what i dont quite understand is why the deniers spend all their time attempting to attack the science rather than publishing their own peer-reviewed climate papers showing that the mountains and mountains of evidence are a hoax.

it really is like watching creationists in action.

Because they can't.

The problem is that to further their ends does not require them to prove anything. All they have to do is to point to the talking point du jour and thereby claim that there is some kind of "controversy" or that the science isn't "settled".

They can keep this up forever. When the last claim has been thoroughly debunked then it's time to move onto the next one. In fact they continue to use the same arguments even *years* after they have been totally discredited. Reality simply doesn't matter.

Just look at this thread and count how many times the global cooling argument has been used. Same with sun cycles, water vapor, temperature increases have flattened since 1998, the global average temperature was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, there are discrepencies with how certain areas of the atmosphere are warming, the Stevenson screens were painted or turned in the wrong direction. The list is endless but all have been debunked and yet all are continually regurgitated back.

That's the analogy that I previously made with the tobacco industry. The proof against smoking and second hand smoke was indisputable but yet they continued to dispute it and simply relied on the conservative meme to fight against any new government regulation.

I mean are the death panel arguments or the birth certificate arguments really any different? This has become the one thing that the right can fall back on even when faced with insurmountable evidence. Simply ignore the evidence and make up something else, and then claim that it is your opponents that are deluding themselves. It's mindspeak 101 and they are true masters of the art.

Follow the money, AGW edition.

I have found interesting article which claims it is actually cooling, not warming

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Off course i am not a scientist, so i really cant tell, if there is something truthful about this, but the guy who wrote it is apparently scientist, professor at University...not just some random guy. and there are other scientists, who are claiming this - Russians called Abdusamatov and Sorokhin or so...so he is not definitely single in his research...

Now i am just curious why all you AGW advocates chose to believe those who claim AGW is happening and not those who claim it is not, respectively it is cooling?

Timmaigh this has already been discussed. That study is bull.

I find it funny that all the deniers try to discredit Mumblefratz.

What I find funny is that the effect of the theft of CRU files is swinging the view to the op position. That is that deniers no longer have to discredit anyone, that in fact the AGW proponents have discredited themselves. To test this notion I mentioned global warming in passing to someone today.  Quickly the response was that it was a hoax, that a leak proved it.  So I wonder if by the time of the next international climate meeting in Mexico if this feeling will have percolated upwards to an extant that individuals that are paid to know better will be comfortable asserting that anthropogenic climate change is bullshit becuase of the stolen documents.   And it is a feeling, not a rational thoughtful conclusion.  For that one would have to slog through a 1000 emails and another 60 megabytes of data. 

I have been reading the past few months of the dispute between Ian Pilmer and George Monbiot and how it was finally 'unresolved' in a small televised discussion that was frustrating to watch.  Pilmer suggests that Monbiot, not being a scientist is unfit to use his intellect to judge scientific arguement.  I think Pilmer finally agreed to appear with Monbiot because of the CRU hack, and he implicitly uses his scientific credentials to bestow upon himself powers that he does not have.

The moment that Mann's analysis was questioned by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, this smart scientific cabal should have shifted their view on the raw data.  And shared it.  These guys want to party with the UN then they have to share the raw data. It will be interesting to see the next ipcc report (the fifth), and if the 90% confidence given to agw has declined to 85%.

Ok, but how do you know it is bull, if you are not climate scientist yourself? Just because the scientists, who advocate AGW, "debunked" it? And how do you know their arguments are right? What if their "debunking" of this study is wrong?

What i am trying to say, there are still too many unanswered questions regarding climate, so it would be unwise to take actions which might show in the future as contra-productive and redundant. And the whole scientific consensus is laughable...if there was a consensus, there surely won´t be any scientists saying it is cooling, right? Or is science really reduced to "what majority says is true?" That is by the way the most funny thing about whole IPCC, they do not seek the truth, they VOTE about it.

No you ****.

Global Cooling was one paper in the 70ties, and it got a bit of media attention. However the scientific community wasen't saying this. This was a hypothese of one guy. One paper. Noone took him seriously like noone(with brains that is) takes AGW deniers serious.

Global Warming is an observed phenomenon backed by the majority(read 99%) of the scientific community. That us not laughable you dimwit. And no what the majority says is not neccerirly true. This however is not majority against minority this is the scientific community that has reached a consensus about a theory. This theory has been tested, has been observed etc. There is no "minority", there are some people who claim for political reasons that AGW is untrue but there are almost no scientists that seriously think this.  Again, a theory is not false because one scientists doubts it. Indeed there are people that doubt the theory of Gravity or Einstein theories. That doesn't make them false.

