It seems now that the Whitehouse is being studied for the possibility of misleading the public about global warming.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

It would seem as if members of the Bush party attempted to coerce scientists to support a misleading position on global warming.

"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."

Full Story.

Question for debate.

1) Why would this occur?

2) Do you support such actions against global warming information if true and why?

I think there are threads similar to this here. I could very well be wrong.

I'd like to offer a broad brush answer here.

If the US Gov't believed that this information is completely incorrect and could potentially cause a panic then I would guess they would look to suppress that information on the grounds of safety. To be fair it was only 1979 that we were told the Earth would freeze.

However - that said - I trust scientists much more than any politician or policy wonk.

If that were the case why would the movement to change the information be small and specific then. Also if they knew the information was false they should be able to come out say why with certainty then and bury the issue rather then changing reports.

Why are scientists who disagree with global warming censored? We have gone over this in the other thread. What are “partial government scientists”???? No such thing- if we know anything it is that there is no impartiality in the debate and as has been pointed out those who don’t buy the global warming mantra are either defamed or not allowed to get published.

No doubt the government did not agree with the bias.


Here is Crichton on the subject. Read the Skeptical Environmentalist - it tears the GW argument to shreads.

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.

Well, I'll tell you.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down. Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote04.html

In reply to ted

We went over the other thread in which your rebuttal to the massive push in the scientific community regarding global warming was at best a hoax that a few obscure scientists have unraveled though for some reason cannot gain any real acceptance with You position was it will be to much to change from hydrocarbon usage on the economy though I doubt you ever factored in the fact that such an energy source was finite in the first place.

With your idea in mind every scientific endeavor that supports global warming is a product of a large scale something or other for some motive you yourself cant define save to say they are corrupt and just want power in which they use global warming as a platform to obtain such.

Now with the SOTU address and bush himself saying the real threat of climate change I guess he too is in on it even after the attempts to doctor what is impartial scientific studies on the matter.

I provided links that that directly state CO2 concentration in the atmosphere jumping about 35% since the industrial revolution in which scientifically cannot be traced to anything but us, in which your reply was the fact that the atmosphere has changed previous to the industrial revolution, that was your stance on such

How could such a large scale fallacy reach to such epic levels? To say this is to say the whole of science is nothing but a perpetual lie anymore, is that what you are tying to say?

About science being looked upon as some church well the idea is they do produce fact about the reality around us and of course it will run into confliction with say other worldviews, so science was to never produce anything close to what could be called a worldview even the grips of issues like evolution?

Global warming is very real and very accepted by the scientific community. The debate is over how it will play out collectively, this is what the scientific community is not collectively agreed upon because like most things they want objective fact, something that seems does not matter in the face of loyalists such as yourself.

So the bush stance is global warming is not real, then it is real

The scientific community at large is a pack of liars attempting to take over the world via the global warming hoax

All the fact around global warming is nothing more then a pack of lies to follow, generated as a sort of propaganda machine to be used by corrupt scientists bent on world takeover

I mean if this is your position collectively why even debate then?

From wikipedia on Bjorn Lomberg.

"On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question[2]:

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. "

Waxman's a left wing kook. He wouldn't know science if it flew up his ample nostrils.

There is a growing body of evidence that the global warming hysteria mongers have it DEAD WRONG.

The earth is subject to mechanisms that are more complex than the SIMPLISTIC and politically compromised "man made global warming" models which don't take into account many of the important factors that influence our climate.

We hear of "average global temperature".

What in the heck does that mean? If you stand in any spot on this globe, it goes through massive fluctuations from hour to hour and day to day. WHERE you make the measurements can skew your entire set of data. Furthermore, it's surface temperature data which hardly explains the dynamics of the atmosphere.

The earth is warming. But it's been doing so for the last 12,000 years and is scheduled to start cooling again into another ice age sometime down the road.

That is what the earth DOES. And it's because that's what the natural frequency of the sun dictates.

But high minded left wingers think that THEY are more important and know more than the fusion reactions occurring 90 million miles away from them.

The arrogance of such a stance is just..... staggering.

Albert Gore Jr. and the legions of global warming doomsayers are just plain crazy. The earth is DYNAMIC, it is not static.

In Michigan, they say if you don't like the weather, just wait 24 hours. Well, on earth, if you don't like the climate, just wait a few thousand years. It will change.... and in some cases dramatically!

Not really, at least not in the sense that a) it presents a significant danger, we're responsible for it, and c) we can do anything about it.

Dr. William Gray, "World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" - "I am of the opinion that this (global warming) is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people,"

'Global Warming 101

Building on earlier climate science work by William Herschel, John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier, investigations regarding humans' role in global warming began in 1896, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Svante Arrhenius examined contributions of carbon dioxide emissions to increases in atmospheric temperature. In the 1930s, meteorologist G.S. Callendar gathered temperature records from more than 200 weather stations around the world and attributed temperature increases to greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass' research on atmospheric CO2 and infrared radiation absorption added to a growing scientific consensus that humans contribute to global warming. In 1956, Plass announced that human activities were raising the average global temperature.

