Right wing fanatics like Goldberg see the world exclusively in political terms.  It is impossible for Goldberg to conceive that any part of any argument might be based upon a set of facts that reasonable people agree upon.  The right sets goals and cooks up whatever psuedofacts, dreams, myths, lies, etc., it needs to support its position.  How could the left be any different?  It is a grand example of projecting oneself onto the other, and it is completely delusional.

I guess when the truth isn't on your side, you've got to just make shit up.

That's Jonah Goldberg in a nutshell.

environmentalism is "comfortably irrational"?   some people can go a bit far, but it's pretty much based on science, not "ritual over reality".  what utter nonsense.

What do you expect from an idealogue who believes that fascism is a liberal phenonma, and uses the fact that both Hitler and the left are interested in organic foods as part of his proof? 

FMP wrote:

>>What do you expect from an idealogue who believes that fascism is a liberal phenonma, and uses the fact that both Hitler and the left are interested in organic foods as part of his proof?

I spoke to soon. I missed the very same stupidity in Goldberg's piece. He writes "It's no surprise that a green-themed California hotel provides Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" right next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome." Yes. what convincing proof. Gore's book sits next to religious works in one hotel, so it is therefore it is just religion itself. God that guy is dumb!

hitler liked dogs too.  i'm just sayin....

Wait...

Don't both Saddam and Goldberg have beards? (Or "Had" in the case of Saddam.)

Hmmm...

What does that mean?

Same with Santa. And he redistributes wealth too!

Goldberg is the beneficiary of rightwing "affirmative action". It doesn't matter what your race, background, accomplishments, or morality might be, as long as you're willing to ceaselessly spout the rightwing line of arrogant ignorance, hatred and bigotry.

Goldberg is a particularly keen example that no discernable intelligence is necessary in order to rake in those paychecks from the rightwing media masters. 

Incredible, guys like Goldberg and Beck (AND BUSH!) are held up as people whose opinions should matter, when in a just world they would have difficulty feeding themselves if depending on their own "talents". 

Not as much as Poland, and submisive sex. Either is as relavent as Mr. Goldberg's breathless prose.

This type of punditry is like comfort food to people who believe that any warning regarding the planet's ecosphere is simply "people trying to appear smarter" than they are. Generally, if there is anything the "conservatives" are against, it's intelligent thought.

Many power structures have viewed intelligent though with suspicision.

Couldn't say how history will veiw the neocon effort to supress it. You can't deny they've had some sucesses here.

 -- More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." -- Worldnetdaily

Wesley wrote:

>>More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, 

God this is stupid! This petition is a hoax and known to be a  hoax: 

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Signatories

***

Meanwhile, there is a real consensus on global warming:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 

 

You're woefully out of date and touch...you're citing a 2005 article...on the wrong petition.

The new petition is just out...May08. 

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

 

Wesley wrote:

>>You're woefully out of date and touch...you're citing a 2005 article...on the wrong petition.

No I'm not. From your very own link: 

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But more importantly, science is not settled by a petition. It is settled by actual science. And here are the results of science (as my link shows above):

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

When you can show peer reviewed articles that actually challenge the consensus, then you can star the debate.

It is time to put up or shut up 

 -- (New York City - March 3, 2008)--The co-authors of the best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years today released a second list of more than 400 peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of the long, natural climate cycle--bringing the total of such authors to more than 700. --

Go to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog and you will find dozens of peer-reviewed studies and their links.

There you go cupcake...have at it...a new book to read and hours and hours of surfing...no thanks necessary. 

 

Religious conservatives sure seem to spend a lot of time "smearing" other people by calling them religious.

The existence of "long, natural climate cycles" doesn't mean anything with regard to human influenced global warming.  You're not ignorant enough to believe it's an either/or scenario, are you?  The existence of those studies do NOTHING to contradict the mountains of evidence indicating human influenced global warming.

Wesley wrote:

>>Go to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog and you will find dozens of peer-reviewed studies and their links.

First, the petition you linked to is the infamous Oregon petition--and you didn't even know it. It is a bogus petiton, exactly as I said. You can add as many names as you want; it won't change it from being fraudalent.