No, you ****.  So there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming as you can see, these either have no credentials in or related to the field of climate science or got degrees of shady colleges.

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

has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.^[23] Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... 

In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an open letter^[68] to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.

• As of 2009, the scientific consensus is not percieved by the US public as such. In November, 2009, Rasmussen found that a majority of Americans (52%) "believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming" and that "while many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, ... just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic."^[76]

• During September and October 2009 the World Bank conducted an international poll of public attitudes to climate change, including a question on belief about the status of climate change science. The survey found that while the majorities in most countries believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken, this was not true everywhere.

For example, in Russia, the US, Japan and Indonesia, only minorities thought there is a scientific consensus on the urgent need to address climate change. In Russia, 34% felt that most scientists think climate change is not an urgent problem, and 27% thought views of scientists are divided. In the US, 17% thought the scientific view is skeptical about climate change, while 43% thought views of scientists are evenly divided. Japan showed a similar pattern to the US: 13% of Japanese said that most scientists feel climate change is not an urgent issue, and 44% feel that the views of scientists are pretty evenly divided. Among Indonesians, 52% said either most scientists are skeptical or that scientific views are divided. The pattern of understanding of the status of the climate change science across countries suggests that the results are not due principally to variations in education or awareness of the issue. Even in France--seen by many as informed about climate change and supportive of strong action--37% said scientific views are pretty evenly divided. ^[77]

Science historian Naomi Oreskes has noted that most of the American public believes that the scientific community is divided on the issue of climate change.^[5] This contrasts with views among climate scientists themselves; a survey of active climate scientists conducted by Doran and Kendall Zimmerman found "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."^[6]

see where im getting at?

Climate pseudoscience has priests and only properly robed priests are allowed an opinion.

If you actually tried to read the link i provided, you could see i was not talking about the global cooling in the 70s, but about global cooling happening NOW.

But to be fair, i am not surprised you did not read it, because you obviously  have already decided, what you want to believe.

I had very little knowledge of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri prior to reading your reference and the wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri. I'm personally not a real big fan of the United Nations and I suspect that these days Dr. Pachauri is a lot more of a politician than a scientist. Plus it's not altogether clear how much of a scientist he ever was to begin with.

In other words I can accept the idea that there is some amount of money incentive in the pro-AGW camp just as there is in the anti-AGW camp. But I don't necessarily see how this trickles down to the scientist in the trenches. I do believe that the grant money will be there regardless of which direction the science actually goes. This is different from some senior fellow at the Heritage Institute that essentially gets paid by ExxonMobil to write "thought experiments" using other people’s data.

In any case neither Al Gore nor Rajendra Pachauri is someone that I would trust any further than I could throw them. The people that I trust are the people that do the actual work in the field.

Why do you list the organizations that represent all those unrelated scientists, even groups that aren't scientists at all like the medical associations, but then discount disagreement by the members of those groups?

There is a reason a lot of prominent physicists don't agree with climatologists on the prospects of global warming.  Physics is the foundation for climatology, and they've got the physics wrong in their studies that supposedly prove it.

The runaway effect is debunked, flat impossible.  It's "proven" by pointing to Venus, there is no corollary between the two planets and no amount of emissions on our part could ever create one.  Venus recieves a comparably massive amount of solar energy, and the 95% CO2 atmosphere isn't the cause.  It's about 90 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere.  The crust is also significantly thinner, despite this and being close enough to recieve twice the solar energy we do here, it's only about three times as hot.

CO2 is being labeled a forcing effect, despite monumental evidence to the contrary.  Water holds less gas at higher temperatures so as the earth warms, CO2 is released into the atmosphere in massive quantities.  This would mean the increases follow warming trends, not cause them.  Ice core records show CO2 increase proceeding warming trends, not preceeding them, a supposed proof that shows the opposite.

The theory itself is it's own debunking force.  We're going to suffer a catastrophic buildup of CO2 over the next few centuries because CO2 in the upper stratosphere can last for centuries.  That would be global cooling, not warming.  CO2 in the lower troposphere has a half-life under ten years.  The very place we might need to be concerned about a substantial buildup, is the only place we never have to worry about it sticking around.

The models that show warming have to be manually edited to match previous temperatures, and they've been 100% wrong and need manually edited every year afterwards as well.  You do know they've admitted this right?  They've basically said they have no fucking clue and can't explain anything.  They got the models to all agree, but they can't actually predict anything.

All of this should be obvious to anyone with even a rudamentary education in physics and just a passing glance at the ice core records they constantly tout as proof.