Also, beginning in 1958, Charles David Keeling began to document atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. His findings of a dramatic increase in CO2—referred to as the "Keeling Curve"—are considered some of the most important long-term data relating to humans' role in global warming. Additionally, 1966 and 1977 United States National Academy of Sciences reports made clear links between human activities and global warming.

NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 testimony to the U.S. Congress marked solidified scientific concern for human-caused global warming. He said he was "99 percent certain" that warmer temperatures were caused by the burning of fossil fuels and not solely a result of natural variation and that "it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Since the formation of the IPCC in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, a steady flow of IPCC reports have continued to support the notion that humans are contributing to global warming. For example, in 1990 at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, over 700 scientists from around the world gathered to review the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report in order to set the stage for the crafting of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After their review, they released the Scientists' Declaration, which focused on human-caused global warming, and read, "A clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming that can be expected during the 21st century.... Countries are urged to take immediate actions to control the risks of climate change." Another salient assertion regarding human contributions to warming manifested in the Second Scientific Assessment Report, released in 1995. The consensus statement strongly asserted that there has been "a discernible human influence" on the global climate. "


Link

But this is EXACTLY where the debate is focused. If you read the Skeptical Environmentalist - http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm we learn that the “model” used by the IPCC are far from certain and statements like “as much as” have little real meaning. As Crichton has pointed out having the “modelers” interpret the models is not a great idea and it is clear that internationally the skeptics get little credence. Lomborg away most of the claims above. He point out for example that the most likely sea level rise, even using pessimistic projections, is something the world has dealt with in the past and accommodated. “threatening tens of millions” is a typical scare tactic.

We are often told that the world's resources are running out; that an ever growing population will leave us less and less to.eat; that the planet's air and water are becoming more polluted; that our species are being wiped out at the rate of 40,000 a year; that the fertile top soil is disappearing; the forests are vanishing.
But, as Danish statistics professor Bjørn Lomborg explains, this simply isn't true. He shows that there is actually more forest cover on the earth now than there was in 1950; that our air is getting cleaner and cleaner (London's is better than it has ever been since the end of the 16th Century); that population growth is slowing down; that acid rain does not kill forests; that fewer and fewer people are starving; that global warming isn't nearly as big a threat as it has been cracked up to be. That, in short; 'mankind's lot has actually improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator'.
But why, you might ask, should we trust him? Well for one thing, being a Left-leaning former Greenpeace member, Lomborg can hardly be accused of being a Right-wing crank in the pay of the global capitalist conspiracy.
And for another, every single one of Lomborg's statements is based on sound statistical evidence. Precisely the same statistical evidence, it should be noted, which has in the past been twisted and tweaked by green doom-mongers and newspapers into making out that things are far worse than they actually are.
Rarely, it seems, do the claims of our environmental Cassandras stand up to close scrutiny. A widely used statistic about massive soil erosion was based on a single study of a tiny plot of steeply sloping farmland in Belgium; a report on declining grain yields managed to concentrate on three bad years and ignore 50 good ones either side.
And just as charities like Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature appear more than happy to churn out such misinformation to attract new members and swell their coffers, so the world's newspapers are delighted to reprint it on the time-honoured principle that bad news is far more interesting than good news.
Take, for example, the freak bout of warm weather caused by the 1997-98 El Nino. This was said to have cost the United States' economy $4 billion (£2.73 billion) damage via storms, tornadoes an mudslides. What hardly anyone bothered to mention, however, was the research which estimated the benefits brought by the milder weather were worth $l9billion.
http://www.abd.org.uk/skeptical_environmentalist.htm

The person you cling to is funny for a couple points. First of all, you choose to use one person to denounce the work of a great many people, it just seems a bit odd. Second, nothing bad on the guy but he is a statistician overall. I mean he had the scientific community after him in which the only reason nothing bad happened to him is because he is not an expert in what he is trying to report on. I mean I posted a link about the guy from wikipedia showing that his work was basically disqualified for many things and overall it was called scientifically unsound or bad scientific practice, yet even with this and the fact he is of a minority, a severe minority of people rejecting global warming you cling to him, I can only speculate really giving your attitude overall that the economy is worth more the changing from a finite energy supply that the world were surely be fighting over if not now but in the future.

About global climate models. I don’t think such were devised to run with the Doppler system and tell you that tomorrow holds a 35% chance of rain. Weather period day to day is not an exact science. Understanding what leads to atmospheric phenomena in general though can be understood in a rather in depth form though overall.

Now we do have all these various hydrocarbon resources all over the world, but they were in that form. The usage of such, billions of barrels of oil on a routine basis is really simple chemistry in regards to the environment in which you find now a regular occurring source of CO2 that simply did not exist previously. You then have to couple this with other greenhouse gas emissions and of course deforestation. The idea that some people hold the idea that such over a period of time could have no impact on the environment simply boggles my mind to the point of madness, I simply don’t understand how such views could be held actually, I mean the simple basis of action reaction should be enough to gain attention.