But more to the point: I asked to to show peer reviewed studies that refute global warming. Not surprisingly, you did not. You merely said to look at the Inhofe website. Sorry, I've already looked at it in the past. Inhofe has been called "the serial abuser" of science. His website *claimed* to show peer-reviewed studies refuting global warming. They do not.

So again: My link shows that there are 696 studies supporting global warming. Show me the science that refutes this. I am asking for science, not hype and insults (like "cupcake"). Every time I have issued this challenge in the past, no one has ever been able to meet it. That is because the *science* backs up my position, which is why intelligent people like Al Gore know Global warming as real and a threat.

Put up or shut up, Wesley.  

 

Weslely wrote:

>>(New York City - March 3, 2008)--The co-authors of the best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years today released a second list of more than 400 peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of the long, natural climate cycle--bringing the total of such authors to more than 700.

My bad. I just should have assumed you were being more dishonest and misleading than you were. I thought you were talking about the original petition that you mentioned in your first post. Instead, after I showed your initial petition to be fraudelent (and pointed out you didn't even know when it was published and what it was), you simply posted another petition, one that has nothing to do with the original.

Like I said, the deniers of global warming adhere to their religion like fundamentalists to the belief that the earth was created in six days. That is why again I am demanding that you show the *science,* the peer-reviewed articles that refute the mass of evidence for global warming. Otherwise you will just post BS for hours on end.  

as senator from oklahoma, inhofe gets large contributions from the oil and gas industry in that state.

As opposed to the 10s of millions of the rest of the scientists in the world that don't disagree with the mmgw consensis? I guess that their opinions don't hold a candle to your 400 economists and mathimatitions, huh Wesley?

You are referring to the Oreskes article in Science, yet another embarrassment for that once proud journal.  Obviously you have not ever tried to reproduce Naomi Oreskes results using the methods described in her paper.  

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change""

If one actually does this search in the Thomsen ISI database for the interval specified, it will reveal more than 928 papers.  Clearly Oreskes ruled out at least some papers meeting the search criteria.  Yet if you read Oreskes methods, no where does she describe criteria for excluding publications matching her search expression.  This fact by itself discredits Oreskes' assessment.  Other researchers got numbers of hits varying from 929 to 1117.  I have access to the Thomsen Web of Science myself.  I see 929.  I must doubt the 1117 number unless different search criteria were used.  But ....   Not all of these are peer reviewed papers although they might have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.  Some are editorials, essays, and articles.  Consequently, not all of them have abstracts.  Note that Oreskes says she 'analyzed abstracts'.  How do you analyze the abstract of a work which does not have an abstract?  Another interesting point is the use of Thomsen-ISI in the first place.  It is by subscription only.  There are many other services that could be used, many of them free.  This link identifies numerous such.

Moreover, her criteria for scoring the published content are very subjective.  Her examination of each tract was confined to its abstract and no more.  She was the sole evaluator, and has no more science training than a BS degree in Geology.  Her advanced degree is in History of Science.  Oreskes CV.  This science background is less than literally thousands of the signers of the latest OISM petition, whom you and other ignorant liberals roundly condemn as lacking expertise in the field of climatology.  It appears your star evaluator in this case has no better credentials than the vast majority of the OISM signers and is not as well trained in science as many.

This article appeared online last year discussing the Oreskes paper and some of its critics.  It paints a very different picture than Oreskes.  Either Oreskes is wrong, there has been a huge shift in scientific opinion since 2003, or Schulte is wrong.  I am inclined to think the opinion has changed or at least the willingness to express an opinion has changed, because the Schulte study reflects what I know my peers think about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

You are a SAD little man NL.  Give it up, linking to accuweather.com doesn't cut it.

Get a real "Scientific" journal link somewhere and you might have some credibility.

"Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis."--Wesley

That is an utterly false assertion.  It is observable that so-called Greenhouse gases absorb infrared light that would otherwise escape into space.  It is demonstratable in labs - contrary to your dubious assertions. 

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the more these Greenhouse gases are produced in relation to human activity - above and beyond natural production, will likely correspond to higher temperatures than there would be without those Greenhouse gases present- which is Global Warming Theory in a nutshell.  Your assertions - apparently from Worldnutdaily are ridiculous.  I thought you had more sense than to quote from them.

