The Plan involves three interacting strategies which include:

· In industrial countries, the withdrawal of subsidies from fossil fuels and the establishment of equivalent subsidies for clean energy sources;

· The creation of a large fund -- perhaps through a small tax on global commerce -- to transfer clean energy technologies to developing countries; and,

· The incorporation within the Kyoto framework of a progressively more stringent Fossil Fuel Efficiency Standard that rises by 5 percent per year.

Most of us should know that 2007 was one of the coolest years in the last 100. http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/climate_c...he_tropics.html

That's absolute nonsense. In fact it was one of the warmest.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Tem...8_data.htm#fig1

Yes quick for god sake listen to Dingo!

What is nonsense Dingo is the data. Guess where the temperature data comes from – GISS – YES the same corrupted data we have been discussing - and do you know whet the average temperature difference is between 1880 and 200-2007? .84 deg C. Far less than some of the discrepancies we have been discussing regarding GISS use of data from stations that we in fields 50 or more years ago and are now in cities.

Try again.

Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.


Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_time...2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories is below]

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.


Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007


The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:


Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

With a payoff worth tens of billions of dollars at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in campaign contributions in the 1990s apparently in part to persuade the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate to support the Kyoto global warming treaty.

Enron hoped to cash in on the Kyoto treaty by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide - the inert gas that some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.

The Houston firm's lobbying push appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol in November of 1998.

Dingo
Oh yeah and Ted, I'm waiting breathlessly for your updated data showing that 1880 and 2007 were roughly the same temperature. No doubt all that melted ice is also based on corrupted data. The glaciers are just redistributing.

Dingo: A few items you should review:

Q. Most of us should know that 2007 was one of the coolest years in the last 100.

Isn't it interesting how both sides have scientific research proving each other wrong? And I thought the debate was over! Aquilla, watch out for that cole slaw coming your way, there's a food fight in here too!

No Scuba- there is only right wing media vs science, for the most part.

You don't have to be a major genius to see some missing glaciers- do you?

There is no food fight, and precious little "science" proving each other wrong- there are scientists, the overwhelming majority- over 90%, that agree that we have global warming, and man causes it

“Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring

Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

To assess the extent of melting of its 33 000 km2 of glaciers, scientists have been using a process they have been pioneering for some years.

Spring has arrived in the Arctic. After peaking at 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles) in the second week of March, Arctic sea ice extent has declined through the month of April. April extent has not fallen below the lowest April extent on record, but it is still below the long-term average. Science Daily

Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible. National Snow and Ice Data Center

In 2007, in its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that 11 of the 12 warmest years on in the instrumental record since 1850 fell between 1995 and 2006 (IPCC 2007). The updated 100-year trend, from 1996 to 2005 of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C, was greater than the 100-year warming trend at the time of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. The warming trend covered in the Third Assessment Report, from 1901 to 2000, was 0.6°C ± 0.2°C. Additional warm years after 2000 caused the higher warming trend reported in the Fourth Assessment Report. Temperature records supporting these findings have been assembled from thousands of land and ocean observation sites covering a large, representative portion of the Earth's surface and carefully controlled for possible biases arising from station and instrument changes.
<snip>
In all cases shown here, regardless of parameter or measurement method, the amount of snow and ice has been decreasing over the past several decades. NSIDC

Only 5% of scientist believe that global warming IS NOT caused by humans in some capacity, did Ted just prove my point?

I posted this to show how little you and Dingo actually read the data. They said “contributed” NOT caused and did you read the rest CR?

Like:

“Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.”

Or

“A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”


So not only is there NO 99% agree on anything but most do not agree that the science is there yet.

Three points:

First, if you bothered to read my admittedly lengthy second post above, you should be very suspicious of the global warming "cause". This mess appears to be a classic follow-the-money grab, only on a scale the size of the entire globe.

Second, and this is undeniable: Whether we have warming or not (and let's assume we do, as we do know 1998 was warm by the standards of the last 150 years), the issue is not whether we have warming, but rather is this part of the natural cycles that have been documented using tree rings, fossils, sedimentary rocks, etc. If man is not the primary and most significant cause, then it is highly unlikely we can do anything about it anyway, and we will be destroying our economy and way of life in vain.

Third---have you seen this?:

Sun on Mars and Earth:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

And Sun on Earth:

"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools. . . . This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere . . . was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."

The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales." Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery070707.htm

There is lots of contrary evidence. You simply must decide if you are an eagle...or a lemming....

Yes, if you are the lemming worshiping at the foot of corporate profits- that is the real problem here isn't it? If we acknowledge our role, as in, not just the US, but all of the world, it will cost corporate bottom lines everywhere- not just the US.

If we don't, we just run off the cliff with our heads in the sands.

Right now, even Alaska's "oil delegation" is having a problem finding viable rebuttal's to global warming, and we have budgeted 2 million dollars to have some- term used loosely- scientists to have a "conference" (propoanda campaign) to combat the science of global warming.

It is almost as silly as an argument of evolution vs "intelligent design"- one is a science- one is faith and indoctrination.

Global warming is a fact of life now- we have to deal with it- is it man made? I will concede that it can be debated with some science on both sides.

