If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

More Americans Seeing Solid Evidence of Global Warming

There has been a moderate uptick over the past two years in the percentage of Americans that believe in climate change, although substantially fewer Americans say there is solid evidence of global warming than did so from 2006 to 2008, according to a report by the Pew Research Center for the People and Press.

Currently, 63 percent say there is solid evidence that that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In October 2009, 57 percent expressed this view. During 2006 to 2008, more than seven-in-ten Americans believed there was solid evidence of global warming, the report says.

Since 2009 there have been sharp increases in the number of independent voters and, interestingly, moderate and liberal Republicans that believe in climate change.

At present 63 percent of independents say there is solid evidence of rising temperatures up from 53 percent in October 2009. Some 63 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans now see evidence of global warming, compared to 41 percent in the Pew poll two years ago.

The Pew poll echoes the findings of a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in September. The Reuters poll found that 83 percent of Americans believe the Earth has been warming, up from 75 percent last year.

Reuters attributed the rise to a reaction to climate skepticism by the Republican presidential candidates.

Run an Efficient EHS Audit Program - A How-to Guide
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Using Technology to Bulletproof EHS Compliance Management
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

Powerful Byte - Strategies to Ingest, Digest High-Frequency Data
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions


48 thoughts on “More Americans Seeing Solid Evidence of Global Warming

  1. This is a ridiculous article; treating the topic of Global Warming like some sort of “belief system” and assuming that creates some level of credibility is ludicrous! What people believe has nothing to do with reality, and conventional wisdom is usually wrong anyway.
    Global climate change has been with us since the beginning of time and it will always be part of the Earth’s environment as long as this Solar System continues to exist, and studies done over a few decades are statistically insufficient to prove the existence of any long-term trend in either direction. Human memory of past seasons in relationship to current climate conditions is not a useful tool for determining a trend in climate change, that statistical sample size is too small to predict a trend with any degree of confidence.
    So yes, of course we are experiencing some degree of climate change, we always have. But while Environmentalists in America have touted Global Warming for years, Russian Scientists claim the planet is heading into another Ice Age; go figure.
    In reality Solar activity, which is something we have absolutely no control over, has much more to do with the heating and cooling of the planet than anything else we can possibly affect to any extent. We are at the mercy of the universe, and the only thing we can ever know for certain is that some form of change is inevitable!

  2. Would someone please show ME solid evidence of man-caused global warming? I need it to explain why the earth has cooled over the past dozen years and yet we still have “global warming”. Also, why is it that every time there is a heat wave, it’s caused by global warming and every time there are record cold temps or record snowfall, this is also caused by global warming? Why does the IPCC dodge and weave around the MWP and the LIA? Why does the IPCC not think that the sun may have something to do with temperature changes? This article is so silly. It is obvious that it is looking to show how more and more people, who are exposed to crap in the media, are coming to a conclusion based on incomplete or faulty data, and the author seems to want to say, “See? These folks believe…what’s wrong with you that you don’t believe?” Man-caused global warming is a religion because it surely isn’t science.

  3. Dear Bernie, Kevin, and Rob,
    Right, climate change is not a belief; it is based on solid science (which means peer-reviewed—lots of other scientists critically examining the work). 95-98% of the relevant scientists agree that is here, mostly cause by humans and has profound consequences. Don’t trust me, READ THE SCIENCE.
    If you can’t understand it, get someone to explain it to you.
    Yes, the earth’s climate has changed and will change but scientist know and measure all of the variables. Go to NASA’s Goodard Institute of Space Studies website and you can find a good graph of all the forces that affect climate. Go to any bona fide scientific site and check out global climate trends and see temperature graphs; the earth is warming, there is no scientific debate about it.
    Ask yourselves this question: how could a scientist in 1895, using paper and pen, accurately predict the speed of global warming (Arhenius)? Because he knew that the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels traps heat and it stays in the atmosphere for centuries (some of it) From ice corps studies we know that the earth’s temperature has always been closely correlated with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (again, don’t trust me, check it out)
    We now have more CO2 in the atmosphere that there has ever been since humans have been on the planet–a 30% increase over just a few generations and predictably, global average temperatures are rising. The oceans are warmer (again, undisputed fact–check it out), which contributes to more turbulent weather. Sea levels are rising because warm water expands, ice is melting, and there are a number of other serious consequences of climate change. Heck, even the oil companies final admit it–check Shell’s website.)

    Please, read real science with an open mind. Any major University’s research will do.

  4. Good, solid response, Karen. And to respond to the post from Jeff:

    1) There is solid evidence for you to consider at the IPCC website. Go to their most recent IPCC report, and read the chapter on the science behind global warming. Follow up on some of the references they cite. For further confirmation, visit NOAA and other reputable sites as well. The solid evidence is available – all you have to do is read about it.

    2) A few dozen years is too short a time to focus on. ‘Climate’ refers to average weather patterns over decades to centuries – not short spans of time. Besides, the Earth has not cooled significantly over the past dozen years. NOAA data show that average global temperatures over the past dozen years have been higher than at any time in the previous century: http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch.

    3) Climate change, by definition, brings changes in weather patterns. Hotter heat waves and colder or wetter winter storms are examples. Increasing the amount of heat energy stored in the oceans and in the atmosphere leads directly to more energetic weather events, including snow storms, heat waves, hurricanes, summer thunderstorm activity, changes in average jet stream patterns, and many other examples.

    4) The IPCC does think that the sun is one driver of climate. Their report clearly takes changes in solar activity into account. But mankind is dumping untold gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, that were sequestered in geologic formations over millions of years. Dumping such quantities in such short time intervals (100-200 years) is bound to have an additional effect above and beyond any changes in solar activity. Besides, did you know that the sun has been unusually quiet in recent years? And despite that fact, global temperatures are still at record high levels. Clearly other drivers are also at work.

  5. All of this “science” is based on data that was admittedly (re: IPCC Email Scandal) tweaked to make it say what they thought it should.
    Peer review? Is that what it takes to make you believe? Those same IPCC emails discussed that and how they would not pass a colleague’s material through their peer review becuase his material disagreed with the “accepted” view.
    And please don’t tell me about how they investigated those emails and the scientists who wrote them and found nothing wrong…an acedemic investigated another acedemic and found nothing wrong…that’s like congress investigating congress. And this was at the same place that did a similar internal investigation recently and found that there was nothing going on with Jerry Sandusky and his boys in the shower.
    I keep hearing about all of these massive storms and every year, for example, they say the hurricane season is going to be HUGE because of global warming…and then, when we get fewer than normal, I hear that that’s because of global warming.
    CO2 is plant food and makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere. The largest component of the atmosphere, the biggest GHG, is water vapor…but that isn’t discussed….it’s too hard to tax, right? Can’t make a case for redistribution of wealth with that, right?
    Why is it that the Japanese satellite shows 3rd world countries as the biggest sources of CO2?
    OK…so we can’t look at just the past 12 years to say whether or not there is global warming….hmmmm…it’s so hard to figure out how to look at it from your point of view. For example, when Bill Mahr (one of your more vocal proponents) was blasting people who point to a snow storm and say, “See? How could there be global warming when you get a big snow storm like that?”. Mahr said you can’t point to an event, you have to look at the bigger picture, you have to look at climate change. He said 2005 was the warmest on record…that’s climate change. Bill Mahr is not a scientist but he is a believer, like you, and gets his talking points, it seems, from the same place you do.
    An IPCC scientist said that we will probably see cooling for the next 30 years and he still calls it global warming.
    So, we can’t look at a snow storm. We can’t look at the past 12 years (except for 2005, apparently). And if we continue to cool for the next 30 years, we already got that covered by the IPCC with that one guy’s prediction (based on real science, I am sure).
    So, let’s look at the really really BIG picture, then.
    Let’s go back 400,000 years and see what the trends have been…

  6. Like it or not, Jeff, I’m going to tell you what you don’t want to hear: the investigations into those emails were not conducted by academics alone. There have been at least five independent reviews; each of which exonerated the scientists and the institutions involved from any scientific wrongdoing. The science was not manipulated in any way. You are repeating a tired claim that has long since been shown to be completely false – five different times.

    “I keep hearing about all of these massive storms and every year, for example, they say the hurricane season is going to be HUGE because of global warming…and then, when we get fewer than normal…” – this statement is patently false. The hurricane intensity and frequency in the atlantic is indeed increasing. Here is the data to prove it: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews.html. Do a five year running average of the number of hurricanes, and the trend is clear:
    Year average # hurricanes
    2008 8
    2007 7.8
    2006 7.4
    2005 8.2
    2004 6.8
    2003 7.2
    2002 7.8
    2001 7.6
    2000 7.6
    1999 8.2
    1998 7.2
    1997 6
    1996 6.2
    1995 5.2
    1994 4.6
    1993 5.4
    1992 5.6
    1991 5.4
    1990 5.4
    1989 5.2
    1988 4.8
    1987 4.4
    1986 4.2
    1985 4.8
    1984 5.2
    1983 5.2
    1982 5.6
    1981 6.2
    1980 6
    1979 5.4

    Trace gases can have disproportionate impacts. For example, stratospheric ozone is a trace gas, but decreased amounts lead to severe consequences as more solar UV reaches the surface. It is for that reason that a global cap&trade program was succesfully created to restore stratospheric ozone levels. And by the way, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does have a significant global warming impact, partially because it helps to increase atmospheric water vapor (so the effects are compounded).