If the stratosphere starts warming up from increasing CO2 levels, then I might be thinking I have something to be concerned over, but it wont be a warming effect.  On the upshot, skin cancer wouldn't be a problem anymore.

However the APS is in fact responding to the "open letter" that you referenced by appointing "an ad hoc committee to study whether the APS statement on climate change, passed in 2007, needs to be revisited." They are also soliciting input from all members on the subject. If you had read the link I provided earlier you would know this.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/climate.cfm

As I pointed out in my earlier response, the climate position of the APS is currently unchanged. When and *if* it is changed in response to this open letter is when I will give it credence. Until then you got squat. I wouldn't hold my breath but if the APS does in fact change their position then I will admit that you were right and I was wrong.

So if the APS does in fact revisit and later reaffirm their current position will you in fact admit that I am right and you are wrong? Don't worry; I wouldn't hold my breath on that ever occurring.

They have and did reaffirm

Then later in the same issue (page 3):

Other Council members are concerned about too much general involvement. Brasseur said that while he supported better informing the membership on actions of the Council, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.

APS news,  December 2009 Volume 18, No. 11

Even worse, affirmation of the point they're supposedly refuting is on that page too.

"Brasseur organized and categorized
the first 180 messages he
received to gauge the overall sentiments
of the membership that
responded. He found that 63 percent
of respondents supported the
existing statement with little or
no change, while 37 percent said
they opposed the current statement
and wanted either no statement
or the alternate statement
adopted. Stewart and Austin said
that while they had not crunched
the numbers as precisely, they felt
they had received a similar proportion
of pro and anti statements."

Global warming nuts never bother to look past the surface.  Pardon the pun, I know it's bad.

these arguments i find to be the dumbest of all. those supposedly in a position to make "billions" from global warming are in the tiniest minority as far as world powers go. its ludicrous to suggest this tiny minority have somehow been able to hijack the debate when those with real power have so much to lose from reforms aimed at minimising global warming. the money supposedly being made is a tiny drop in the ocean compared the money that will be lost through measures like carbon capping.

Really people look at the plain facts, first off global warming does not mean it will not get cold outside, it means green house effect Warms water that is not normally warmed, and melts the ice caps unbalancing the fresh water to salt water, making an unbalance in the weather patterns causing even the COLDER temps you feel, and all the weather disasters we have been seeing, its very simple, and as for people who don't want the world ruined, being some big evil conspiricy people? please, maybe some of them will profit but whats wrong with that if they offer new more clean and better technology? somebody always profits, well I will not stay and argue, so you people can get back to your oil sucking, polluting and ect.

On the other hand, global warming advocates sound a lot like the Jehovah witnesses who think that the bible is "proven".

The hypothesis of AGW is pretty straight forward. It is not difficult to be skeptical of the "science".

I've yet to see one of the AGW advocates in this thread explain why we're skeptical.  Are we bought off by big oil? Do we have some sort of ideological axe to grind? Are we ignorant of science? What is it?

Couldn't it simply be a matter of having looked at the evidence for the AGW hypothesis and not found it compelling?

My hobby is history and one of the things history shows is that groups of scientists often have a consensus and that consensus is often wrong.

any/all of the above? mostly imo its ideological in nature. because environmentalism is part of the platform of the evil "left" all those that oppose the left feel they should oppose AGW as well, because in their minds it has a political, rather than a scientific basis.  

perhaps you should therefore stick to history before you thumb your nose at the thousands of people who study the climate as a profession? i mean honestly. the number of armchair climate experts rambling across the internet about subjects they are obviously ill-equipped to judge is astonishing.

want to disagree with the consensus? fine, go get a relevant degree and get published in a peer-reviewed journal and show everyone how the thousands of similar articles have gotten it completely wrong.

The EPA was proposed by Nixon, take that you pinko!

completely irrelevant to the rhetoric i see regularly on the intertubes or from deniers i know.

While he is no longer in office and does not have to disclose his financial details, he's estimated to be worth a couple hundred million dollars - all earned after he got out of office, mostly from activities other than his environmental work. However, he is a major investor in companies poised to make billions in various green schemes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

By comparison, Pelosi has barely dipped her toe in the pool. To be fair, she's still in office and was worth a hundred million or so before she got there, so hers might be written off as legitimate investment. Funny thing, though - she invested with the guy who started the Swiftboat ads. Politics makes for strange bedfellows - and apparently so does money.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121944622079465097.html

It doesn't really matter if the majority lose out on the deal if those in power are raking in profits. The people making the decisions are making out like bandits, and that's all that really matters. In fact, this sort of thing is so common they developed a term for it: kleptocracy. This is just raising the profiteering to the international level.