

NY or Vermont? How about North Dakota?


"LOL."

It's really all such a laughing matter....

Al Gore has made tens of millions off this passion of his, hard to take anyone with a grain of salt that calls for sacrifice while jetting around the world and living in a mansion bigger than the White House.

As for being called racist for being a global warming/change "doubter", more than a few of us are used to it by now after 3 years of hearing the same catch words for not being fans of the President ether.

Al Gore.................. Yawn!

Al Gore was once Pro Life and endorsed by the NRA.

"Al Gore has made tens of millions..."

...and of course we all know that only polluters are allowed to make "tens of millions" - oh, wait - tens of billions.

"As for being called racist for being a global warming/change 'doubter'....

Cynics weren't called "racists". Gore alluded to your ignorance. Racism is based on ignorance, and so is global warming cynicism. Btw, where do you get the idea that Gore has made "tens of millions"?

and of course the point that the self selected leader of the global warming/change etc camp is a major polluter AND a profiteer on the subject as no bearing on the message.

Steve B, Gore alluding to others ignorance while he postures/sets an example contrary to his preaching might be considered hypocritical by a non biased party. The fact you defend him for that instead of maybe saying yeah the messenger has some problems adds nothing to the argument.

Gore has made millions over the years he's been on this crusade. His lifestyle, property holdings, etc indicate either that or he's a well supported front man being given all this to head the cause. How many years has he been at this now? 10-12 years? And yes when comparing doubters to racists, you are using equivocation.

Charles. Thanks for demonstrating for us the cynicism of climate denialism. Just because the profit motive is what drives the fossils, that doesn't mean Gore is driven by greed. He's been working on this issue for decades - from the time he was a first-year congressman. And actually, Gore didn't compare doubters to racists. Read his actual quote - not what other say he said. It's just another example of the "Gore claimed to invent the internet" myth.

In the absence of your answer, then it's safe to assume that you do think only polluters are allowed to make money. Feel free to clarify at any time.

The earth has been much warmer than it is today, it has also been much cooler than it is today. This has happened many times over and is going to continue to happen. We've also had less Co2 in our air than today and we've also had more Co2 in our air than today.

In fact the earth has switched on its axis many times times...making the north the south and vice versa. Our weather pattern is completely controlled by the sun and ever so slightly by gigantic once in a life time events such as Mt. Saint Helens eruptions.

Man couldn't even mimic the Mt. Saint Helen eruptions if we wanted too...how ever in the world could we affect the earth one degrees.

The earth has not been warming for the past 10 years or so and every one of you man made global warming hoaxers know it...that is why they are switching to climate change so when the temperatures turn colder they can blame it on climate change...but we will not forget and will show these snake oil hucksters to the world.

Your opinion does NOT matter... in science. (Please read ALL 487 words BEFORE commenting)

Democrats don't have intelligent debates. They call names and demonize those who don't agree with them. What's new?

Correction: "...who don't agree with them" should read "...who don't agree with the major scientific institutions throughout the world with regard to the warnings about global warming." You bet against the world's scientific institutions on behalf of all future generations. Justify that ethically or morally. Or you can be like all the other cynics, and just claim that all the world's scientific institutions just don't understand the science.

The only one being really negative here is you Jeff.

Lori, I was in response to another typical post by Chelsea in which she advances the comparison of man made global warming skeptics to racists. That sounds pretty negative to me but like I said, typical... It's nothing new from the left and yes Lori, I know the president is black. Once again, his skin color has nothing to do with my beliefs.

Steve I wouldn't have a problem with the global warming alarmist communities if they didn't cherry pick data to reinforce their faith in global doom and expect the rest of us to pay for their "research".

Jeff. I wouldn't have a problem with your saying " if they didn't cherry pick data to reinforce their faith in global doom and expect the rest of us to pay for their 'research'", except for the fact that now several investigations have cleared scientists, who were falsely accused of this charge. I don't guess you'd know that, though, since fox fraudcasting is not likely to have reported it.

Also, Chelsea got it wrong. Gore didn't compare climate cynics to racists. What he said, in effect, was that activists confronted the ignorance of the racists during the civil rights era, and now activists must confront the ignorance of the climate cynics, today. Read Gore's statement above.

And Jeff, thanks for ignoring the question I asked above. I don't know if that was intentional or not - either way, it is exactly the kind of ignorance that Gore is confronting.

Gore isn't confronting ignorance. He is lashing out because the millions of dollars he spent propping up carbon credit trading institutions and green tech corporations was a waste of money. If cap and tax would have passed he woulds be what the New York Times described as "the first green billionaire". Instead he wasted a lot of money. I'd be pissed too but it serves him right for trying to profit by forcing people to pay for his ideas.