    Whatever Bill Mahr may say, I stand firmly behind my statement that ‘climate’ refers to weather patterns over decades to centuries. I also refer you once again to the NOAA data that clearly shows global warming occuring over the past century. Nearly all climate scientists have concluded from the data and the models that a significant portion of that warming is due to anthropogenic sources of GHG. Jeff, nearly the entire relevant scientific community is in agreement. I am certainly going to listen to their collective analyses, and they outweigh your unsupported opinions by a considerable amount…

    Finally, going back 40,000 years is an interesting exercise. But as the IPCC and nearly all climate scientists agree, there are both natural and anthropogenic drivers of climate change. That has never been at issue. What is new in the mix is the massive release of GHGs due to anthropogenic sources such as burning fossil fuel, land use changes, etc.

  7. The data on hurricanes you listed goes back to 1979 and shows it going up and down and up and down and up and down. So, what does that prove? Did you look at the 1930’s? Which, BTW, set the most records, most still hold today, for high temps across the US. 1933 had 21 tropical storms in one year, more than in any year for 46 years of record-keeping, up to that point. After that, temps went down for a few decades. Did you look back any further than 79? Up and down and up and down, Doug.
    I still don’t buy it. I am glad you are so comfortable with the IPCC emails…they are very clear as to what they were doing with the data and with peer reviews. You didn’t mention anything about that, just that there were investigations and they all determined that everything was ok, scientifically…to me, they can’t take back what they said in those emails, in which they talked about things they thought would be kept private…no matter how many true believers, excuse me, “investigators” you get to stand up and say it was not what it was, they were very clear! They were trying to decieve everyone! Doesn’t that make you sit up and say, “Huh?”?
    This “interesting exercise” went back 400,000 years, not 40,000. Why is it just interesting if it goes against what you claim? It clearly indicates that we have been much warmer and much colder than we are now many times….without man’s evil free enterprise…there is always a cycle and we are heading into another ice age (we’re due), so if man-caused global warming were real, then we should be putting out as much CO2 as possible to prevent a cooling…that is, if we really could affect the climate like you say. You didn’t mention anything about the Japanese satelite data that indicated the highest CO2 output being found in non-industrial countries. So, when we do this cap-and-trade, we will be forced to send our wealth to countries that are putting out more CO2 than we are…is that right? Shouldn’t they be paying us?
    The latest data I read about the sea-levels is that, atarting in 2008, they are actually not rising as fast as predicted based on IPCC data, and NASA just reported that it dropped last year. So, what happened there? Just like the 30 year cooling period, this is just a fluke? Or is it possible that it is just part of the eb & flow of nature?
    You use the term “relevant” in referring to the scientists who agree with your stance. There are quite a few who don’t agree but they are never talked about…the message is always “most scientists agree so you should too!” However, here is a resignation letter from one Nobel Prize winning scientist to the head of the APS:
    From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
    To: kirby@aps.org
    Cc: Robert H. Austin; ‘William Happer’; ‘Larry Gould’; ‘S. Fred Singer’; Roger Cohen
    Subject: I resign from APS
    Dear Ms. Kirby
    Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
    ‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
    If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’
    In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
    Best regards,
    Ivar Giaever
    Nobel Laureate 1973

  8. Huricane records are only reliable back to the late 1940s. With respect to your comment about the numbers going up and down, the overall trend (which you ignored) is clear: they start out hovering around 5, and wind up 30 years later hovering around 7. That’s a 40% increase in just 30 years. I stand fully by my comment that hurricane frequency is increasing.

    No scientific wrongdoings were uncovered in 5 separate and independent investigations – investigations that were undertaken by five separate entities. Additionally, not one single investigation has ever concluded otherwise. So the independent score stands at 5 – 0 in favor of scientific integrity. While you are free to continue your unsupported witch-hunt, I think that most observers will listen to these independent results and rightly conclude that the whole email scam was greatly overblown and does not in any way call the science into question – period.

    For the third time, Jeff, I state clearly that there are both natural and anthropogenic drivers to climate change. The whole scientific community agrees on that point. Focusing on climate changes that took place before the anthropogenic influence came into play is therefore pointless. So sorry that I mistyped 40,000 instead of 400,000 – but that typo does not influence the point. The key fact remains that anthropogenic contributions to GHGs are rising rapidly, and represent an entirely new source and an entirely new driver to climate change. On top of the pre-existing natural drivers, this new influence is poised to dramatically alter the climate. Since our entire infrastructure, settlement patterns, etc., are all based on the climate patterns in effect for thousands of years, then any climate pattern change is highly likely to be very disruptive and costly to societies the world over.

    As far as who should be paying who, if indeed any such determination can fairly be made, you have conveniently overlooked some important facts. The U.S. pumped out the most GHGs, by far, for many decades. During that entire time, the country profited handsomely while it polluted our atmosphere. You (if you are from the U.S.) and all other U.S. citizens enjoyed many benefits of that GHG-producing economy. Now is the time to pay the piper for all those years of profit and pollution. And with respect to any Japanese satellite data (you fail to provide any source or citation to back up this claim), check out this data: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT. It shows China and the U.S. as the two largest emitters of GHGs in the entire world. That’s on an absolute scale. Now check out this data: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC. It shows per capita emissions – while the U.S. does not top the list, it is far in excess of the per capita emissions of most of the developing world. Also from the World Bank comes the quote “Climate change is expected to hit developing countries the hardest”. Finally, it isn’t even a question about ‘who should be paying whom’. We are all in this together, and all of us stand to pay dramatically higher prices if climate change is ignored any longer – higher prices economically, higher in terms of human displacements and increased suffering, higher in terms of future wars or international tensions over scarce and shifting resources (such as rainfall patterns), etc., etc.

    And again for the third time, Jeff, I point out that one should not focus on single year, or even a few years long, intervals to say anything at all about climate. Why do you continue to ignore that? Now, check out this link: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262. One quote states “the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific”. And another: “while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory”. And this one: “But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again. ‘We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,’ says Willis”. Finally, look at the longer term trend shown on the graph at this same website – it clearly shows alarming and rapid sea level rise over at least the past 18 years (the length of time such accurate satellite measurements have been available). Stop ignoring this overall trend in favor of meaningless single-year events.

    With respect to scientific consensus, you state “There are quite a few who don’t agree but they are never talked about…”. Well, Jeff, about 98% of scientists working in the field agree that climate change is coming, and that there is a significant anthropogenic contribution that is driv ing that change. That means there are about 2% who don’t agree, or who don’t agree fully – and there’s nothing wrong or inconsistent about that. The letter you provide is from one such scientist. But that letter cannot negate the overwhelming majority of 98% who do agree. Why do you continue to ignore the 98%? That is like saying that a person who wins 98% of the vote in an election does not deserve to take office…