Now like the report I posted above global warming is not some new idea that is strictly based on computer models. Its a nice avenue to attack though and I will always agree that nature simply cant be explained away by some math on a blackboard, but that’s not the truth to the models anyways.

The link posted by bikerdad was a bit more substantial then Bjorn is but still, if he knew so much what was up how come he simply cant come out with the proof then, and another if global warming is a hoax he should care little to known overall to switch from fossil fuels, and moreover it would have been nice to see some data rather then an opinion. Bjorn’s data has basically been refuted from the fact overall that it was fallacy mostly.

Anything that pops up in science will be eaten alive by peer review. Not in the sense of pro or con, but simply going through the data attempting to either falsify it or not, its not only this but such data is open to the scientific community at large. Am I to believe some big oil company could not produce enough money to hire a group of scientists to disprove such if it were false and simply nothing more then alarmism?

Spaking of such groups, it looks as if big oil is moving away from them actually, and starting to embrace global warming, its look as if rational thinking might win over the dollar in some regards.

The amount of professionals and professional groups that have linked human activity to global climate change is overwhelming when considered to the few that don’t agree, its not only this but the idea itself has been around for a very long time now and is based on very simple ideas, the higher the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the more energy from the sun stays in our planet, which will lead to change.

Going from natural history the climate on the earth has changed countless times, this does not however mean just from that point that humans cannot cause change, and it also does not mean increases of CO2 from the industrial revolution of 35% is something to think little of.

Oil is not going to last forever, its finite, its use is morphing the environment. The environment is what supports life, like the ability to vote and what not. To me its almost a point of true lunacy to think people could come to engage in warfare over something that is slowly bringing mass extinction. I doubt for human activity to ever be environmentally friendly, but on that note it does not mean we cant find a way to sustain, fossil fuel usage in such a form is not sustainment, not for any considerable length of time anyways.

If we continue to take hydrocarbons and produce CO2, the amount of such freely roaming in the earths environment is going to continue to grow, its truly simple.

Attacking the author, especially in such a random way, so one does not have to deal with the author's statements is hardly an effective tactic, whenever it is used. It is especially hypocritical when the main source you use in opposition is Michael Crighton, a bad science fiction novelist who used to write decent books but has dropped to writing C-Grade pablum.



That is, of course, completely false. The growth of evidence is unifomly in one direction, day after day, test after test, study after study conducted by different Academic, governmental and independent groups around the world, all pointing towards the exact same thing. To pretend that there is a wave of 'new evidence' somehow opposing all of that is obviously false on the face of it. In 2006 alone there were a dozen major studies, some massive and ranging intio the tens of millions of dollars. I recommend examining the national geographic Global warming Survey, the Conservation Biology Climat Survey, the American geophysical Union survey, the NASA SeaWiFS Ocean survey, the Florida Wildlife and National Wildlife federations report, the NASA's Goddard Institute temperature study, the OSU 10-year biological ocean productivity survey, and of course the Stern Review, the massive study commissioned by the UK Government in partnership with the IEA. Oh and let us not forget the Massive National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) report which specifically adressed the causality of modern Global warming. Those are just a few, there are dozens more, and that is JUST those released in 2006.

Then there are the studies debunking the increasingly desperate attempts of the global-warming skeptics to distract the public:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

Only by utterly ignoring the voluminous and increasing masses of information, the unanimous reports and studies, done by seperate, independent agencies from all sectors, around the world, can one make the spurious claim that 'evidence against global warming is growing'.




This argument does not even make any sense. Nobody has ever claimed the global warming phenomemon is simple, this is just inventing criticism to attempt to discredit unanimous planitary scientific opinion. Furthermore, your second sentence is equally invented: actually these models and studies all take in all of the factors that influence global warmong, most of them in fact address them directly. Your claim could only be made if you had literally never read a single study.




This argument doesn't even make any sense. Human temperature fluctuates wildly and spontaniously all the time, yet we have an 'average body temperature' which has been accepted by science for decades.

This is the perfect example of one of the main, and most obvious logical fallacies of those who discredit the uncountable and unanimous global warming studies they have never read: they assume that scientists, as well as being ALL corrupt and 'gotten to', are idiots. Do you really think they have 'missed' all these supposed factors affecting global warming, which you, Lordhelmet, are aware of, but the hundreds of millions of earth's scientists are not? Is that a plausible argument? Do you really think they have not taken basic atmospheric factors into account when determining average global temperature? Do yopu HONESTLY believe these same hundreds of millions of scientists just go outside, wet a finger and hold it up to determine their numbers, that YOU, Lordhelmet, know more about measuring mean temperature than all of them? Is that really a plausible argument?




You seem to be flailing wildly here. We are not talking about 'high-minded left-wingers' here, we are talking about the unanimous opinion backed up by literally tens of thousands of studies reporting unanimously the same thing, from different institutions all over the globe. I think if anyone is displaying 'staggering arrogance' it would be a hypothetical person who believed that their personal unevidenced opinion counts for more than the scientific consensus and universal evidence gathered of human science.