The scientists were not cleared of any wrong doing Steve.

Links are provided below, Jeff. Fox even claimed that the NSF investigation would be the "last word". And it was. Maybe now you think that Fox is part of the liberal conspiracy.

The NSF found that the scientists' responses to "reasonable requests for information" had been "unhelpful and defensive". The inquiry found "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness".

The investigation said they was "no proof" of wrong doing despite the nefarious behavior and stonewalling of those being investigated.

That's right, Jeff - "no proof". Climategate is a fraud, and it doesn't call into question the science of climate change. Climategate is an industry initiated attack on science because it's interests are threatened. Go ask a guy named Jeffrey Wigand about how that works.

I want prrof NOT LIES!!!
I have done a ton of research and found the denialists are LIARS!!!!!!
We're in a cooling trend.............LIARS!!!
Sunspots .........Um, the sunspots cycle would mean we would be in a cooling trend.
Earth wobble.....Um, the Earth wobble would ALSO put us in the COLD time of the wobble.
Glaciers are growing in the Calif sierras...........DUH!!!! Pacific warms, evaporation, clouds over the sierras equal MORE snow. Just ask a fith grader to explain.

Please sombody give me a link to REAL evidence there is NO G warming. I want to believe!!!!!!! But I am not ready to escape reality for my wishes.

Rude - listen. Global warming doesn't mean that the entire earth is warm at the same time. The core temperature of the earth is rising -- not much mind you, but it's noticeable. Alsos, the 2004 tsunami tilted the Earth on its axis, this affected the planet's weather patterns.


Glaciers are sprouting up in places where they shouldn't and glaciers that ahave been here since the dawn of "creation" are now gone and breaking apart. The planet is flucuating and changing its weather patterns.

Remember all of the tornadoes that happened this year?

My hometown was the one in Alabama that was completely demolished by an EF5 tornado (hackleburg) the first time H'burg had ever experienced something like that. Aside from that the mean temperatures in the state, as well as NV have gone up over the past few yrs.

Search on http://searchedu.com

it's a web crawler that only searches colleges, universities and textbooks. It will help you read up on facts more than peoples' opinions.

OPINIONS damage the facts of this matter.


Im not saying it's manmade global warming, that is the dispute here, and ppl like John A. down there don't undrstand that. They watch fox news and swallow the vomit they regurgitate down his throat and hes failing to realize that global warming in and of itself is a fact -- we just don't know whether WE'RE causing it, or if it's a natural occurrence.

Of course you say smething like that to someone who doesn't get it, like JOhn A. and you get acossted with republican diatribes because he doesn't have the mental capacity to discuss this civilly in a manner tht would actually educate him

and we can't have that education now can we? That would be TERRIBLE!

Very sorry to see that, Chelsea!! I hope you and your family escaped injury.

Two other small towns, one in Mississippi and one in Georgia, were completely destroyed in that outbreak. I live in north Mississippi, and spring has become a very treacherous time, sending several waves of tornadic storms each year. This is very different from when I was a child. I have lived here my entire life.

It's not just the waves of tornadic storms, either. Several western and southern states are under significant droughts, and wildfires have destroyed hundreds of square miles in those states this year. Texas is probably the hardest hit, with 90% of that state in "exceptional" drought or "extreme" drought. "Exceptional" is more severe that "extreme".

So then you have Texas Governor Rick Perry stating he doesn't believe the science on climate change, which is either a cynical political stunt, or it is pure ignorance - just like the ignorance Gore is confronting.

This man made global warming hoax doesn't matter anymore, you libs lost and we won so deal with it...lol...oh and take Barney the nutbag with you...lol

I am so pumped for the 2012 elections......just can't wait.

Leave it to someone who doesn't even understand the basics of the science behind it to turn this into a political issue.

You didn't win. Nobody won. Get it? Chances are you're far too old and you'll probably be dead and stiff before the world is pretty much done with, but rest assured you're "win" is only a loss for your descendants.

And that, my friend. Is a fact.

"...you libs lost and we won so deal with it...lol..."

Actually, john, if you do win, you will lose. If you think you're immune to the effects of climate change, take a look at Governor Perry's home state of Texas. 90% of his state is in "exceptional" or "extreme" drought, and wildfires have burned hundreds of square miles there this year. It has cost ranchers and farmers in excess of $6billion, and that doesn't include widespread property damage - the foundations of people's homes are cracking up. What? Fox News doesn't report that kind of stuff?