  9. Hurricane records are only reliable back to the late 1940’s? Then whatever trend you are pointing out for the past 60 years means what? A 40% increase in 30 years? Compared to what, Doug? Just the previous 30 years? Because that’s all you have to compare with, according to your own statement. So, let’s just toss out the whole storm thing, shall we? For the sake of discussion.
    I don’t trust the “independent investigations” you mention because I read the emails and they indicate that data was changed and some was destroyed and that they were intentionally sabotaging peer reviews of those who disagreed with them. How can you trust any investigation after that?
    You state clearly for the third time that there are both natural and anthropogenic drivers to climate change? So? Say it again, if you like. Doesn’t make it true. The whole scientific community agrees on that point? No. That is not true. Some disagree…oh, but they are not “relevant”, right? Focusing on climate change before man came on the scene is NOT pointless. How can you say that? That is the point of this whole discussion, isn’t it? Is it an inconvenient truth for global warmists that the planet has been this warm and even warmer before man? Is it inconvenient that between 1940 and 1970, according to NASA and reported in Time magazine in June 24, 1974 issue, that the average temperature of the planet dropped .18 deg F? I don’t know how old you are, but I remember that was when they started calling for an ice age. What’s really inconvenient for warmists is that, during this same period, CO2 was increasing. This was where one of the email chains revealed part of their manipulations…”So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately … It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940’s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip’”. Darn those blips…they can be a real pain for real science, hey, Doug?
    All those years of profit and pollution? Yeah, we are so bad… Oh, wait. No…we’re actually pretty good…it’s the third world corrupt governments that are doing anything to improve their impact on the environment. The earth is pretty amazing at healing itself and Americans have been pretty good at reversing environmental damage. I used to live on the Hudson. Talk about a mess. It is amazingly clean now compared to what is used to be. There used to be warnings issued about swimming in it or eating fish from it and that has stopped because it has been cleaned up (thanks a lot to Pete Seeger and folks like him). The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland actually caught fire…many times since the 1860’s. It is clean now, too. The forest in the northeast was once down to 35% of its original coverage. It is now back up to 85%. We do good things here in the US. Others are doing good things in other countries, as well. We have legislation in place to ensure it keeps getting better. Reading through these comments here, it seems as if there is no hope. Are all of you in need of something to fear or do you need something with which to scare others? Maybe it’s something else for some of you…who is going to make money on this one? Al Gore? The idiots at the UN?
    Why do you believe the warming science? Are you a scientist? If not, then you are basing your opinion on something someone else tells you is true. This climate change science may end up being right on the money (I doubt it) or it may be hogwash (this gets my vote). I don’t know for sure because I am not a scientist. But there are some scientists who don’t agree with the others about it. If it was proven and prove-able, why are there scientists that don’t agree? After reading the IPCC emails that were leaked where they were conspiring against those that disagreed by refusing peer review of their papers, and how the data was lost upon which they based their original theories, I decided that there was something wrong with this. Then when people started making money on it, I withdrew even further. Tell me how I am wrong here.
    As to focusing on a single year (speaking of the current lowering of ocean levels), I agree…and you love to count how many times you tell me something and again, you can say the same thing over and over and over, but if you’re wrong, it won’t help…I was pointing out a trend of the rise slowing over the years and then reversing and the levels slowing.
    You either say “the whole scientific community” or the 98% vs the 2%. Which is it? And where do you get the number 98%? Someone writes that on their blog and it’s true? Is someone actually counting? How many agree with warmists just to qualify for government and other funding for their projects? You have people like Gore controlling the purse strings and money calls the shots. Don’t you think that if this anthropogenic warming was incontrovertible fact, that there would not be any accomplished scientists disagreeing? Doesn’t that give you pause?

  10. Jeff, just because hurricane records are not reliable for as far back as we could wish for; is no reason at all to “just toss out the whole storm thing”. That would be unscientific data editing. It would also be foolish – to throw out the only data we have on the topic. What a silly idea.

    Independent investigations are just that – independent. They investigators had no vested interest in the outcomes of their investigations. That means the investigations were as objective as can reasonably be achieved. The results of such unbiased, independent investigations are nearly always far more trustworthy than the mere opinions of biased observers. How is it that your opinion can outweigh the 5 independent conclusions of investigative panels? Exactly what expertise do you bring to the table that would allow you to properly evaluate the science that was being practiced? And exactly how many interviews and other interactions did you engage in, in order to form your opinion? What’s that you say – you conducted no interviews? Inspected no scientific results or processes? Applied no independent scientific vetting of the conclusions? Well, then – guess I was right all along to listen to the conclusions of the 5 independent investigations that did perform interviews, vetted conclusions, inspected the scientific process, etc.

    No, the point of this whole discussion is not to focus on climate change before man came on the scene. But since you raise the subject, it is not inconvenient at all to agree that climate changes took place before our anthropogenic influence came into play (for the fourth time – I’ll keep counting as long as you keep on ignoring). Since you seem to want to focus on pre-human climate changes, then focus on the fact that climate models can accurately reproduce those pre-human changes using all the natural climate forcings. And also focus on the fact that those very same climate models cannot reproduce the current climate changes by using only those very same natural forcings. The current climate changes can only be reproduced by using both natural and anthropogenic climate drivers – including the GHGs being released by human activities. That is the unvarnished truth that you are refusing to accept. Oh, and you are also incorrect to claim that shorter term warming trends are in any way inconvenient for the global warming hypothesis. Again for the fourth time, I state that short-term variabilities are not significant indicators of longer term trends. But apparently you are unable to absorb that truth.

    So wonderful that we have been able to clean up a few small corners of our environment – and I mean that. But cleaning up the Hudson was child’s play in comparison to the huge, and urgent, problems we face in order to clean up our GHG impacts on the entire planet. Single rivers or certain forests are not comparable in scale to the entire climate. And cleaning up a river may entail some local economic pains – but cleaning up our GHG impacts takes a far greater effort; since so much of our way of life is currently based on burning such large amounts of fossil fuels, such vast changes in land use, etc. Oh, and by the way, those western forests? – they are being extremely hard hit by beetle infestations. Why is that relevant? Well, those beetles are moving northwards because – wait for it – anthropogenic climate change has opened up regions to them that were once closed by lower temperatures. Much of the western forest is at risk of dying – many large swaths are already dead. Is that another one of those good things that we do here in the U.S.? Oh, wait, I forgot – “We have legislation in place to ensure it keeps getting better”. Except, oops, those darn Republicants in Washington keep trying to gut the EPA and other agencies tasked with enforcing that legislation – and they all too often succeed. Darn that inconvenient truth.

    I don’t “believe” in the science – rather, I accept both the data and the conclusions arrived at by sound scientific methodologies. Belief has nothing to do with it, at least not on my end. But your beliefs are another matter. You have rejected the data, the methodologies, and the conclusions that have been reached by the vast majority of scientists working in the field. With little to no sound reasoning to back up your opinions – which is why your opinions are based more on beliefs than on any defendable science. And I don’t normally respond to this, but I’ll make a small exception here – yes, I am a scientist. And since you are not, it seems clear that I am in a better position than are you, to evaluate the science and to form a logical conclusion. In fact, your very argument that “If it was proven and prove-able, why are there scientists that don’t agree” is a clear indication of your lack of scientific understanding. And if you still don’t understand why that is true, go ask a local scientist to explain the scientific process to you.

    The presumed “trend of the rise slowing over the years and then reversing and the levels slowing” – is completely false. The trend is not slowing – that much is clear from the weblink I provided. And it certainly has not “reversed”! Only a single year shows a reversal – and didn’t you just now agree that focusing on a single year is meaningless? When you claim that the trend has reversed, you are apparently simply making this all up. Point to some independent, plausible data that backs up such wild claims. The independent data that I pointed you to certainly refutes your claims.

    You asked for some support for my 98% figure. I’ll work on getting my original reference for that (it may be on my home computer). In the meantime, how about this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full. This paper looked at 928 climate-related papers published between 1993 and 2003. 75% of the papers explicitly or implicitly supported the consensus hypothesis of global warming. The remaining 25% did not support, but also did not disagree, with the hypothesis – they were merely supplying ancillary data or analyses. Remarkably, not a signle paper published in that interval was in explicit or implicit disagreement with the global warming hypothesis. Additionally we have these quotes:
    “IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].”
    “In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements”. Including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Jeff, all this makes me wonder – can you provide any references that document well-respected and well-known scientific organizations that do not support the consensus opinion? Just asking.

    Finally, Gore controls few to no purse strings of scientists – that charge is just baseless hyperbole.

  11. “Duplicate comment detected…” What the heck? It is not appearing above, so it can’t be “duplicate”. I can’t seem to post my response to Doug. Is Environmental Leader blocking me for some reason? Are you guys acolytes of the AGW God, too? Too bad. It was really good. Quite eloquent, really. It answered all of Doug’s points and would have convinced him how error-ridden his science was. He would have been saved from his descent into the false religion of AGW. He would have thanked me profusely and my comments would have been used by pundits all over the earth as others finally realized that AGW is a scam to redistribute wealth and the people would have risen up to throw out the scientists that gave in to the politics just to keep getting their funding. You’re Welcome anyway, Grandpa Greer.

  12. The last posting by Jeff illustrates the point I made above about how Jeff’s beliefs are driving his arguments, and how his opinions are not drawn from any defendable science.

    For example, his reference to AGW as a religion; completely ignores the hard data. It also ignores the fact that it is science, and scientists, that are at the heart of the AGW hypothesis. This PR catch-phrase is nothing more than an attempt to cast the debate in more emotional terms. Jeff and other deniers engage in such tactics because their attempts to debate the science on logical grounds, always crash and burn in the face of science-based rebuttals and hard data.

    In a similar vein, the charge that AGW is a scam to redistribute wealth; likewise fails the test of rationality. For one thing, it ignores the redistributions of wealth that take place whenever he fills his gas tank, or whenever he pays his electricity bill, or whenever the U.S. supports a foreign regime that happens to supply large quantities of oil to us, etc. For another, Jeff fails to offer any plausible evidence of a scam; that clearly leads to any unfair redistributions of wealth that are unequivocally dependent on the existence of such a scam. And more fundamentally, the whole question of any imagined scam is not even central to the issue – it is a manufactured sideshow that deniers use to cloud the AGW debate.

    Once again, I direct attention back to the science – both the data as well as the analyses; and I once again point out the overwhelming scientific consensus that has developed, and which continues to be sustained as additional data rolls in. The wonder in all this is not that more americans are starting to agree that AGW is a real threat; rather, it is that some continue to cling to their unsupported beliefs.