How is Gore and the doomsayers crazy? They have maintained all along that the earth's climate is dynamic, and have never claimed otherwise. Why did you type the above sentence as if they had claimed something they did not? Were you unaware of what their claims actually are, or were you just trying to present them in a (false) and disfavourable light by inventing things to make fun of them about?




Returning, if I may, to the issue of the debate:

Of course the White House deliberately censoring the scientific consensus on Global warming is wrong. Politics censoring science is always and has always been wrong. period. There is no wiggle room here, there is no way the Bush jr white house can justify deliberately altering reports to minimise their impact in a way that fits their personal ideology.

Oh, and let us be clear, there is NO censorship in academia of anti-global warming evidence, there simply is NO anti-global warming evidence.

BUT, let us pretend, for a moment, that there was. One person above justified the Bush Jr censorship by claiming it was some kind of answer to the unevidenced allegations of censorship withing the scientific community. This is false on the face of it, of course, but EVEN IF it was true: these are (amusingly) the exact same people who rail against Affirmative Action based on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right, that you cannot correct an evil act by making an opposite evil act, that you cannot correct discrimination with discrimination. It seems they now utterly reverse the principle of their argument when it is politically convenient...

Again gordo. Myself and others posted a lot more sources than this one man and so you cannot dismiss them all so easily. And many of the people babbiling about GW are not climate experts either.



You don’t get it because you either refuse to read what is posted or ignore it. For the last time – NO ONE says CO2 in not a green house gas that can cause GW. The question is HOW MUCH. If it is 5 deg C this century we need to deal with it. If it is 2/10 deg C we don’t. Do you get the concept here?


And it is not just one man but many who question the data esp. when we claim the current temperatures are “unprecedented” : The lies tell me that the issue is still wide open and to spend 400 BILLION, which by the way, will have a negligible effect on CO2 emissions because China and India will soon pass us in emissions, is not my idea of money well spent.

Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working on climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 A.D. and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Not surprisingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate models simply ignore the Medieval Warm Period. The models simply compare current temperatures to those of the immediately preceding pre-industrial societies. It is almost as if the Medieval Warm Period simply never happened as far as the IPCC is concerned

The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures.
The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalWarming.html

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2006...02319-3494r.htm


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

This is, of course, completely untrue. It was untrue the last time you maid this claim and it remains completely factually untrue now. In fact it is SO obviously untrue I can't help but wonder why you made this comment. Anyone who has ever read any of the IPCC's reports knows it is not true, they know it deals with the Medieval warm period specifically and in detail. What is gained by making such a statement, except to demonstrate you have not read any of the reports you are dismissing?

Want proof? here is the IPCC's words, dealing with the point in specific, something you claimed they never did:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Here again is a description of warming and cooling in the earth's atmosphere over history, specifically dealing with the Medieval warm period, citing the IPCC report:

http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/ccir-ny_q1b.html


And how ironic is it that, even as you misrepresent the IPCC, they released a damning report today stating in no uncertain terms how human agency affects global warming:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/un_climate
In its first assessment in six years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) dealt a crippling blow Friday to the shrinking body of opinion that claims higher temperatures in past decades have been driven by natural, not man-made, causes.


Here, by the way is a tiny fraction of the list of major national or independent scientific bodies who openly endorse and accept the overwhelming evidence regarding the human impact on global warming:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
American Geophysical Union (AGU):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
American Institute of Physics (AIP):
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


But if those (and they are a fraction of the total) are too 'liberal and biased' for you, then consider: other organisations who have openly endorsed the scientific evidence for human impact on Global warming include:
British petrolium (BP)
Shell Oil International
Petro Canada
Exxon Mobil
and hundreds of others.

In terms of national governments in the first world, let us examine all the nations whose governments refuse to accept human impact Global warming. here is a complete list:

United States of America...

Yup, thats it. Only one in the entire first world. Now there are a few who refuse to accept Kyoto (not many) but that is a seperate issue, and even those who refuse Kyoto, like Australia, still openly accept the fact of human impact on Global Warming.

Did you read this??? If you had you would see I am correct. They “blow off” the Medieval Warm Period this way:

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. With the more widespread proxy data and multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature change now available, the spatial and temporal character of these putative climate epochs can be reassessed.


So even though they do much the same for warming, ie use very isolated data for the past in many cases as I have posted.


Here again is a description of warming and cooling in the earth's atmosphere over history, specifically dealing with the Medieval warm period, citing the IPCC report:


And they say the same thing here:

Temperatures began increasing in northern latitudes around 600 AD and warming occurred in other regions up until about 1250 AD due to natural variability in the Earth's orbit. Areas of Greenland were colonized that were previously too cold for food cultivation. This period is sometimes referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, although the warming did not occur on a global scale.

So the Mann graph (hockey-stick) does not note that during this period temperatures were significantly HIGHER than today or even projections of the century to come. But its a LIE.