Crews battle wildfires amid severe Texas drought

I bet I have more of a science background than either of you Chelsea and Steve....

Yes us conservatives and america overall won with the 2010 elections and we are going to widen that win in 2012.

Steve you are really showing how little you actually know about climate. Just because one area is showing a drought doesn't mean anything when you consider the rest of the world.

Overall global temperatures have not been increasing for at least the last 10 years and you can't come up with any data to support saying it is that can be proven and backed up.

This big scam is all about money and to create another taxing scheme for big government....just follow the money and you find the truth and it will set you free.....lol

I know you libs treat this stuff as your religion and is made up of many of the failed soviet socialists type.....once the USSR failed they had to find something else to get gullable peoples money.

john a. I can say I'm a queen in a european nation and that doesn't make it so.

Your obvious lack of knowledge shows through your self-puffed lies. ;)

just sayin

Actually I would believe that you're a european.....which explains why you are trying to turn the US into another european socialist country.....its not going to happen but at least you tried right...lol

Since you think you're so smart.....how about answering these simple questions for me.

Explain how in the past it could have been much warmer than it is today...and how it could have also been much colder than it is today......and have switched back and forth many times.

Also explain how the Co2 levels have been much higher than today and also much lower than it is today?

How in this great warming period are we also setting new low temperature records......this is just not possible in your theory.

"Just because one area is showing a drought doesn't mean anything when you consider the rest of the world."

It's not just Texas, dude. Here's some interesting reading for you.

"Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country."

A Climate of Extreme Weather Events

Come on Steve......there has been a lot of new information uncovered since May of 2010. Some of it has been how much disinformation and flat out lies some from the man made global hoaxers have been doing with their statistics and such.

How about taking a crack at answering the two easy questions I asked?

Come on John......you're not a scientist, and I'm not either. You might as well be asking how I go about doing heart surgery. Yet, when you have symptoms, I bet you're not going to sit around and theorize about it. But if you need to know the science of CO2, you can read about it here.


"...disinformation and flat out lies some from the man made global hoaxers...."

Actually, that's the lie. I've counted six investigations that have cleared the scientists in question (3, maybe? - out of hundreds) of any scientific misconduct. But you hoaxers are going to repeat the lies.

Fox didn't like the results of Penn State investigation re: Michael Mann @ PSU, so they claimed that the NSF investigation would be the final word. The NSF affirmed the Penn State investigation. Game over.

Exclusive: Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word

NSF: Mann acted appropriately

I just don't believe in United Nations Agenda 21.

I believe in freedom, liberty, and personal property.

Well, personal property has been destroyed all across this nation - wildfires in the southwest, tornadoes in the south and midwest, floods in the Dakotas - now along the eastern coast. I think climate change is much more of a threat to personal property than a UN agenda.

Chelsea, you a big supporter of UN Agenda 21?

Winston - you a believer in future generations?

With freedom, liberty and personal property, yes.

As some communist utopian state, no.

As noted above, climate change is a threat to personal property. Cf. Texas drought/floods. I've provided links above.

Just what we need...two new poltico-religious groups that no amount of science, rational discussion or reality is ever going to dislodge from their respective corners of belief: The "Alarmists," and the "Denialists."

If there is anyone who can genuinely see BOTH sides of the issue objectively, then I'd love to hear from them. Otherwise, this whole issue has become as pointless a subject of discussion as Lamarckism, eugenics, or Tutankhamun's curse.

"...two new poltico-religious groups that no amount of science, rational discussion or reality is ever going to dislodge from their respective corners of belief: The 'Alarmists,' and the 'Denialists.'"

Interesting comment, especially the part about "no amount of science" - especially when you consider......

The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change

Interesting Drizzle...seems I may have chosen an example worthy of some re-examination.


Not interesting Steve B. Much of what you refer to is non peer-reviewable, statistical work done by "scientists" who have to sign agreements to support the thesis of anthropogenic warming prior to either private or government funding. And that's no more reliable work than that done by "scientists" hired by oil or coal companies, from which I could just as easily produce a list to counter yours. It's what attorneys refer to as a "Spitting Match."

Moreover, it ignores research done by scientists outside the field (and thus not constrained by the funding dogma) such as those pesky physicists at CERN, or NASA, or the University of Alabama.
Frankly, I put more weight behind the arguments of these scientists and their unbiased, transparent, public, and peer-reviewable work in hard-physics.