  13. So, Doug, how is it that your long posts are allowed and mine aren’t? I am going to try to post my previously denied comments again after this as they are in response to your other post. As to your comments above, you keep going back to the science that supports AGW but that is based on what I and many others believe are unscientific practices and manipulations. Why don’t you respond to me about those emails from both releases from the IPCC scientists? ClimateGate and ClimateGate 2? I know you think that is settled because of the “investigations” but those investigations only occurred after the first release of emails and the second release show that the deception is still going on. I provided links to both releases in previous posts. How can the science be settled in your mind when there are scientists leaving your side in protest to the bad science and the politics? (another link I provided) Even if there are not as many of them as those that believe in AGW, it should still cause anyone to wonder why it is that it is not settled in everyone’s minds, whether it is award winning, well respected scientists or Kentucky grandfathers like me. You know, it was pointed out recently that science isn’t always right just because of consensus. Your AGW ancestors believed the Earth was flat until Columbus proved you wrong and didn’t fall of the edge. You also thought the universe revolved around us and you put Galileo in jail for saying otherwise. More recently, you told us for years that Pluto was a planet! What’s up with that? You told us we were going into an ice age because of our pollution and now we are supposedly doing the opposite. So, all that is to say that the hard data you talk about and base all of your comments upon is really pretty flaccid.

  14. Jeff, most of your most recent comments are mindless repetitions of your already-rebutted talking points.

    Your continued focus on the manufactured email issue is tiresome. I have already provided ample logic that shows how that whole ‘issue’ is not relevant to the question about whether or not AGW is supported by the science. AGW is supported by the science – period. Regardless of individual scientists or any of their emails. Forget about the emails – focus on the science instead, that is supported by such a majority of scientists (not just those whose emails were investigated and who were subsequently cleared of any scientific wrongdoing, 5 different times). You know – that overwhelming majority that you somehow continue to discount and/or ignore; without providing any logical reasons for doing so. Oh, that’s right: you base your arguments on your beliefs only – not on any science. How convenient for you.

    Your continued confusions about how the scientific process works are also still in evidence. Not many scientific hypotheses, theories, data, or analyses are accepted by 100% of all scientists. In addition, nearly all theories are generally regarded as the best descriptions of nature that are currently available, and all are subject to future modifications if new knowledge is gained that requires it. AGW’s widespread acceptance by the scientific community is a strong endorsement. Stop focusing on the few who are in disagreement, and stop your false assertions that those in disagreement somehow disprove the entire hypothesis. Oh, that’s right: you have no scientific training, and no real understanding of the scientific method. How convenient for you.

    By the way: 1) Columbus did not prove that the world was round – that fact had been known since ancient times (the ancient greeks were even able to estimate the circumference of the Earth to a surprising accuracy); 2) the catholic church is the entity that clung to their previous assertions about the universe, and who persecuted Galileo (not scientists); and 3) re-classifying Pluto is a result of an updated understanding about solar system formation, not any repudiation of previous science. Not to mention the fact that all of these arguments you raise are obviously completely unrelated to AGW or to our discussions.

  15. How wonderfully condescending. You are calling me mindless because I disagree with you. Just because you rebutted my points over and over again doesn’t make your rebuttal right over and over again. I could say all of the same nasty remarks to you for not believing me…but I won’t. The emails bother me even more just because you brush them off so easily. If you really are a scientist, you could actually read through each of them and figure out that they are really talking about deception and manipulation. Have you read through all of them or are you relying on those investigations that we can all trust, I’m sure? Even I have read through them. So, you don’t think that 5 investigations could possibly be arriving at the same consclusions as you based on previous beliefs? You and your brothers and sisters in AGW Land seem to start from the IPCC data and build your hypotheses from there. I think the investigators did too and reported that all is well. Makes you and your buddies happy. We can now go out and collect money from the West and pass it around to all the poor needy folks all over the world that we have been abusing. Your last 3 points prove that you missed my points. I know all of that and your condescension is getting really old. 1)You represent the folks that Columbus tried to convince that the earth wasn’t flat in order to get funding. Some people knew the truth but most in civilized Europe believed otherwise. 2)You represent the Catholic Church. You and others like you cannot abide by anyone who thinks or believes differently than you. 3) You represent those who wrote my science book in school that told me we had 9 planets…it was right there in my science book and I had to learn the FACT that Pluto was our 9th planet and now we have had an “updated understanding”…sounds like science changed it’s mind about something else, eh? Kind of like when we had that whole “updated understanding” back in the 70’s about how instead of an ice age and global cooling because we exhale, we are going to have global warming.
    Since you won’t read the emails, maybe you could read these articles and tell me your thoughts on them….also, I would really like to know what type of scientist you are…what are your credentials?
    Here’s one:
    Here’s another:
    I would be interested in what you think about what these scientists think and whether you have better credentials than them.

  16. Any continued discussion about Columbus is really off-topic, but since you continue to make false assertions about it and are trying to use it in your ‘arguments’:

    Columbus, and all those in the various european courts that he was trying to obtain backing from; all knew that the earth is round. The whole reason for his trip was to reach the spice islands of the pacific by sailing west, across what he thought was a relatively small, empty ocean.

    The main reason why Columbus had difficulty getting backers was that he incorrectly believed that the Earth was not as big as those ancient greeks (and others) had estimated. But the various cartographers, astronomers, and others that the courts consulted with, all agreed that the greek estimate was accurate and that Columbus would perish partway across by lack of water and starvation. It was only the sheer luck of the existence of the americas that allowed Columbus to survive.

    In summary, Columbus was not trying to convince anyone that the Earth wasn’t flat – everyone involved already knew that.

  17. I would never presume to represent the caltholic church. Not to mention, I’m sure they would likewise never agree that I represented them. Additionally, you entirely missed my point about how theories (and classifications) are always open to modification as our knowledge increases.

  18. To get back on-topic, consider the following points. Among Jeff’s scientific errors and false charges, we have the following:

    – Jeff implied that hurricane frequency was declining: “…every year, for example, they say the hurricane season is going to be HUGE because of global warming…and then, when we get fewer than normal…”. I showed hard data that disproves this implication. To sum it up, Jeff 1) made a claim that he had no data to back up, 2) tried to dismiss the independent evidence that contradicted his claim, 3) tried to dump the whole point when he saw the weight of evidence was against him, and 4) has never admitted the error of his original implication.

    – Jeff complained “Why does the IPCC not think that the sun may have something to do with temperature changes?”. I invited Jeff to read the IPCC report, where solar variability is clearly and explicitly taken into account. Jeff has never acknowledged that his original complaint is erroneous.

    – Jeff charged that “The largest component of the atmosphere, the biggest GHG, is water vapor…but that isn’t discussed”. This charge is patently false. The IPCC, along with all major climate researchers and climate models, explicitly take water vapor into account. Indeed, water vapor effects are major components of climate models. Jeff has never admitted that his original charge is false.

    – Jeff claimed “Why is it that the Japanese satellite shows 3rd world countries as the biggest sources of CO2”. But he has never provided a single reference or citation to back up this claim. In response, I provided data that shows the U.S. as a major emitter of GHGs, both in terms of total tonnage emitted as well as per capita emissions. Jeff has never acknowledged this data, nor has he addressed it in any way.

    – Jeff advanced this argument about pre-human climate change as a reason why AGW is false: “It clearly indicates that we have been much warmer and much colder than we are now many times….without man’s evil free enterprise”. He fails to understand that AGW documents the effects of anthropogenic drivers of climate change that operate in addition to natural forcings. Indeed, Jeff explicitly fails to understand this point: “You state clearly for the third time that there are both natural and anthropogenic drivers to climate change? So? Say it again, if you like. Doesn’t make it true”. And again here: “Is it an inconvenient truth for global warmists that the planet has been this warm and even warmer before man?”. This is a fundamental error on Jeff’s part, which he has never acknowledged nor understood.

    – Jeff argued that ‘CO2 … makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere”‘, and implies that small constituents cannot have large effects. I responded by giving an example where it is widely accepted that a small constituent does have large effects: “stratospheric ozone is a trace gas, but decreased amounts lead to severe consequences as more solar UV reaches the surface”. Jeff never acknowledged his erroneous implication.

    – Jeff pushed another false claim here: “speaking of the current lowering of ocean levels … I was pointing out a trend of the rise slowing over the years and then reversing and the levels slowing”. I provided independent data that clearly proves how the trend for ocean levels shows an unbroken rise in ocean levels for the past 18 years. Jeff’s charge that the trend has slowed and even reversed, is completely false. Jeff has never acknowledged that his claim is contradicted by the data.

    – Jeff continues to advance the false claim that when a small percentage of the scientific community does not accept an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is wrong. But this simply represents a failure on Jeff’s part to understand the scientific method. Jeff has never acknowledged his lack of understanding, even though he admits that he is not a scientist.