 -- from Worldnutdaily are ridiculous -- openmind

Worldnetdaily does not perform peer-reviews...they report the existence of those studies...if you're open-minded enough to look for yourself.

 --  A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. --  The  Earth  Times  Sep07

It matters little to me if you choose to ignore the anti-GW science...but the days are long gone when global warming alarmists...with fingers in their ears and eyes closed and visions of Al Gore dancing in their heads...could hide behind the "no peer-reviewed" studies smoke screen. 

 

 

Do you have children?

Hard to find a date let alone get married and have children when he's constantly posting WolrdNetDaily articles from his parents basement.

Wesely wrote:

>>A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. --  The  Earth  Times  Sep07

Ugh! Again, Wesley, I am asking you to put up or shut up. It is really simple. There are over 600 peer-reviewed studies supporting global warming. Where is the science that refutes it?

Nowhere.

Your BS makes it sound as if such peer-reviewed science exists. It doesn't. It merely states that peer-reviewed scientists present arguments. But none of these arguments themselves are peer-reviewed. In other words, a biologist can present a peer-reviewed paper on the structure of a cell, so he is peer-reviewed. He can then go on to spout off some garbage about how the earth is not heating up, but he has no science to support his view. These are the 500 scientist you are talking about.

Or, consider that the famous astronomer Kepler's observations paved the way for Galileo's theories. But Kepler also believed the heavenly bodies made music. You see, in the first case, Kepler's work is accepeted because it  passes the scientific method; his second belief is considered ludicrous. 

There simply is no peer-reviewed science that refutes global warming. 

Again,  Wesley, put up or shut up.

Wesley,

I personally don't care about WorldNutDaily or what they are reporting on.  I am skeptical of GW theory and the deniers.

What I do find interesting is that I pointed out a blatant falsehood in your post right off the bat.  No response?

FMP:

This statement in your linked article shows the bias of the authors:

"Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science"

I know you won't see it that way, because it fits with your own bias.  

 

Goodfellas wrote:

>>I know you won't see it that way, because it fits with your own bias.  

Yes, I won't see it that way, because it is not there. Did you happen to notice that all three publicans did a rudimentary check on the signatures, and even this rudimentary check revealed major flaws, such as fake names, names that were repeated, and scientists who didn't have their P.h.D.s?

But I really couldn't care less if every signature checked out. Science is not conducted by petitions. The science is on our side. Show me the science--the peer-reviewed studies--that refute the consensus on global warming.  

FMP,

No...I don't have peer reviewed papers to show you. 

But why are you so against any debate on the issue. Do you at least acknowledge the climate change could be part of the natural cycle of the earth? Do you really think that switching to those goofy spiral light bulbs will save the planet? 

It seems that you, Al Gore (is he a peer-reviewed scientist?) and the IPCC are trying to make the science fit the agenda, which is ultimately wealth redistribution and socialism.  The UN was WRONG about the AIDS epidemic, and they're wrong about global warming...Time will tell.  

"wealth redistribution"?  how about all our wealth that is going to foreign countries at 125 a barrel?  those goofy spiral lightbulbs are part of the solution, but you don't seem to offer more than mocking them.  i've been using them for years and they reduce your bill.  don't know about you, but i like a smaller electric bill that also helps to cut back on energy consumption.  and you trot out the usual red herring about natural cycles.  no one denies that those happen, the question is simply the rate at which man made warming is happening.   and i  think he's trying to have a debate with you, he asked you to bring some peer reviewed papers to the table.  mocking references to goofy lightbulbs do not a debate make.

Goodfellas wrote:

>>No...I don't have peer reviewed papers to show you.

And then wrote:

>>But why are you so against any debate on the issue.

You see, you contradict yourself. I accept debate. But I won't the debate to be real and healthy. You want to spread a bunch of BS. If you want a real debate, then you present the best science you can offer; our side will do the same. And when that happens, guess what? There is no debate, because your side does not have any science.

Instead, you have  hype, and your post shows it. You write "IPCC are trying to make the science fit the agenda, which is ultimately wealth redistribution and socialism." How typical! Our side presents science, and your side answers with a smear. Global warming has nothing to do with socialism or any other agenda. It has to do with the best science in the world. I know you right wing reactionaries would rather thrown around terms like socialism and wealth distribution, but that is not science.