So could there possibly be another motivation for governments and big businesses getting behind the the idea anthropogenic warming? Could the world maybe be running out of oil? Could there be money to be made through schemes like "Carbon Trading?" Am I wasting my time discussing this with someone who is too religiously committed to his point-of-view to ask these questions for himself?

"Much of what you refer to is non peer-reviewable, statistical work...."

Sorry, Ruta. The major scientific organizations of the world are the arena for peer-review. And as far as "statistical work" is concerned, you will note that my link to the scientific consensus includes the American Statistical Association.

Sorry, Ruta. I'm not into conspiracy theories. If the scientists, who actually are in the field (and do the actual research) do not understand the science of climate change, and if the world's major scientific organizations are only self-interested, funding apparatuses, then you're essentially denying that there's any science at all.

"Am I wasting my time discussing this with someone who is too religiously committed to his point-of-view to ask these questions for himself?"

Interesting thought, especially considering the conspiratorial, speculative (without evidence) questions you ask: "So could there possibly be another motivation for governments and big businesses getting behind the the idea anthropogenic warming? Could the world maybe be running out of oil? Could there be money to be made through schemes like 'Carbon Trading?'"

Your questions are part of the long list of cynical talking points, and are political in nature. I always find it strange when politically motivated charges are made to the effect that scientists are playing politics with science.

In the meantime, the impacts of climate change are becoming more apparent.

Not interesting Steve B. Much of what you refer to is non peer-reviewable, statistical work done by "scientists" who have to sign agreements to support the thesis of anthropogenic warming prior to either private or government funding.

Actually, in concurrence with what Steve said, the scientific organizations and National Academies of the world are representative of and knowledgeable of the peer reviewed literature on the subject. These are the people in whom we should rely for accurate scientific synthesis and understanding.

And that's no more reliable work than that done by "scientists" hired by oil or coal companies,

Notwithstanding the complete illogic of such a statement, the point is that scientific organizations and scientists all over the world have researched and published tens of thousands of papers over many decades and with a firm footing in basic physics. The vast majority of people hired by oil or coal companies are not even scientists, or when they are scientists have mostly studied completely different fields and never done any climate science research. It is a rare exception to find an actual climate scientist who disagrees with the scientific consensus, in large part because the empirical evidence is too overwhelming to deny. In fact, the three or four climate scientists who are most often cited as "skeptics" all agree that the planet is warming and that CO2 plays a major role in that. They merely argue that man-made climate change isn't as important as 98% of working climate scientists state and as the vast preponderance of data demonstrate.

Moreover, it ignores research done by scientists outside the field

This is both inaccurate and bizarre. No one is ignoring any valid science. All new data are being incorporated into our understanding. As for "done by scientists outside the field," I'm a bit perplexed about whom you could possibly mean. Wouldn't research "outside the field" not be relevant? In any case, I've already noted that the vast majority of those "outside the field" are not climate scientists, or in most cases, not even scientists at all.

such as those pesky physicists at CERN, or NASA, or the University of Alabama.

Interestingly, none of your links are science. The CERN studies have been widely misrepresented by the denialist industry into something they are not. This is pretty much what the denialist industry does, and the online newspaper blog article is no exception. In fact, the CERN work is just beginning and will not have interpretable results for 5 to 10 years. Even then, it is looking at one tiny aspect related to whether cosmic rays can stimulate seed particles for cloud formation. At some point it might provide some relevant information that will feed back into our understanding, but to suggest that one study that hasn't even been completed yet, and more than likely will support the scientific consensus, is somehow going to invalidate the tens of thousands of other studies is simply silly.

The "NASA" link is a Yahoo article written by some non-science blogger that merely talks about the same thing as the University of Alabama (UAH) article that you next linked. The study is not NASA, it is Roy Spencer, which I'll discuss further next. Bottom line on the blog statement that "NASA says computer models are wrong" is that it is patently false. Neither NASA or Spencer's study supports that statement.

The UAH link is actually yet another blog that refers to a study recently published by Roy Spencer at UAH. Spencer is a climate scientist at UAH but is also on the Board of the George C. Marshall Institute, a libertarian lobbying organization that has been behind the denial of virtually every scientific knowledge going back to denying the link between smoking and cancer. Spencer isn't NASA, he merely runs the lab that on contract pieces together data from NASA satellites. Those satellite data, in fact, support the modeling and the scientific consensus. What Spencer was doing with this paper in a remote sensing journal was act on behalf of the lobbyist organization on whose Board he sits. It conflicts with his own published work and the NASA work that his lab compiles. Spencer's paper has been thoroughly evaluated by other climate scientists and found to be both unremarkable and based on simplistic models in which he can manipulate the input values with no boundaries to get his desired result. Another summary of the limited value of Spencer's work can be read here. [Note: Both links go to blogs, but those produced by working scientists and containing further links to supporting scientific information and peer-reviewed papers, which is in contrast to blogs that are posted by non-scientists on "Yahoo."]