    – Jeff incorrectly argued “why is it that every time there is a heat wave, it’s caused by global warming and every time there are record cold temps or record snowfall, this is also caused by global warming?”. This argument is misleading because scientists do not ascribe individual weather events to AGW – and if some in the public do, that is their mistake and has no bearing on the true science behind AGW. In response, I pointed out that “Climate change, by definition, brings changes in weather patterns … Increasing the amount of heat energy stored in the oceans and in the atmosphere leads directly to more energetic weather events, including snow storms, heat waves…”. The fact remains that climate both can and does respond to increasing amounts of GHGs. Jeff never effectively responded to that rebuttal. This is another example of the lack of understanding Jeff displays about AGW.

    – Jeff continues to act as though he has the expertise to analyze the science: “you keep going back to the science that supports AGW but that is based on what I and many others believe are unscientific practices and manipulations”. But in reality, and according to Jeff’s own words, these arguments are based on his beliefs – not on science. And as someone who is not a scientist, Jeff is hardly in a position to critique scientific practices or data. Furthermore, the emails that Jeff repeatedly refers to; a) came from only a small portion of the scientists in the community (just a handful of people really), b) are irrelevant to the question of whether or not AGW is supported by the science, c) were not associated with the vast majority of scientists and their data & analyses that also support the consensus viewpoint, and d) have been investigated by competent and independent entities who have repeatedly concluded that the science was not compromised. Finally, while Jeff may have read some portions of the email traffic in question, he has never undertaken the kind of investigations that would be required to conclude anything about the science being practiced – and he wouldn’t be competent to carry out such an investigation anyway.

    All these examples of the way Jeff consistently misinterprets the science, how he makes false claims, how he is unable to effectively respond when confronted with data and other rebuttals that refute his arguments, etc., etc.; give ample indication that Jeff cannot be trusted to be objective and that his talking points are generally wrong for one reason or another. Any future talking points that Jeff tries to present will likely be as full of errors as all his previous ones.

  19. Well said, “Scientist” Doug! Yes, I am incompetent and shouldn’t have an opinion. I especially like when you say that anyone reading this, other than us, should not bother reading my posts as they will be untrustworthy and faulty based upon your perfect reasoning and analysis. And boy, did you tell me whats what, eh? You have effortlessly and completely established that I am unqualified to speak on this subject, but what about you? Are you, Doug, really qualified to read through all of the IPCC and NASA reports as well as all of the data they rely on to make their position and say, definitively and undeniably, that AGW is a FACT and that we should do whatever we have to, spend whatever we have to, pour whatever resources we need to into the carbon trading schemes and the business-crippling regulations that the EPA is churning out on a continuous basis to reverse it? Are you really that confident in the “science”? You never responded with your credentials as a “scientist”. Why? You never commented on those articles or any of the other links I have given you. There are millions like me out here, Doug, and your arguments haven’t convinced us yet. But you just don’t understand that, do you? All of your arguments are based on reports from people who have participated in lies and manipulations. You keep saying the emails were nothing, as proven by 5 investigations, but when so many are buying into the Church of the AGW, how can you say that they were all objective? I haven’t met one person who was objective on this issue. And the folks who wrote the emails were not just a few folks, these folks were key in this whole debate. They manipulated data upon which the IPCC bases their conclusions, the science that supposedly supports AGW. That is not insignificant. That is you, once again, obsuring the importance of something that to poor, ignorant me, seems to be pretty meaningful. Every fact you put out there is assuming that the IPCC is objective and does not practice politics and everything they say is true. Or that NASA would never post faulty or erroneous data ( http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/quantifying-the-hansen-y2k-error/ ). Tell me, please, why Hansen seems to want to rely on surface temps and not the satellite temps? Can you look at this web site and tell me you still trust NASA to support your “scientist’s” opinion?( http://www.surfacestations.org/ ) Did you see this? ( http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html ) There are a lot of folks out there proving more and more of your assumptions wrong. You can admit it here on this forum, Doug…it’s ok. No one else is following our discussion.

  20. And once again, true to form, you do not respond to any of the specific examples listed of how your talking points are rebutted by hard data, etc. Not surprising, of course – in fact, you are unable to respond to these points, and therefore you try to divert the discussion to irrelevant talking points. This is a typical denier tactic. Deniers are unable to argue the science, so they focus their time and energy arguing irrelevant issues, and by trying to cast unsupported aspersions on the scientists (and others) who support the AGW hypothesis. By doing so, they are deliberately ignoring the scientific evidence. Fortunately, this denier tactic is patently obvious to most observers.

    Everyone has an opinion. But, by your very own admission, you are not competent to evaluate the science – you are not a scientist. Would you trust someone who is not a medical doctor, to diagnose or treat your illness? Would you trust someone who is not a judge, to take up your case and perhaps convict you of a crime and sentence you? The same type of argument applies here. Indeed, as my observations above reveal, you consistently misinterpret the science, and you lack understanding of the scientific method. I’m glad that you liked my comment about how your posts are generally untrustworthy and faulty. I stand by that characterization. After all, it is based on evidence – the evidence of your posts, your inability to rebut any of the science behind AGW, your errors, your false claims, and so forth. Evidence that you yourself provided in your posts. Given that history of being incorrect, it is indeed likely that any of your future posts will be similarly incorrect.

    The fact remains that 98% of scientists active in the field support the consensus opinion that AGW is real, that the science is trustworthy, and that the problems posed by AGW are serious (to say the least). If you still care, Jeff, here are some citations that back up the 98% figure: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf and http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract. Once again, I draw a parallel with elections: does a person who wins 98% of the vote somehow not deserve to take office? That is the type of illogical argument you engage in when you deny the overwhelming scientific support for AGW. And rather than debate my qualifications (that you probably wouldn’t accept anyway, being true to your denier mentality), we can all base our opinions on that 98% majority of scientists who are active in the field – right? Well, except for those deniers who cling to their unsupported beliefs and preconceived notions – ummmmmm, people like you, actually. Too bad your mind is closed.

    Incidentally, I have followed all your links. Most aren’t worth the time spent to rebut them – they are full of errors, false assumptions, etc. Kind of like the majority of your arguments, in fact.

    Maybe someday you’ll wake up to the truth. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that eureka moment. I will, however, continue to respond to anyone who makes false claims and/or errors of logic & science, who ignores the data, who tries to steer the discourse into irrelevant avenues, etc.

  21. “All of your arguments are based on reports from people who have participated in lies and manipulations” – completely false statement. You are merely extending your aspersions and unproven allegations; to the 98% majority of scientists that represent the consensus. And you are engaging in mudslinging by your implication that all those scientists are lying and cheating. Yours is nothing more than a mass smear campaign.

  22. “I haven’t met one person who was objective on this issue” – hah. Except you, I presume you mean.

    But with your refusal to accept the data, your refusal to listen to the overwhelming scientific majority, your false charges and claims that are not backed up by hard facts, your continued PR smear campaign, etc., etc.; I somehow have grave doubts about your own ‘objectivity’.

  23. First, I am not a scientist, like you, Doug, so I don’t have to be objective…but you do! And anyone reading these posts can see that you are far from objective. You crack me up…I am engaging in a “mass smear campaign” and “PR smear campaign”? Just like the rest of your comments about my integrity, that sounds like others like you that I have conversed with…they resort to the same personal attacks and accuse me of, well, pretty much the same thing, almost the same exact words, “smear campaign”. Weird. Do y’all get together on conference calls and talk about how to keep the deniers on their heels, “…keep ’em on the defensive, Dougy. Atta boy!” I am just a little ol’ grandpa in Kentucky…what kind of “smear campaign” do you think I can successfully wage? Wow!
    You know, everything you are saying to me in your posts above about ignoring data, etc., I can say to you. In your mind, you think you have rebutted all of my points with “hard data”, but you keep ignoring the fact that you and all like you are basing your science on what the IPCC says…and assuming they are right. The articles and reports I reference are not by them or sanctioned by them, therefore you dismiss them. You say, “…they are full of errors, false assumptions, etc.” You claim to be a scientist (but you continue to ignore my requests for what type of science…no credentials, Dougy?). So, why do you accept things right from the IPCC without verifying it yourself? You keep spouting off about “consensus”. Since when is the science of something determined by consensus? As I have said before, there is too much at stake here. If you got your way, and it looks like you have quite a bit, our faltering economy will slide right off the cliff. You seem to me to be nothing more than a Socialist trying to take my money from me by force through the government or, if you really got your way, through the idiots at the UN.

  24. “Since when is the science of something determined by consensus?” Well, Jeff; since science first began, actually. That is part of the scientific method that you keep on misunderstanding. When most of the available data supports one hypothesis, then that hypothesis is the accepted ‘science’ – by definition. When most of the analyses point to the same general conclusion, then that conclusion is the accepted ‘science’ – by definition. When the majority of scientists can replicate both the data and the analyses, then that consensus is the accepted ‘science’ – by definition.