Scientists study annual growth rings in trees to determine ancient patterns of temperature and precipitation.
WASHINGTON (AP) ¬ An unusually warm period a millennium ago may have been part of a natural planetary cycle, say researchers who studied tree rings.
The study, appearing in the March 21 2002 issue of the journal Science, analyzed ancient tree rings from 14 sites on three continents in the northern hemisphere and concluded that temperatures in an era known as the Medieval Warm Period some 800 to 1,000 years ago closely matched the warming trend of the 20th century.
The tree-ring study gives another perspective on Earth's natural cycles, said Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. Cook is co-author of the study with Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber of the Swiss Federal Research Institute.
Cook said the study shows the Earth to be "capable of rapid changes and long periods of above average warmth on its own without enhanced greenhouse warming caused by human activities.
The real challenge is to factor out the natural variability from" manmade causes of global warming.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006...ptics_prim.html

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/July%2015.htm
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.



And this is THE point Vermillion. I don’t dispute GW I dispute the numbers and model data that say it is primarily cause by our release in CO2. The jusry is still out on this.


London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.

In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.

“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...v=nr&id=783

• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.

• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...v=pb&id=886

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm#MA

Yes, I did. Did you? The very passage you kindly quoted perfectly demonstrates your error. They no not 'blow off' or ignore' the Medieval warm period as you initially claimed, in fact they deal with it at great length. And they conclude, as you yourself just quoted, that the medieval warming period was a local, hemespheric event, centred mostly in Northern Europe, and that its effect on global average temperatures was notable (and is included in the graphs they provide) but NOT represented by the local high-points in Northern Europe. They explained it, you even quoted them explaining it, so how can you still maintain that they 'blow it off'? In fact they use basic scientific method to examine it and all their data.


And the Frasier Institute is NOT an 'independent research organisation', it is a notorious right-wing think tank. You would have a cow if I quoted 'far-left.org' or the like as evidence of my points, so please show the same courtesy.

Frankly, I would rather you didn't post from political think-tanks of either end of the political spectrum, rather I would rather you backed up your assertion with evidence from a scientific report from a neutral scientific body. Oh wait, thats right, there are no such reports.

But you can feel free to examine any of the 796academic and independent scientific reports demonstrating global warming and human involvement released JUST in 2006...



No, actually it isn't, Juries rule on the basis of fact and evidence, and the fact that human agency is largely responsible for global warming has been demonstrated time and time again, in study after study after study. One of which released only a few days ago I linked to in my last post.


And, returning to the topic, NONE of this justifies deliberate misleading of the Public by the Bush Administration, deliberate attempts to rewrite science so that it fits personal politics. that is 100% wrong, no matter what the issue.

Yes, I did. Did you? The very passage you kindly quoted perfectly demonstrates your error. They no not 'blow off' or ignore' the Medieval warm period as you initially claimed, in fact they deal with it at great length. And they conclude, as you yourself just quoted, that the medieval warming period was a local, hemespheric event, centred mostly in Northern Europe


Ya and I think the IPCC is a notoriously left wing group and blowing off the MWP is disingenuous at best. I don’t agree with their explanation and as usual you don’t bother reading the tree ring data or even the writing of as fellow Canadian – you just blow it off as right wing from - a notorious right-wing think tank. So the conceit here is that only the left wing think tanks and orgs can do research or “think”. So you can re write as you like – and use whatever data you like. But Bush is baaaaaaad.

Nothing about the data just the politics. If you think I am debating on that bases V you are dead wrong.

• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Haemeranta/timo02.html

Firstly, by what basis do you claim the IPCC is left wing exactly? They are a scientific institute whose results have never been scientifically disproven. If you are going to make that kind of assertion, then you are going to need to provide evidence for it, as it is not supported by the facts.

Secondly, I'm not sure if there has been some miscommunication here, but you are again stating that the IPCC 'blew off' the medeaval warming period, when I have demonstrated in chapter and verse that this is factually not true. If that was not sufficient for you, YOU also demonstrated with your OWN quotes the error of your own assertion. The Medeaval warming period was a local northern hemispheric phenomenon, centered in the North Atlantic, whose effect on the global average was significant, as has been demonstrated by every chart and graph of the region (despite your assertion to the contrary) but was NOT symbolysed by the local extremes you tried to assert. YOUR sources demonstrated that ideally. Yopur initial assetrtion that they ignored it was proven wrong, now your modified assertion that they somehow minimised it has been proven wrong by YOUR sources...

Thirdly, nobody, and I mean nobody including the Frasier institute itself would ever claim that it was anything BUT a right-wing think tank. Don't say you 'don't debate that way', as you routinely ignore any evidence from any source you perceive as being slightly leftist, I am simply asking you to be consistent.

They are NOT a scientific institute, nor do they pretend to be. They are a right wing policy group, and make no bones about it. You protesting to the contrary is irrelevant.


No I don't think left-wing groups are the only ones who can do research, I would not trust ANY political group from either side who tries to spin science. I prefer to let scientists do scientific research, and they are unanimous in their dismissal of your assertion.

You quoted their conclusion which proves nothing and ignores the data I posted. Want to refute it? Ignoring the MWP shows us the dishonesty in the debate and the length people will go to be “right”.