Put up or shut up. I'm not falling for your stupid rhetoric. 

"But I really couldn't care less if every signature checked out. Science is not conducted by petitions." 

FMP,

re-read my post. I never mentioned the petition. 

could you explain the "bias" in the statement that major corporations whose profits could be affected have raised doubts about global warming?  it's a fact that exxon has contributed money to groups like the competitive enterprise institute which question whether increased carbon dioxide can cause warming.  where is the bias?

http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfm

Would you object to a reporter mentioning that all (or just about all) of the "science" that battled the medical community with regard to cigarettes being "dangerous" was funded by interests directly related to the sale and/or promotion of tobacco? 

Do you think the reader should at least have that information so they can decide for themselves whether cigarettes are or aren't bad for them?

Hahahahahaha.  Nice punchline.  Worldnutdaily.  Ha!  Now there's a source you can count on to get the real nitty-gritty.

Been there Wesly, not an impressive group. Other than the effort to present so many people whose work might intersect the Climitalogical field. Few  climatologists. Most just disagree on a detail or two. With dubious credentials to do so in many cases.

As a true believer of the church of golbal warming denial. I don't see you ever admiting its exsistence. There is no evidence supporting it that you'll ever believe. On the other foot who have you convinced here, that wasn't already in agreement with your position?

Ewestone wrote:

>>As a true believer of the church of golbal warming denial.

Yes, that is exactly the position that the deniers argue from, one of religion. They already know that the earth is not heating up, so they do a superficial search on the internet and find bogus crap to support their point of view. And there is tons out there, so they just keep posting all night. That is why I demand that the deniers meet the same level of evidence to support their position as the other side. They never can, thought. (Hint, Wesley: that is why global warming is called a consensus.) 

Wesley was called away from the burg where he usually posts; it has been melting slowly but he's getting a petition to declare it just as frozen as ever.

Funny,

We've been around this before. When presented with peer reviewed articles in the past you simply dismiss them as not being peer reviewed.  But this is a minor point.

The issue as I see it is whether GW is man made or not. I don't think too many argue here that there is not GW.  

There is religious fervor on both sides. Many on the left believe with religious vigor the MMGW claim. Many on the right simply disbelieve the dire forecasts of impending doom that comes from the left. :-)

For me, whether GW is man-made or simply natural, does not matter. Reducing one's carbon footprint means conservation of resources. I think conservation is a very good thing for a variety of reasons. It is amazing to me how much my family alone is able to recycle since we put our minds to it. (I find it ironic that the free-market is causing people to consider alternatives to carbon based fuels. I know we are grappling with the price of gasoline.)

I'm trying to raise my consciousness regarding "going green". Does anyone recommend any particular book that discusses how families and individuals can participate.  

 

AA I hope you are being sincere about raising your green conscience if so there are several sites available on the internet with tips on going green. The simplest thing you can do is buy CFL's for all the lights you use in your home. Simpler even than that is turn off a light when you leave a room, don't let the water run while you brush your teeth and a lot more than that.One of the biggest things you can do is have your local utility do an energy audit of your home. You might be greatly surprised at how much you are wasting on a daily basis. I use CFL's because they lower my electric bill and they last years longer than regular incandescent bulbs and produce just as much light.

MD,

I have started using the cfls and flourescent lightbulbs. The part that bothers me is the mercury content in them. Isn't that hazzardous?

I also the water off while shaving and showering. I've replaced windows and have a ton of insulation in my attic. I now turn off my computer at night.

I would ride a bike to work except I have about a mile on a very busy two lane highway with little or no shoulder and two bridges with no extra room. As much as I am in favor of conservation, I don't want to be killed riding a bike to work by someone yacking on their cell.  

Next up for me is a programmable thermostat. After that, replacing old appliances with energy star newer machines.

I screwed up and bought a full size truck back when gas was $2.50 a gallon.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions.  

AA wrote:

>>We've been around this before. When presented with peer reviewed articles in the past you simply dismiss them as not being peer reviewed.  But this is a minor point.

No, I don't. You don't actually present the papers. You think you do, but you don't. See the Oreskes study I linked to earlier. That is a study on all the science on the issue. Since then, Oreskes study has only been strengthed. The science is not there, AA. Period.