    I have based my points on science – that is, on data and analyses – that does not originate with the IPCC. Your claim that I base all my science “on what the IPCC says” is false. For example, my data on hurricane frequency came directly from NOAA – not the IPCC. My data on how overwhelming the scientific majority is, came directly from papers written by individual scientists – not by the IPCC. My data on rising ocean levels came directly from NASA – not from the IPCC. My data on GHG emissions came directly from the World Bank – not from the IPCC. My data on average global temperatures came directly from NOAA – not from the IPCC. So, you see, Jeff, that the “articles and reports I reference are not by them [the IPCC] or sanctioned by them”.

    It’s true that you have no obligation to be objective, Jeff. But that fact hardly qualifies your arguments to be taken seriously. Indeed, just the opposite.

    Finally, your continued attempts to attack the scientists whose data and analyses support the AGW hypothesis; certainly sounds like a smear campaign to me. Those attacks appear to form the main basis of your arguments. And instead of attempting to address any of the independent data that I bring to your attention, you continue to insinuate that scientists are somehow involved in lying and cheating. Your last blast that acuses me of being a socialist, and that I am merely trying to take your money from you “by force through the government or, if you really got your way, through the idiots at the UN”; is clearly a smear attack on me personally. Now, I have the thick skin to not care very much about your personal libel; but I will continue to set the record straight by pointing out your underhanded tactics and your inability to debate the science on scientific grounds.

  25. First, you have been personally attacking since the beginning as if I am an idiot and don’t have a right to an opinion. Me calling you a socialist is not a “smear attack”. You defended the efforts of cap & trade to redistribute wealth to third world countries…that makes you a socialist or at least a progressive who hasn’t embraced his inner socialist/marxist tendencies. How better to affect an outcome you desire (such as redistributig wealth) than to create fear where no danger exists? So, some of your references are not by the IPCC or sanctioned by them…but neither are the ones I pointed to, as you yourself pointed out. It is just a matter of who you choose to believe, then, as I said from the beginning. You should read “ClimateGate” by Brian Sussman and “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert…IPCC Expose” by Donna Laframboise. Trust me…neither one of these is sanctioned by the IPCC, either! In the latter, Ms. Laframboise says,”We’ve been told that IPCC reports are written by the world’s finest scientific minds, but that’s simply not the case. Among IPCC lead authors we find graduate students 10 or more years away from completing their doctorates. We find employees of activist groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF. We find unqualified personnel from the developing world who are there for window-dressing so that the IPCC can appear to be internationally diverse. What’s astonishing is that even though the IPCC fails this basic test, people still think its conclusions about horrendously complicated matters can be relied on.” I have read this from other sources, as well.
    So, still ignoring my requests for what kind of scientist you are, eh, Dougy? Come on…at least make something up, if only to give some kind of credence to all that you have said.

  26. To sum up certain portions of our conversation to date: 1) your lack of scientific training leaves you in a poor position to be critical of the science (self admitted fact), 2) you feel no obligation to be objective (self admitted fact), 3) I have agreed that everyone has the right to an opinion but continue to maintain that scientists themselves are inherently more authoritative on the topic than are outsiders. These points are not personal attacks and do not represent a smear campaign.

    Contrast that with your ‘arguments’: 1) you charge that some scientists are liars and cheats (and you ignore independent investigative results to the contrary – indeed, you simply extend your charge to include the investigators among those you accuse of cheating), 2) you charge that I draw all my science “from people who have participated in lies and manipulations” (despite the fact that my references are drawn from widely disparate and independent scientific and economic sources), 3) you characterize AGW as a religion (despite the fact that it all centers around science), 4) you characterize me as a socialist with dark aims on your money (despite the fact that I have made no effort to rob you of anything), etc. These points can be interpreted as a smear campaign against scientists and against others.

    Do you see the differences, Jeff? My posts are built around independent references, around your own words, and around an understanding of the scientific method. Yours are built around ungrounded insinuations regarding the behavior of scientists, around false characterizations regarding religion, socialism, etc., and around a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

    And there’s yet another difference. Your posts generally revolve around talking points that have little or nothing to do with whether or not the science supports the AGW hypothesis. Instead, you linger on sideshows that serve mainly to distract attention away from the science. My talking points repeatedly draw attention back to the science, and how the data and analyses are in fact very supportive of the AGW hypothesis.

  27. Again you choose to ignore me and go on and on about how your posts are so factual and scientific and mine aren’t. Your posts are to me what my posts are, obviously, to you. Have you read any of the links I provided? I found the the survey from which you get your “98%” of scientists who “believe” in AGW:
    …it says that there were 3,146 responses out of a possible 10,257. Of these, it says, “…the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
    also have published more than 50% of
    their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
    subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
    (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
    and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.” (Q#1 was ‘have temps risen?’ and Q#2 was ‘did man cause it?’) So, Doug…75 out of 77? This is what I am talking about. Your talking points come from conclusions from surveys like this. You keep repeating how 98% believe and when I questioned you, you said this was a result of a survey. You were right. There it is. Actually, it was 97.4%, but who wants to quibble over that, right? I’ll give you the 98%, Doug. But 75 of 77? We are supposed to send money to third world countries and tax the hell out of businesses in this country on the word of 75 out of 77 climate scientists? What about those two in that survey that said “no”? We shouldn’t hear what they have to say because the consensus says that the “debate is over”? What about the 70% who didn’t respond to the survey? I wonder what they think. You still haven’t told me what kind of scientist you are.
    Oh, by the way, here is a link to a web page that discusses that Japanese satellite. This page has some commentary and analysis, but it has links to the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency web site from which the information was obtained:
    I am not surprised that you and your AGW brothers haven’t heard about this as it really doesn’t serve your argument well.
    And again, you really should read those books I mentioned in my previous post. Just pick them up and thumb through them at your local B&N…you don’t have to buy them. You can just open them up and you will be amazed at how much you think you know that you don’t really know…did that make sense? Anyway, wear a hat and sunglasses so you won’t be recognized…like a Baptist in a porno store. God forbid you get spotted!

  28. That’s right, Jeff – 75 out of 77. Those odds are a heck of alot better than the 2 out of 77 that your arguments rest on. How many top climate experts did you imagine exist in the world? Thousands? Guess again. And by definition, when you select the “top” researchers, you are going to be restricting your focus to a relatively small number. Quit trying to manufacture yet another irrelevant, poorly thought out, and simply ridiculous side “issue”. The 98% figure still stands.

    Now to your Japanese satellite. Your assertions about country-by-country rates of GHG emission that are based on this; are unrelated to the question of whether AGW is supported by the science. Go look up the ‘Keeling curve’ on Wikipedia. There you will see the overal trend of CO2 over many decades, and how it is increasing. But you can also see the yearly cycle of CO2 levels changing in response to the season. Wikipedia says this: “The Keeling Curve also shows a cyclic variation of about 5 ppmv in each year corresponding to the seasonal change in uptake of CO2 by the world’s land vegetation. Most of this vegetation is in the Northern hemisphere, since this is where most of the land is located. The level decreases from northern spring onwards as new plant growth takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis and rises again in the northern fall as plants and leaves die off and decay to release the gas back into the atmosphere”. The Japanese satellite data clearly show this seasonal effect. BUT, the point remains that the overall trend is relentlessly upwards, due to the anthropogenic GHG contribution. The isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 gives further strong evidence that the increase is due to anthropogenic sources of CO2, not natural ones (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/).

    Yes, Jeff, the science is settled – at least among 98% of the top scientists in the field. That consensus continues to hold strong as more data comes in and as estimates and analyses are sharpened. You really ought to give careful consideration to that scientific majority – instead of brushing it aside time after time. Others in the lay public should do likewise. The scientists are doing the best science they can, they are well trained, they follow the scientific method that serves so well in all other realms of science, the overwhelming majority speaks volumes about how convincing the data and analyses are, etc., etc., etc.

  29. Not good enough, Doug, though I can tell you are trying. Consensus is NOT good enough to prove that AGW is not just a scam or that oil is not abiotic or that the world really is flat or that we are the center of the universe. It is not good enough when the actions that the IPCC is trying to get world governments to do will enrich the few like Gore who are setting up Climate Exchanges for trading carbon credits and making people pay for causing plant food to be released (you say it yourself in your last post…it’s part of a natural cycle). Billions of dollars will go to 3rd world countries from wealthier nations if they get their way…and it looks like they will get it. I have not been convinced, but that doesn’t matter because the EPA is creating regulations that will take my money from me anyway. That is taxation without representation. I didn’t vote the EPA into existance. Someone created that monster. Here’s another link for you to review:

  30. Yes, Jeff – consensus is good enough. Consensus among top scientists is the best that science can ever offer, about anything. Consensus constitutes scientific confirmation of the hypothesis – by definition. And there is no question whatsoever about scams – that is just another one of your famous manufactured side ‘issues’ that have nothing to say about the whether the science supports the AGW hypothesis. And it is another one of your smear charges that has no basis in facts. Point to some hard data that shows evidence of a scam – you can’t. Such data does not exist, because there is no scam. There is only a manufactured ‘issue’ that you use to form your unsupported opinion.