Unanimous is a tough word to support even for V. But Ill bite – show me. Start with thers guys below. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien...rming_consensus


April 19, 2002
What do over 2,600 climate scientists have in common?
2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists (so far) have signed a petition saying that global warming hysteria is pseudoscientific baloney. They've been joined by an additional 5,017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists, and over 10,000 other scientists, attached to major universities and research organizations around the world. Yet if you went by what "environmental" activist groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or the so-called "Environmental News Network" tell you, you'd think this petition, and others like it, never existed.
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

A substantial number of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree with the assertion that human activity is causing or imminently will cause substantial global warming, a November 2006 survey found.
Conducted by the nonpartisan National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP), the survey asked 793 environmental scientists and environmental practitioners about human effects on climate variance.
The survey results contradict assertions by environmental activist groups that "the debate is over" and that all or virtually all scientists agree humans are causing a dramatic and harmful change in the Earth's climate.

Survey Results
According to the survey:
• 34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.
• 41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
• 71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
• 33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming.
• 47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20512

Doesn't sound unanimous to me sir.

Nice one

Hey now, what does 100,000$ and an environmental skeptic have in common.

Now I will not directly attack these people, but still compared to all the scientific base that supports global warming with data its hard for me to still call SEPP more then a minority, one that seems bent on destroying the idea of global warming because like you ted, they don’t think its economically friendly, and years later they have nine links of research data with none conducted past 1999? IN fact I would have to say the hard science version, or research with results lacks heavily when compared to talk.

So lets look at another high ranking skeptic that produces no reports, talks a lot and happens to be paid well by companies that global warming scares.

Another high paid talker

So to make a quick break, can you point to any real scientific study done that shows for certain that global warming is nothing but hype

Here is a site with some nice links on with studies or ways to find them

NRDC

Here is another site, from the nasa, it has many links also.

Nasa intro link

Lastly on the SEPP site under the link research produced nine results with no studies with dates past 1999. I did however notice a lot of talk, more so on tax breaks and Kyoto making money for India and so fourth. This is a far cry in different from the multitude of documented and modern and constantly updated studies that come from very reputable bodies such as NASA or the EPA for instance.

They have no factual rebuttal to modern day scientific studies that lead to global warming alarmism, period.

Of course it must be hard to read the IPCC or EPA reports when they are all just liberal communists working for the EU or whatever they are doing these days.

I mean you have to accept that these fully lacking in research “scientists” with a lot of talk will deny in the most basic sense that an constant accelerating source of CO2 alone in the atmosphere will have no effect. People that one nobel prizes in the late 1800’s even knew better then that. Heck some of the paid ones like I posted will even say such will be beneficial, its disgusting like politicians that need to distort facts for there buddies in big oil or big Iraq or whatever it is.

The "global warming" hysteria is the new McCarthyism of this decade. Scientists who doubt the "consensus" are personally attacked, treated like heretics, "black listed" and in one case, threatened with being fired. All that is missing from this ultra-totalitarian approach is the firing squad, the rack, or burning at the stake for these "non believers".

Oregon climatologist attacked

And this particularly well written piece from a Canadian climate expert....

Canadian Global Warming View



I'm not sure what to call the fascist-like behavior of so-called scientists, politicians, and "green advocates" toward scientists who don't fall into goose-stepping-lockstep behind the consensus, which as the author has pointed out, came before the research.

I know what it's NOT though. It's not SCIENCE.

But why does it matter anyway? Last week, the chicken-little crowd claimed that our earth has only 10 years before there is NOTHING that we can do.

And guess what kids, China ain't playin.

China blames west for "global warming"

Neither is India. So, two of the biggest polluters on the planet refuse to go along with the "radical vision" called for by global warming hysteriacs and 10 years will come and go before we know it.

So, assume chicken-little is right (they aren't). There is NOTHING you can do about it.

Personally, I'm going to try to find some left wing kook who owns oceanfront/lakefront property and is convinced that it'll all be underwater in 10 years. They'll be in a panic to sell, sell, sell!

At the same time, I'll try to sell them property that I'll be buying on the frozen tundra since they're convinced it'll be the next tropical paradise.

Why shouldn't I take advantage of the fact that PT Barnum was right?

I'm sorry, we seem to be missing each other here. You KEEP reasserting that the IPCC 'ignored' the Medeaval warming period, yet I have shown you chapter and verse specific entire texts directly from the IPCC report proving this is not the case. How can they be 'ignoring' it when they deal with it specifically and directly? I provided you with direct links to the exerpt from their report which is entirely focussed on nothing but the Medeaval warming period. So I ask you to please stop asserting they 'ignore' it, as this is simply factually wrong.

You yourself provided very compelling quotes backing up the exact assertion you are making is incorrect. You ask me to address your evidence, I apologise I thought I did, by quoting directly from every source you provide showing how they prove your asertion to be 100% false. The Medeaval warming period was a local phenomenon centred on the northern hemisphere and mostly around the North Atlantic , and thus its effect on the global average temperature was small. It was however not non-existent, which is why thereIS a warming trend in the medieval period on every graph ever provided.