The take home message on Spencer's paper is that is short on scientific robustness and doesn't say anything like what the bloggers and denialist industry lobbyists are saying. It's actually quite a bit of nothing.

Frankly, I put more weight behind the arguments of these scientists and their unbiased, transparent, public, and peer-reviewable work in hard-physics.

And the pièce de résistance is this rather odd claim. As pointed out above, the three links to whom the commenter would put more weight behind are blogs from non-scientists such as Yahoo contributors. The first referred to a complete misrepresentation of the CERN work, that is, the Register article made claims about the CERN experiments that simply are not true. The second link was to a Yahoo blogger who made up a headline that is patently false and is not even NASA work. And the third is to a blogger's reference to a UAH press release about Spencer's paper. Here again the paper doesn't say what the denialist industry claims it says, and it has been widely panned as overly simplistic science lacking in robustness. In any case, Spencer's own UAH data conflicts with his rather mundane claims in the paper, suggesting that his publicity tour for the paper (which is odd enough in itself) is being done more from his perspective of a George C. Marshall Institute lobbying Board member than as a scientist.

So to suggest that "these scientists" (most of whom are not or have been misrepresented) are "unbiased, transparent, public," and somehow producing "peer-reviewable work in hard-physics," and by inference claim that they trump tens of thousands of legitimate peer-reviewed papers by thousands of scientists worldwide over many decades is to go beyond incredible into the land of make-believe.

Am I wasting my time discussing this with someone who is too religiously committed to his point-of-view to ask these questions for himself?

Perhaps a more accurate question would be to ask yourself if you are so "too religiously committed" to a point-of-view as to write off decades of legitimate work by thousands of scientists as some sort of corrupt prank on the planet while elevating bloggers and lobbying organization Board members to "unbiased" and worthy of "more weight."

But people make their choices. There is the science. And then there is the denial of the science.

Steve and David, you're both missing the point entirely. I'm not going to define myself as either one of Saint Gore's sycophantic followers or some right-wing conspiracy cultist. Rather, I'm still open to new ideas and debate, regardless of my current personal opinion (which I have not stated). And all of this "my-science is-bigger-than-your-science" posturing and ridiculous name-calling accomplishes nothing more than turning this whole issue into a silly locker-room display.

The reality is that Global Warming (which is not in dispute here) presents a complex set of questions that often beg answers derived from tortuous statistical models based on limited data. Add in economic and socio-political effects, and this becomes an issue with many, many shades-of-gray. To me, an unwillingness to see any flaws in the arguments (from either side) is thus an indication that one is no longer interested in anything more than reinforcing an opinion.

I know this isn't The Well, but I'm not interested in being proselytized; I would just like to hear some intelligent, objective discussion.

Steve and David, you're both missing the point entirely.

Actually, not at all.

I'm not going to define myself as either one of Saint Gore's sycophantic followers or some right-wing conspiracy cultist.

You needn't define yourself at all. But read your sentence. You have conveniently equated all of the science with some Gore idolation, which is, in your words, missing the point entirely. Gore merely made a movie based on the science. He isn't the science, and whether people idolize him or loath him is irrelevant to the science. By defining all of the science in terms of Gore, and then equating that with right-wing conspiracy cultists, you have presumed equity where there is none. There are vast empirical data that unequivocally support the science. There are no data that remotely support the denialist contentions.

Rather, I'm still open to new ideas and debate, regardless of my current personal opinion (which I have not stated).

While it is correct that you have not explicitly stated your opinion, your opinion is implicit in the weight you give to the "sides." In fact, there are not too sides of the science. There is the science, and then there is the denial of the science. To suggest that those who claim the Earth is a square cube of feta cheese can be considered as offering anywhere near a valid point of view would be roughly equivalent to giving credence to anything said by people who have been shown to have intentionally obfuscated and deceived at every turn.

And all of this "my posturing and ridiculous name-calling accomplishes nothing more than turning this whole issue into a silly locker-room display.

Again, there is no "my-science is-bigger-than-your-science." There is the science, and there is the denial of that science (usually with intentional deceit).

The reality is that Global Warming (which is not in dispute here) presents a complex set of questions that often beg answers derived from tortuous statistical models based on limited data.