    Actions to mitigate AGW are not geared towards making Al Gore rich – you have no evidence to support that charge, either. Furthermore, in most any economic action taken in a capitalistic system, there are often some who benefit. That fact does not constitute a ‘scam’, nor is it unfair or unjust in any way. Whether Al Gore gains as a result of future carbon credits or not, his gain would only be due to his foresight and willingness to have taken the risk to invest in such markets before they were a sure thing. Just like pickers of stocks in the market sometimes gain (or lose) by their investment choices and the risks they take. Stop pretending that Gore, or anyone else, is somehow cheating or gaming the system. Such arguments are childish, at best.

    Actually, the EPA is not taxation without representation. You have the same representation in government that I do. You can work your hardest to convince your represetatives to gut the EPA (and I rest assured that you will). I will work as well to convince mine to enforce EPA regulations that help to mitigate AGW. So you see, we are both equally well represented in government, and with respect to questions about taxation or regulations. Your charge that there is taxation without representation is completely groundless. As are most/all of your other charges.

  31. Consensus is not good enough for me. I undertand that it is for you. For me, it means that an unproven science will be used to take my money away.
    You just don’t seem to see the point. Here’s another link…I noticed you didn’t remark on the last one but this one talks about another scientist being dishonest. You seem to see them as completely objective and unable to make an error in judgment and incapable of deception….guess what, they are human (notice I say “they”…you never respond to my questions about your supposed scientist credentials)…
    And here’s the next step to carbon trading in the US…get ready for huge costs for everything for a false science!

  32. The fact that consensus among scientists is “not good enough” for you; simply illustrates once again your lack of understanding of the scientific process. And your subsequent reference to “unproven science” drives home the fact that you simply take your lack of understanding and make a leap of illogic to your conclusions.

    I have never claimed that scentists are incapable of error or deception. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree about the reality of AGW; is a strong indicator that the hypothesis is correct – precisely because that majority reduces the chances of error or deception to vanishingly small probabilities. But you just don’t seem to see that point.

  33. “vanishingly small probabilities”? Strange wording, but leaves the possibility that you may be wrong…right? And that possibility doesn’t give you any concern that the economically crippling steps that you folks want the world governments, and especially our own, to take to address AGW may not be necessary? I understand why you believe in AGW. You just don’t want to see my point…your consensus is not enough to convince me that those steps are needed…and I am John Q. Citizen whose money you want to send to third world countries…as if that can possibly fix anything…it will just go into someone despot’s pockets and do nothing for your AGW. If it was as simple as, for example, hot air rises…proven and provable…it would be another story, but the atmosphere is so massive and complex and has so many factors that affect it that anyone who thinks that a miniscule increase in a naturally occurring substance (plant food) that makes up a tiny percentage of that atmosphere can have such a dramatic, world-ending effect as is claimed by AGWs is not common sense. Look again at the chart for the earth going back 400,000 years. It’s been hotter; it’s been colder; it’s constantly changing with or without us. There are so many ways to interpret the data you are always proudly pointing to or to conveniently or inadvertantly miss some of those multitude of factors that can affect the climate but you think your AGW scientists have got all that covered. How arrogant is that! So, if consensus is such a definitive element for you, the link I sent you with the list of thousands of scientists that don’t buy into AGW should shake your confidence. You have been calling me an idiot in so many words because I am not a scientist, like you (hehehe…I really don’t believe you are a scientist…just another deception to make your points appear to have more weight …doesn’t work with me, Doug). Do you call these folks idiots, too? If not, then how do you explain their disbelief in your settled science?

  34. A ‘vanishingly small probability’ means that there is virtually no chance that the hypothesis is in error, or that it is a result of deception. Regardless of how complex the climate system is, we can still understand the important aspects of it. Meanwhile, we understand more every day – and the overwhelming scientific consensus continues to hold as that understanding improves. AGW is proven and provable; by the definition of how science progresses. Until plausible and widely accepted evidence and/or analyses come along that actually disprove the hypothesis. Since no such fundamentally contradictory and widely accepted data and/or analyses have been discovered; the hypothesis is still the best available science on the topic.

    And since policy should always be based on the best available science, I and most others conclude that steps should be taken to address AGW; now.

    Yet another of the things that you conveniently continue to ignore, is the (very strong) probability that it is you who are wrong – and the devastating consequences in that event. Given that only 2% of the top scientists have any remaining doubts about the hypothesis, if we continue to stick our collective heads in the sand and do nothing as long as even a single scientist expresses any doubts; then we are doomed to suffer the severe climatic results of our paralysis. You just don’t want to see that point, do you?

    By the way, I am also a citizen of this country. It is also my money that we are talking about. Although I completely disagree with your characterizations regarding our societal response: 1) addressing AGW means more jobs here at home; 2) it means less international strife in the future; 3) it means saving our money as we develop local renewable sources of energy to use without sending vast sums overseas where “it will just go into someone despot’s pockets and do nothing for your AGW”. Addressing AGW does not equate to simply sending our money overseas to despots or to anyone else. And it does not represent a scam. And it does not represent an undue burden, tax, or economic penalty. All these arguments of yours are just plain wrong – they are scare tactics you use, and that someone else has used (sucessfully) on you in the past. You see, Jeff, you are just spouting the nonsense that someone else has told you to spout. You are not thinking for yourself. I can say that with some confidence, since I have proviously noted that you simply reject the hard scientific data, the sound scientific analyses, the overwhelming scientific majority, etc. – you reject these things as if they don’t matter, because you are simply spouting your own (or someone else’s) brand of preconceived opinion that is based only on belief rather than being fact-based.

    Your old and already-disproven argument that it makes no ‘common sense’ that “a miniscule increase in a naturally occurring substance (plant food) that makes up a tiny percentage of that atmosphere can have such a dramatic, world-ending effect “; is just as false now as it has ever been. I have already provided another example of how changes in a trace gas can have devastating, global consequences. You ‘common sense’ argument here is just plain wrong – period.

    Your old and already-rebutted argument that “It’s been hotter; it’s been colder; it’s constantly changing with or without us”; is just as irrelevant now as it has ever been. I have already provided a summary of the actual situation: it is the combination of naturally occuring climate drivers along with the new anthropogenic GHG contributions that set the stage for AGW. Your argument here is just plain irrelevant – period.

    There is no ‘arrogance’ involved in any of my points. I merely continue to accept the best science on the topic – the conclusions of which indicate that AGW is real, it is active, it is increasing in magnitude and speed of climate change response, it represents a severe and looming global threat, and we must address the problem now. That is the science, Jeff. Deny it though you will, misinterpret it how you will, mislead and confuse it how you will; the science continues to stand – period.

  35. “And since policy should always be based on the best available science, I and most others conclude that steps should be taken to address AGW; now.” So, it is not proven. It is someone’s best guess. And you want governments to act “now” to prevent some kind of global disaster based on 98% of 79 scientists. What if we had acted on the big global cooling scare back in the 70’s? It was the “best available science” at the time. Oh wait…maybe we did act on it and we overdid it (because we all know how easy it is for us to change the climate…just a snap of our fingers) and now we have global warming. What fools we are!!!! Hey, but if it’s that easy, we can just do it in reverse and cool things off again. Oh wait…maybe we did reverse it because it has been cooling for the past 10 or so years. This is so confusing, Doug…for me, but not for a scientist like you, right? Uhhh…you are a scientist, right? I mean, you didn’t mislead me on that, too, did you? You have been avoiding my questions on that.
    1) addressing AGW means more jobs here at home; —Do you mean when more factories shut down because they can’t afford the carbon taxes and open operations overseas? You know, where the rules are not as strict and they can pollute to their hearts content, pumping out even more CO2, etc., and since this is a global issue we are just making it worse, according to AGW. What jobs are you talking about, Doug? More government agency jobs? More folks looking over our shoulder and writing new laws and regulations to further inhibit the economy? Those are the only ones you’ll create. Solyndra and all those others that the administration backed didn’t work out too well, did they?
    2) it means less international strife in the future; —Are you referring to us not having to buy Middle East oil as we move to alternate sources? If the President would allow the Canadian pipeline to go through in addition to opening up our own resources for drilling, we would have plenty of jobs and no need for Mid-East Oil and we would have plenty of time and money to create new sources of energy…or do we not have enough time because the oceans are about to come to a boil? Or do you mean that everyone will like us if we play by the IPCC/Kyoto rules? Who cares if any one likes us? I am not one of those that apologizes for America.
    3) it means saving our money as we develop local renewable sources of energy to use without sending vast sums overseas where “it will just go into some despot’s pockets and do nothing for your AGW”. —What? “…as we develop local renewable sources of energy…” Really? Like wind? Solar? Yeah, that works real well. Let me know when the technology gets to the point where it is feasible, will you? Because it ain’t there, yet. You can’t just drop our use of oil and coal and THEN develop alternate sources. People will die.