You say I never addressed your evidence: I'm pretty sure I did, but just to be sure, allow me to address it again: the following quotes are taken from the evidence YOU provided:

"This period is sometimes referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, although the warming did not occur on a global scale."

"
An unusually warm period a millennium ago may have been part of a natural planetary cycle, say researchers who studied tree rings. The study, appearing in the March 21 2002 issue of the journal Science, analyzed ancient tree rings from 14 sites on three continents in the northern hemisphere"


Your own sources completely disagree with your assertion. Might I be so bold as to suggest you either abandon your assertion, or find some sources that actually agree with it?



Please. An online anonymous petition where people are asked "only to sign if they are scientists"? For all we know that was a single person with a phone book and a lot of time on their hands.


However, to your wider point, I will step back and restate my point. You are correct, opinion is not unanimous. It is however, as you yourself just pointed out, strongly majoritarian in favour of human impact Global warming.

Science on the other hand, is practically unanimous. No major independent study released in the past 5 years has been able to scientifically disprove or even demonstrate causal evidence against human impact Global warming, while literally HUNDREDS of studies DO demonstrate a causal link. I can cite a bunch of them for you if you would like, I already showed quite a few above. Human impact global warming has been accepted as fact by every national scientific organisation in the first world, by every government except the united States, even by major industry and private sector partners such as the major oil companies. No academic study released in the past decade disagrees or sheds doubt on this fact. Those are some pretty hard facts to dispute...

I'm sorry, we seem to be missing each other here. You KEEP reasserting that the IPCC 'ignored' the Medieval warming period, yet I have shown you chapter and verse specific entire texts directly from the IPCC report proving this is not the case


No what I posted were people who believe the MWP was global and for the reasons they stated. The IPCC chose to not believe their data although I fail to see why – can you enlighten me?


Then you make the ludicrous assertion that there is unanimous agreement on GW!!! I guess all those other guys are just right wing bloggers??

If you want to debate GW go to my other thread - Climate Change. Lots of others will, I am sure, like to discuss it with you.

Not a single one of the sources you quoted said the medeaval warming period was global. In fact, every one of them contradicted your assertion 100% I have repeatedly quoted from YOUR sources stating clearly and in plain english that your assertions are factually wrong. Why are you trying to misrepresent your own sources like this?

I have posted direct quotes from YOUR sources in each of my last two posts. I suggest you address that before making further factually incorrect assertions misrepresenting what they have to say.




Forgive me, but you seem to have not been paying attention.

I already backed off that statement admitting it was an exaggeration, in fact a strong majority of scientists believe in human impact Global warming. I thought I stated that very clearly, so what could it possibly gain you to repeat this comment as if I had never posted?

If I may be so bold, your time would be better spent dealing with all of the assertions you have made which have been proven factually wrong, the ones you tend to just drop from your responses.



Actually, what I wish to debate is the point I keep making, and you keep ignoring. There is no wild global conspiracy (the very idea is insane) but EVEN IF THERE WAS, that does not justify the Bush jr white House editing science, falsifying reports and changing scientific data to meet their personal minority political beliefs.

Let me interrupt with response to the original debate issues -




The initial inquiry and Congressional investigation was prompted by a "survey" conducted and "results" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a notorious result oriented group of activists. Media picked up their conclusions uncritically with the biggest voices around, repeated and even embellished with conclusions apparently drawn from thin air. The methodology and conclusions of the "survey" and its promoters have now been exposed for what they are - unscientific and unwarranted.

Some problems with the UCS piece -

• "Only one out of six scientists (279/1630=17%) who were contacted returned the survey form. This means we don’t know anything about the views and experiences of the other 83%." "...Any professional survey researcher...will tell you that a 17 percent response rate is inadequate to draw conclusions about the group being surveyed...many peer-reviewed academic journals will not accept papers relying on samples smaller than 50 percent."
• Since there is no registry of government scientists, information of who the 1600 scientists sent the questionnaire by mail were or how they were selected, or if that number is a representative sample of government scientists at all is of interest, but unprovided. The UCS may have used their own membership files as one criterion to extract names on their mailing list. In any case, only 17% returned the questionnaire. It is a well-known principal of polling that voluntary mail polls will elicit a skewed number of answers toward people with a grievance. This is known as a "selection bias."
• The poll combined those respondents who claimed they "actually experienced the alleged tampering and scientists who simply 'perceived' that it happened to someone else."
• "43 percent (of respondents) perceived or experienced 'fear of retaliation for openly expressing concerns about climate change outside my agency.' Actually, only 14 percent personally harbored such a fear; the other 29 percent apparently thought they saw it in others. Notice, the question didn't ask how many actually experienced retaliation, instead of just fearing it."
• "When the survey finally got around to asking how many scientists actually received 'requests by officials for scientists to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to the public,' only 12 scientists (4 percent of respondents) did... 12 out of the 1,630 scientists who received the survey amounts to an underwhelming 0.7 percent."