That really isn't an accurate characterization. Of course the science is 100% certain - nothing is 100% certain (death and taxes notwithstanding). And our understanding of the science is always growing as we understand more and more. But just as we know there is gravity even though there are some logistical issues we don't quite get, the data that led to the reality of global warming (which I agree is not in dispute here) are voluminous and the weight of the evidence is unequivocal. To write off these data as merely the result of "tortuous statistical models based on limited data" is to ignore all of the vast empirical data. That simply is an untenable position.

Add in economic and socio-political effects, and this becomes an issue with many, many shades-of-gray.

Umm, no. We are talking about the science, to which economic and socio-political effects are irrelevant. Those are policy-related issues. They certainly are important to how we decide what steps to take to deal with the scientific realities, but they have zero relevance to the science itself. We should be having an honest discussion of the policy options, but unfortunately there are too many people who are intentionally mixing up policy and science. The science is the science. How we deal with the science is policy.

To me, an unwillingness to see any flaws in the arguments (from either side) is thus an indication that one is no longer interested in anything more than reinforcing an opinion.

Your statement seems to hang there without context. Are you talking about the policy options to deal with the science? If so, then there certainly are legitimate differences of opinion on how best to move forward. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that scientists are unwilling to see any flaws in the scientific arguments then you are incorrect. Scientists are constantly looking at the flaws (i.e., the uncertainties). We are constantly challenging each other. That is what the peer-review and publication idea is all about. We put the results of studies out there for others to scrutinize. The studies must stand on their merits, and frankly, if someone comes up with something of merit that flips the prevailing view there is a rush to get the thing in print so we can all debate its meaning.

So when I say "there is the science, and then there is denial of the science," I include in that statement that the science is constantly being informed by new work. That is part of "the science," the constant updating, rethinking, and reevaluation of uncertainties. So when the science becomes so overwhelming that 98%+ of the people studying the topic concur on the meaning of the totality of the data, then that is a very big thing. The "other side," (as you put it) is not contributing to our understanding of the science. They are intentionally trying to obfuscate the science. And usually by deceitful means, which has been demonstrated over and over again.

I know this isn't The Well, but I'm not interested in being proselytized; I would just like to hear some intelligent, objective discussion.

By "The Well," I assume you mean the online community. I'm not sure what point you intended since science isn't done on online communities, it is done in the peer-reviewed literature and scientific meetings where those knowledgeable enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently and objectively can do so.

I also wonder why you think you are being proselytized since my comments (and Steve's that I've read) are exactly what you indicate you would just like to hear, i.e., some intelligent, objective discussion. For there to be such a discussion there needs to be an understanding of the facts. My comments (and Steve's that I've read) are intended to correct what appear to be a faulty characterization of those facts, if not explicitly stated, then at least implied by the relative weights given to "the sides" by the language chosen to describe them.

The facts are that the scientific evidence is vast and it unequivocally demonstrates that the planet is warming and that our activities, in particular our release of massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, are the main reasons why.

"Rather, I'm still open to new ideas and debate, regardless of my current personal opinion (which I have not stated)."

Actually, you have: "Much of what you refer to is non peer-reviewable, statistical work done by 'scientists' who have to sign agreements to support the thesis of anthropogenic warming prior to either private or government funding. And that's no more reliable work than that done by 'scientists hired by oil or coal companies, from which I could just as easily produce a list to counter yours. It's what attorneys refer to as a 'Spitting Match.'"

You have effectively said here that there is no such thing as science, which is an acceptable view for the "denialist" industries, whose stated goal has been to create doubt re: the legitimate science. This same strategy has been played out before in the tobacco wars. Unfortunately, you demonstrate the exact opposite, while claiming, "I would just like to hear some intelligent, objective discussion."

David (and Steve), I know that as one who refuses to bow toward the group-think, I am little more than a blasphemer to you. So I can only respond in the hope that others who have followed this conversation can see the benefit of at least some skepticism.

During the first half of the last century, "eugenics" was all the rage among the world's scientific community. The idea that the dilution of human traits would be our downfall, and that we urgently needed to control which of those traits were to be handed down to following generations seemed an irrefutably logical idea. Dire forecasts and hyperbole filled the public media as every industrialized nation on earth hosted scores of sincerely committed individuals who advanced the theory and promoted practices based upon it tenets. Eugenics' scientific and cultural inertia grew to become unstoppable...until in the United States it resulted in forced sterilizations, and far worse in Europe. Eventually, it evolved into the justification for human suffering on an unimaginable scale. Just a half-dozen decades later, eugenics is recognized as a culturally-destructive pseudoscience that justifies brutality and racism, while its legacy taints every aspect of legitimate research into what makes us human.