  36. Jeff – congratulations! Yet another masterful job of completely avoiding the issue at hand! And instead filling your post with irrelevant talking points (mostly false ones)!

    The issue at hand, once again, is whether the science supports the AGW hypothesis. The issue is not my credentials as a scientist, nor is it jobs, nor is it Solyndra, nor is it the Keystone XL pipeline, nor is it apologizing for America, nor is it………………

    The best available science supports the AGW hypothesis. That has been shown to be the case by the data collected and published, the analyses performed and published, and the ongoing overwhelming scientific agreement on the topic – all of which are a part of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. You know, the same scientific method that has brought us out of the middle ages and into the modern era, with success after success in understanding our universe and all the engineering accomplishments that have arisen out of that scientific advancement.

    And that is the basis of why more and more Americans agree that AGW is real and needs to be addressed. At the beginning of this conversation, you asked for evidence that the hypothesis was correct – and I pointed you to some resources where that evidence is provided. I even provided some evidence directly into these postings, when you continued to complain that you didn’t think the evidence existed or was believable. Your basic response has been 1) to dismiss the evidence, 2) to attack scientists who work in the area of climate change, and 3) to continually bring up irrelevant talking points that have nothing to do with whether AGW is supported by the science. But I repeat: the best available science supports the AGW hypothesis. The conclusions of that science indicate that AGW is real, it is active, it is increasing in magnitude and speed of climate change response, it represents a severe and looming global threat, and we must address the problem now. That is the science, Jeff. Deny it though you will, misinterpret it how you will, mislead and confuse the discussion as you will; the science continues to support the AGW hypothesis – period.

  37. No. Some of the scientists continue to support the AGW hypothesis…and they are creating the science out of whole cloth. Doug, you’ve provided evidence that supports your hypothesis and I have provided evidence that denies the completeness, validity, and integrity of the data upon which you base your hypothesis. I think that you are probably an intelligent guy but that you have accepted things as fact that you should be questioning…if you really are a scientist. I have never seen such a large group of so-called scientists set aside their training to doubt and question everything just because of politics and funding…and that is what this is all about, deny it all you will. I think folks like you represent a severe and looming global threat. You are using scientific doublespeak and manipulated data to paint a false picture of doom in order to effect change that is not wanted by the majority of people. On that note, Doug, its adios for me. We have both repeated ourselves over and over and you are no closer to seeing the light so I am kicking the dust off my sandals and leaving this village. I hope one day, when the glaciers are pushing in your front door, that you remember this coversation and that you wonder how that old man sitting on his porch in a holler in Kentucky could have gotten it right and you could have gotten it so wrong. God gave you 5 senses and the ability to reason. Look around you at the real world. Forget those idiots at the IPCC and Gore and Hansen…they’re about the power. Pay attention to the cycles in nature. I’ve seen droughts and floods and heat waves and freezing colds and high snows and balmy winters and I know, if I live long enough, I will see them all again, over and over. Take care, Doug!

  38. Jeff, your continued characterizations of scientists as cheaters and liars is offensive, to say the least. They are not “creating the science out of whole cloth”. Furthermore, you have not provided any evidence that “denies the completeness, validity, and integrity of the data” – at best, you have provided innuendoes that are not backed up with any hard evidence. Your arguments along those lines rest purely on your own speculations and preconceived opinions. “I have never seen such a large group of so-called scientists set aside their training to doubt and question everything just because of politics and funding” – really Jeff? I didn’t know you were such a qualified observer of science. You certainly had me fooled. But, if you are so qualified, then how do you explain your lack of understanding of the scientific method? How do you explain your continued assertions that are refuted by the scientific data? How do you explain your posts that are unfettered by any obligation to be objective (your very own admission)? How do you explain your descents into demaguogery (calling AGW a ‘religion’, for example)? Personally, I have rarely encountered an individual so wrapped up in his/her false and unsupported opinions, and who so steadfastly refuses to objectively consider the data. And to the extent that your unthinking views are held by a significant percentage of others, then it is people like you who truly represent a “looming global threat” – because if you actually wind up blocking our societal response to AGW, you would be significantly responsible for the devastating consequences. In addition, it is you who continue to use doublespeak to press your talking points – and you refuse to use any objective data at all. I use my five senses and my ability to reason – I put them to good use by investigating, and then accepting, the science that is in such clear and unequivocal support of the AGW hypothesis.

    As you live out your life in your comfortable holler, all those droughts, heat waves, floods, snowstorms, etc..; will be, slowly but surely, adding up to ongoing climate change that is increasingly being influenced by anthropogenic drivers. Maybe you won’t live long enough to see all your arguments coming back to haunt you as things progressively deteriorate. But your children probably will. And their children even more so. They won’t be nodding in any appreciation of your blind attitudes that helped bring about their climate woes.

  39. Read State of Fear by Chrichton and ClimateGate by Sussman. It is you who are fooling yourself, Doug. You and your cronies have created so much out of nothing that you can make it say anything you want to. Like the joke about the accountant…Q: What is 2 plus 2? A: What do you want it to be? Man is innocent until proven guilty. You have not done that. You come up with this hypothesis that is so complex and so convoluted about climate, and you control the data. IPCC scientists Jones and Mann refuse to provide formulas for how they derive their published data from all the inputs to folks who don’t buy into their crap and want to conduct individual reasearch and you expect the whole world to fall in line. Hansen won’t use the satellite data that contradicts his reports and relys on the ground-based stations, some of which are in heat islands and he refuses to give up his formulas, too. One example is one station they rely on is in Central Park, NYC, and it reads 4 degF higher than the one out in the country a few miles north of the city…he uses it, anyway. And you think this is ok? There are cases of that throughout that entire system. They ignore the obvious because the results don’t fit their narrative. Everything you post here is so condescending. Typical of a leftist acedemic. I am sad for you and what you want to do to our beautiful country. When you are done, we are going to look like just another EU country where everyone is dependent on the state and the elite are going to keep on feeding us this type of bullcrap to keep us afraid and keep us in line. Adios, Dougy-boy! I am sorry I looked for your response again today because it made me want to respond back. I won’t check this again so that I can pretend I have the last word. Seriously, read those books I recommended…if only to understand where people like me are coming from…and you might even change your mind aout things….come over the light side, Doug!

  40. Chrichton and Sussman are not scientists, they are writers. While they are entitled to their opinions, they are not in as good a position as other scientists are; to evaluate the data and scientific methodologies employed. I will continue to listen to the scientific community, whose data, analyses, and conclusions I have evaluated and find to be extremely convincing. While you are free to collect opinions from less-qualified sources, and to base your opinion on what they say, the fact remains that your sources are not as credible, not as informed, and not as capable of evaluating the science – and therefore their opinions (and yours) are quite simply not believable.

    “Man is innocent until proven guilty”? What the bleep is that supposed to mean? How is such a comment relevant to the question of whether the science supports the AGW hypothesis?

    The AGW hypothesis is not complex or convoluted. It’s actually pretty simple: anthropogenic contributions are driving up atmospheric concentrations of GHGs by amount, and at rates, that are unprecedented in recent earth history. That influence, along with pre-existing natural drivers, is influencing the climate in ways that are detrimental to our societies and to existing natural ecosystems. What’s so complicated about that, Jeff?

    I do not “control the data”. Nor do any other scientists. The data is freely available, has been published, and is subject to constant review and criticisms by any other researcher in the field. That is part of the scientific method to which these scientists adhere, and by which their contributions are evaluated by other scientists. To claim that they hide their data, that they refuse to release it, that they manipulate it in secretive ways – all those claims are patently false. If they did any of these things on a significant basis, that action would immediately be pointed out by the scientific community, and the contributions of such scientists would immediately be called into question in a very public fashion by that same community. Once again, you are simply repeating false claims that others have told you to repeat. Point to some hard evidence that backs up such smear charges – you can’t. Such evidence does not exist, because your charge is false.

    And your ridiculous claims that certain scientists use inappropriate data and ignore other data; are likewise false. Such claims presume that the rest of the scientific community is inept (or likewise lying). If any scientist uses faulty data, or ignores other relevant data, the scientific process would immediately flag those contributions as questionable. Again, that’s how the process works. Science is a self-correcting enterprise. If any one scientist, or even a group of them, tries to pass off faulty data or analyses or conclusions, the rest of the community would pounce on the weaknesses, publicize them, and publish evidence, analyses, and conclusions that contradict the flawed contributions. Stop spreading such falsehoods.

    I am sad for you and what you want to allow to happen to our beautiful country. I and the majority of others want to save our society and our country (indeed, our species) from the devastating climate consequences of our current socio-economic-political systems that result in such large anthropogenic contributions to climate change. Deniers such as yourself simply get in the way. To the extent that you and yours delay or obstruct our societal responses to AGW; you are directly responsible for the woes of future generations.

Leave a Comment

Translate »