But you have to be kind of blind to the effect man has on his planet to go the way of "man isn't doing it"

I tend towards the "man is accelerating a natural proccess" or "it wouldn't be so bad if we weren't adding to it"

I also agree that we need to hold China to the same standards of pollution as the US, and other emerging economies.

I don't know if it is realistic- but it needs to be done anyway.

IIRC, China has already surpassed the pollution levels we thought they were going to have in 2020, so, yeah, I would agree, it is pointless to hold the US to a set of standards we don't hold India or China to as well.

But no global warming, or it isn't, at least partially, a man made deal? Ya, you have to be pretty clueless to buy into that one.

Yes, if you are the lemming worshiping at the foot of corporate profits- that is the real problem here isn't it? If we acknowledge our role, as in, not just the US, but all of the world, it will cost corporate bottom lines everywhere- not just the US.

If we don't, we just run off the cliff with our heads in the sands.

I posted this to show how little you and Dingo actually read the data. They said “contributed” NOT caused and did you read the rest CR?

Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

I'll leave you with one of Prof Lindzen's quotations:

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,and,on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference,proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age"


-Richard Lindzen
Alfred P.Sloan Prof of Meteorology, Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT

However, as I have pointed out in multiple threads on this topic in the past, CO2 is but a minor component of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and further has less greenhouse effect than the other components.

Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure

Yeah, other than human caused increased CO2 being the chief forcing contributing to global warming over the last 100+ years it's pretty minor.

Of course you may be confusing the matter with the greater contribution of water vapor as a temperature generated feedback GHG. But then water vapor is not a forcing, it is simply a positive function(feedback) of temperature rise. And yes Ted I know about the possible negative feedback of thinning water vapor in the tropical troposphere under warming conditions. After all I'm the one who introduced the topic

Ted
Even the relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature is not at all clear.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...arming-CO2-link

The NOAA and Scripps carbon dioxide analyzers, operating together at Mauna Loa, provide important redundancy of measurements. This is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide record and the entire global carbon dioxide measurement network. Besides sampling the air at its existing stations on Mauna Loa and at the South Pole, NOAA built and developed sampling stations at new observatories in *Barrow, Alaska (1973) and** in American Samoa (1974) where it continues to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no food fight, and precious little "science" proving each other wrong- there are scientists, the overwhelming majority- over 90%, that agree that we have global warming, and man causes it, and we have a very, very small minority of ACTUAL scientists that disagree, and they usually don't even disagree on global warming itself- just the mechanisms of change, and then it is usuallysome minutea that they are arguing over that the right wing and oil companies types need to seize on to "prove" something wrong.

I look at it like the debate over Tobacco being harmful or not- about 99% of doctors and scientists at the time believed that smoking was harmful- but the tobacco company leached on to that 1% to fight the notion that tobacco was harmful, despite it being the single most harmful substance in our country.

No Scuba- there is only right wing media vs science, for the most part.

You don't have to be a major genius to see some missing glaciers- do you?

(quick)
Did you not see that long letter I posted above, sent to the UN and signed by those dozens of prominent scientists? Probably not. Did you see my quote from Richard Lindzen, perhaps the most august climate scientist in the world? Guess not.

Truth is the climate is always changing. Always has, always will. Usually slowly--but sometimes in a malestrom--but always in its own good time. Supposedly Kentucky used to be under an ocean, which accounts for the unique minerals in its soil that help horses grow so well. And I have news--the climate will continue to change, as God directs, and Man is not going to have much say about it, despite our hubris..

Well, to add fuel to the fire- turns out the lovely political appointees in NASA from the GW admin have been censoring and with holding information regarding global warming evidence from being released- because, well, darned if it doesn't bolster the global warming evidence even further.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_...KH7zysO_75H2ocA


NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded. In a report released Monday, NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. It said that the agency's top management wasn't part of the censorship, nor were career officials.
<a href="http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/global-warming-hoax-enthusiasts-running-out-of-false-data/" target="_blank">

When the GW admin has to stop evidence- it is a pretty good indicator that the anti-global warming foes are really, really reaching.

(Ted
You miss the point. The whole GW argument is “political” and the “scientists” involved like Mann have been hiding data and distorting facts for years. We are still waiting for “real Climate” to redo their “models” with the current data – but don’t worry they have a real “scientific” phrase “they don’t think its too significant”.

About
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.

Disclaimer
The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

Just for fun I examined your list a little and plugged several names into Google Scholar to see what they had published. Many were economists, not scientists. Many of the remainder were not climate scientists. Of those who were, many were emeritus professors with no recent publications often not in the last 20 years. Of those who had recent publications most were on topics that did not pertain to AGW. None that I found, including Lindzen, had published papers in peer reviewed journals that directly refuted any important part of AGW theory.

My challenge to you is to go through the list and plug the names of those who purport to have scientific credentials into Google Scholar and locate five peer reviewed articles that question a key aspects of the "consensus" view of AGW. I will accept abstracts of articles. We can then have an intelligent discussion about them.

I hesitate to use the term "consensus" because there are now more credentialed climate scientists who challenge the IPCC's AR4 as understating the immediacy of the threat from climate change than there are who challenge them for overstating it.