This century we have a new scientific bandwagon for everyone to follow. The thesis of "anthropogenic global warming" predicts our downfall, and calls the world to an urgent cause with an argument that is presented as irrefutably logical. Dire forecasts and hyperbole fill our media, while every industrialized nation on earth hosts scores of sincerely committed individuals who advance the theory and promote practices based upon its tenets. The scientific and cultural inertia has grown unstoppable...

I can't predict where we will be in another century, but I do hope that the result of the path we are on now doesn't turn out as poorly as that last "scientific" foray. My suspicion though is that humanity's future heroes won't be associated with CO2. Consequently, I am not going to be one of those enablers clinging to the turnip cart should it go tumbling over the edge, and I'm not going to endorse forcing others to ride. Good science is driven by continuous questioning. Good sense is driven by skepticism.

More destructively, global warming bombast obscures the public's view into what is really driving the problems we humans face. Overpopulation, limited resources, increasing competition for remaining resources by emerging nations, contamination of the environment, infrastructural collapse -- these are the underlying issues that present definite and escalating threats to human civilization should they remain unaddressed. And if anthropogenic global warming turns into another eugenics, will science ever be allowed to address any of these issues rationally, or will they be tainted by their relationships to the global warming movement?

Up to now, I haven't expressed my personal position regarding the anthropogenic nature global warming, because it isn't relevant to the point I have been trying to make here. But if you are interested, this article probably best sums up my own take on the issue. However, I do reserve the right to change my mind at any time.

Unfortunately, Ruta, while Lomborg is keeping his cool on global warming, Texas is burning up and two of our coastal regions are inundated with floods. Models forecast exactly those scenarios. We had several towns in the south and plains literally destroyed by EF5 tornadoes this spring. I've lived in the same region my entire life. We did not have wave after wave of tornadic storms systems moving through here when I was a kid.

Overpopulation definitely contributes to climate change, and Gore has a chapter on that in his book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. I do not deny the other problems you mention, but I think most of the solutions are common. Amory Lovins refers to "solving for pattern". The same solutions solve a multitude of problems. Gore also addressed that - if you can get beyond the caraciture of the man, and actually see what he says.

You speak about seeing the hype re: eugenics. I've seen this chapter before as well. I had a few run-ins with the tobacco industry over my professional career. So I know first-hand how a self-interested industry can run a campaign of doubt. I also don't think that betting against the major scientific institutions on behalf of every future generation is an ethical choice.

Here is Lovins' take on this problem - Reinventing Fire - or more accurately - the solution.

Btw, my field was mental health. I know very well the difference between group think and science. Your conflating the two is a mischaracterization.

Just wanted to drop in and say, I will delete all comments that are made in personal attack that aren't related to this particular topic. Keep that in mind. You KNOW who you are. ;)

My charge that cynical arguments are made by cynics is not "personal attacks". When people characterize the world's major scientific organizations and climate scientists as motivated primarily by "...either private or government funding," then by definition, that is cynicism (1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others; 2. based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest).

Hey Steve, it's fine with me; I wouldn't want to see your comments deleted. I may not agree with some of what you say, but I appreciate your place here, and want to be able to read your opinions. And I think my ego will survive. ;)

just read the Gather TOS and adhere to them, that's all I ask. Otherwise, trashbin. No offense.

Hey Ruta. At least we agree on that. I don't delete comments on my posts. I think people's comments should stand and fall on their own merit.

Chelsea. No offense taken. I just wanted to clarify that point.

"And I think my ego will survive. ;) "

Hopefully, all of our egos survive. But more importantly, I hope we don't increase the odds that future generations will fail to survive, because we listen too much (wittingly or not) to self-interested, polluting industries, which have no interest in anything surviving at all. If you want "... some intelligent, objective discussion," then you're going to have to recognize that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences is not the same thing as the Heartland Institute. There is no equivalency or parity between the "two sides".

What kind of "science" is it that cannot be questioned?

The answer: NONE.

What Al Gore is trying to do is build a religion based on "man-caused global warming."

Now, the point here is not if the climate is changing or not. It is not about if we should be trying to reduce our emissions into the atmosphere or not (we should).

The problem is, when you make a "scientific point" that cannot be questioned, cannot be researched, you are telling everyone to take the matter "on faith" based on whatever you have already learned.

But taking things entirely on faith is something done by religions -- not science. Science is constantly questioning itself. If we took all "proven" things on faith, then we would believe the Earth was the center of the universe.