If any here have run a business or managed personnel in one, you are probably aware of the problem of employees who desire to or have taken it upon themselves to dictate company policy by unauthorized statements that can be construed to be issued in the company name. This problem is most acute in a situation that has controversy involved and/or with recalcitrant or rebellious personnel. I know of no business and few organizations that allows unfettered public communications, much less the public press conferences in their name demanded by the UCS in their press release. You can bet none of my employees would demand such, much less get it.

That the survey could only uncover such a small number and percentage of actual complainers is astounding to me especially considering the independent minded type people we are discussing. They are scientists presumably of an inquiring mind with many, perhaps even most, of an activist bent primed to take offense considering the sciences under scrutiny and the issues involved. It should be noted, "only one in five scientists (21%) disagreed with the statement, 'US federal climate research is independent and impartial.' And only 8% disagreed that, 'my agency’s leadership aspires to and expects a high level of integrity and professionalism,' and none of the news reports carried that telling information.

In contrast, if a reporter or the Union of Concerned Scientists actually sought an example of an organization that muzzles, threatens and directs results of scientists to conform to political statements they should look foremost to the I.P.C.C., which last week issued its Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers written by political appointees and which bizarrely, the actual report containing the science will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15). So, this time the I.P.C.C. has decide to avoid those embarrassing conflicts like their third attempt when the summary prominently featured the infamous and now thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" denying the fluctuations in climate the last couple of thousand years and the body of the actual report substantiated the events they then had to explain away. That woll not happen this time if three months is enough time to catch the conflicts those embarrasssinf facts seem to throw into a great theory. Now, after having successfully purged most, if not all, remaining skeptical thinkers from their ranks and with rules in place to jigger any contrary facts, what remains of their scientific methodology will issue forth in due course. Do not look for the UCS or their media followers to question these practices.


http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_...ey_feb05_07.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ous_report.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity...scientists.html

So if its only a small amount of scientists living in fear not direct threats but just fear for some unkown reason its ok?

Why would that need to occur, I cant see any reason to strong arm people period.

Another aspect of why the IPCC report may have to be thoroughly edited in every possible angle is because this issue is becoming so large. I mean if you are not 100% on the money where a semicolon is to land in a sentence it could be used by a skeptic to say global warming is false, that is the reality of what happens to such people and or reports moreover.

I have a hard time believe still, giving the shear amount of reputable organizations and of course the large amount of people in such organizations that global warming could be called hype. More so by people that stick to small amounts of research that have a time date no later then 1999, or by statisticians that have no real experience in the field they study, or for that matter other skeptics that are openly on the pay roll of big oil companies, and that at later dates even flip flop on that position if not use information dishonestly.

Its hard to find any solid reputable study that disproves global warming currently. For all the skeptics posted I am hard pressed to find any actual studies or research also. I mean going through the SEPP website there claims in 2002 manifested in 2004 with an entire two papers worth of research that I guess simply did not reach the ends they would desire for I am sure if they did big energy would have at least spent some form of money to broadcast this, and another is how could a scientific body know before doing the research for that matter.

I mean to accept that global warming is a liberal scheme to destroy America is only mad at first, but it becomes completely removed from reality type of insanity when you compare those statements to the quantity and quality of scientific organizations or scientists that support the facts about global warming.

Actually, giving the reality of what is said in global warming debates on this site I don’t even want to participate anymore, its not as scary as much as it truly makes me feel ill. I imagine actually that global warming could be done and over a thousand years from now in the middle of some ice age and people would still be denying it.

Guess you need to read up the thread if you come in late V. Can you find a way to blow of the Harvard guys? Not ecaxtly the right wing bloggers?/

Release No.: 03-10
For Release: March 31, 2003
20th Century Climate Not So Hot
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years

. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.
The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period." Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working on climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 A.D. and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Not surprisingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate models simply ignore the Medieval Warm Period. The models simply compare current temperatures to those of the immediately preceding pre-industrial societies. It is almost as if the Medieval Warm Period simply never happened as far as the IPCC is concerned

The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures.
The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalWarming.html

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2006...02319-3494r.htm


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

I really wonder who is misleading who...

In 1895 we were told the earth would be frozen again... Source New York Times

Then in the late 1920's we were told by the New York Times that earth was steadily growing warmer..

Then in 1975 the New York Times and Science News told us that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

And now we come back to Global Warming...

How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What happens on the fourth fool me?

I agree. The subject is now very political. The Mann “hockey stick” showing sharp temp. rise last century and ignoring (cover up) the Medieval Warm Period show us what lengths the proponents will go to, to reach the conclusion they want to – including the IPCC. Meanwhile they are using super complex “models” that can be rigged by selective inputs to interpretations, to say just about anything. Add to that the fact that since China and India and the “developing world” are not required to reduce CO2, and that their emissions will pass the US within a decade and you get a no win situation. Thus even if we were certain CO2 (man made) was the total cause (which we are not) there is not a thing we can do without China where a new coal fired, CO2 belching, power plant is built every WEEK (on average).



http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gFisu...;cd=9&gl=us