The fact is, we are STILL learning about planetary motions around the sun and the movement of stellar bodies. In science, there is NEVER an end to inquiry.

What Al Gore is doing IS NOT SCIENCE. He has become an evangelist and will not truck with infidels.

The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change

Al Gore ain't doing science dude, but he is pointing out that the scientists are. And science constantly questions itself.

Science doesn't work on a vote by scientists ENDING all inquiry.

But Gore is saying anyone who doubts "man man global warming" is akin to a holocaust denier.

One is a historical event that happened, the other is a scientific theory that remains open to inquiry.

For Al Gore to equate the two is turning science into something more like mythology -- things you have to take ON FAITH.

"Science doesn't work on a vote by scientists ENDING all inquiry."

True. Who said it does? However, when the overwhelming majority of the scientists, who are actually doing the research are in concurrence, then consensus is a fairly strong statement of what the scientific community think. The few remaining "skeptical" scientists are still submitting papers. It's just that they fail to convince their colleagues. If you have research to submit, then you are perfectly free to submit it to any of the scientific journals. No one's stopping you.

Gore is reflecting the strength of the scientific consensus. You may not like it, but it is what it is. I recall one scientist describing it as strong as the scientific consensus on gravity - it exists.

Scientific theory has a specific meaning - it is a hypothesis that has gained evidential support. It ain't speculation. As my article on the subject (linked above) says, there are multiple lines of research that are all consistent with the IPCC report on anthropogenic climate change.

What would you use to compare deniers of the link between tobacco and cancer with? Would it surprise you to know that the fossil fuel industries learned their strategy of creating the public image of scientific doubt from the tobacco industry? In some cases, they used the same personnel and PR firms. Maybe you should write to a fellow named Jeffrey Wigand. He know a little bit about how an industry operates, when its "special interests" are threatened. Then you might have some clue re: why Gore uses such strong language.

FYI....

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

...and if you're not convinced by a conservative, writing in a conservative publication, then maybe the military will convince you:

About the Quadrennial Defense Review

Quadrennial Defense Report (2010) (p.84ff)

Navy Task Force Assesses Changing Climate

Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change

Taking Up the Security Challenge of Climate Change

Report: Climate change a major military issue

Pentagon to Rank Global Warming as Destabilising Force

AL GORE claims it does. He calls all those who do not agree with him to be "deniers."

And his "thousands of scientists include thousands of "social scientists."

Well, I call them "cynics". Why? Because you bet against every major scientific organization on the planet, on behalf of every future generation.

Well, see in you can find the social scientists here:

The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change

I call then "scientists" because they understand there is no way to assign a cause and effect here.

First of all, the Earth's climate has never been "fixed" but has undergone change for billions of years.

There is NO WAY to assign a cause to an event unless you can have a controlled experiment. The fact is, that there are too many changes to Earth that have occurred other than CO2 emissions over the past century.

For example, for most of Earth's history, man hasn't had much of a population. Just the mere incidence of 6.5 Billion beings with their houses is a "new" event.

Moreover, some of the biggest skeptics are also highly renown scientists. They get "dismissed" by Gore and his Apostles because they don't fall in line.

Right now, there is more money to be made in grants to SUPPORT the theory Gore is pushing than there is in opposing it. Even the oil companies are using the damn thing.

The best science is that which accepts criticism and is open to revision. The theory of evolution has been revised many times and still is open to scientific inquiry.

But listen to Gore -- he wants NO CRITICISM, NO DEBATE, NO OPPOSITION.

That's religion -- not science.

"They get 'dismissed' by Gore and his Apostles because they don't fall in line.

No, the evidence doesn't support their skepticism.

"But listen to Gore -- he wants NO CRITICISM, NO DEBATE, NO OPPOSITION."

Gore is not part of the scientific debate. He only points to it. I know that's hard for you to comprehend, infatuated with Gore as you are. But the scientific debate has taken place in the scientific institutions for decades - and it is still taking place there. The scientific institutions don't take positions lightly - and you have no justificiation for dismissing them out of hand.

"That's religion -- not science."

A deliberate campaign to sell doubt in the public mind about the solid scientific opinion about global warming by a self-interested conglomerate of industries is neither religion nor science - it's fraud.

"...some of the biggest skeptics are also highly renown scientists."

I provided you with a link to a scientific survey of active climate researchers. 98% support the IPCC report on anthropogenic climate change. That survey is consistent with another scientific survey, again regarding agreement by active climate researchers re: the IPCC report. I do not think you will read the reference, but you cannot say it wasn't provided.

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change