>>There is religious fervor on both sides. Many on the left believe with religious vigor the MMGW claim. Many on the right simply disbelieve the dire forecasts of impending doom that comes from the left. :-)

Sorry, AA, but I'm not accepting your nonsense. Again, the science is on our side. The consensus is that GW is both happening and man-made. It is that simple. And it is your side that sticks to its beliefs with religious fervor. After all, who is bringing up the peer-reviewed science? (me). Who is throwing around terms like "religous vigour?" (youl).

I know. It is always easier to resort to rhetoric when you don't have the facts on your side.

I present the same challenge to you.

Show us the *science.*

Put up or shut up. 

Funny,

A quick internet search will find volumes of peer reviewed papers questioning MMGW. Time to move on.

 

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S.  Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.

 

 

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

Also I found a list of 250 peer reviewed articles. Here is a sample.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
- J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard

- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh

Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
- Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso

Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler

Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux

Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
- Serge Galam

Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
- E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray

The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
- N. Calder

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.

"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

 

ps. There are more, but I think you get the point.

AA,

An awesome list of references. The lack of response from the usual suspects in here is deafening.

I will read them all...thanks 

there were 19 minutes between the posting of that list and your comment and you see that as a "defeaning silence".  maybe it's just possible that not that many people happened to see it at that time, much less read them.  of course, why you want to read them is another question.  you're already declared it proof positive.

deafening

AA,

I love how you throw up this list and expect no one to read any of your links.  You never learn do you?

None of your links are to peer reviewed papers.  None of your links regard research that debunks Global Warming.

Try reading what you link to.  I did!

You are as dumb or dishonest as ever!

Those publications are mostly from magazines like Energy and Environment.  Read about them in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment 

Here is another good article on them here: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html

I recognize a few of the journals you cited, but their article titles aren't really the exciting ones.

Most of those citations are from publications that are merely thinly-disguised advocacy publications that aren't even listed in the .  Not serious peer-reviewed journals like Science or Nature.  You've got to be kidding me.

Sorry.  I forgot to finish a sentence above.

The citations you presented mostly aren't even listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals.

Joe Bastardi: Another oil company shill?

Follow the link...read the letter. He's right 

 

A frikkin' weatherman who thinks that scientific questions should be resolved with a debate?  Not even close to right.

Debates are not won by the side that has the best evidence of the truth, they are won by the side that best persuades the audience.  There is plenty of scientific study to still be done in this area, that's true, but to listen to the people who keep saying nothing more than "Everything is fine, there's nothing we can do, just learn to live whatever changes may happen in the future, it's not our fault," is insane.  Denialists appeal to emotion, not logic.   They use marketing, not science.

This is what they don't get. You don't debate scientific studies. You review them, test their conclusions (in other words, replicate what their conclusions are), if you can re-create the conclusions, and produce the same data, all is well.

This isn't a debate, per se, but one of reviewing the information, and seeing if it proves right.

Also, global warming is NOT a partisan issue, but is only seen as partisan by the right, mostly because Al Gore works on it. That's essentially the only reason.

Mags,

Part of the problem with Al Gore is that he does not seem to practice what he preaches. 

Stated without proof, as is everything AA posts.

"Stated without proof, as is everything AA posts."- Easy to refute wingnuts

 ETRW, This article by Jake Tapper is what AA is referring to. Excerpt: "Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy."

 This is even more ironic: Bush vs Gore on who has the 'greener' house.
Excerpt: "As someone who has personally taken steps to reduce my own electricity usage by switching out lightbulbs, using a programmable thermostat and switching to Green Mountain Energy for my electricity, I can say that I am personally disappointed.Sure, all offsets his carbon usage, but can’t he help set a better example for us? Why wouldn’t he take some steps to really green up his house, since he obviously has the money for it. Maybe he should call George W, and ask for his advice!"

 

 

 

 

gore owns a 70 year old house and had to get special approval from his neighborhood association to install solar panels.  he's also done other numerous upgrades. see the link. the idea that bush cares more about  green issues is laughable.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/america/NA-GEN-US-Al-Gore-Solar-Panels.php

MeFirst,

Once again you need to contort, manipulate and spin the truth to make it fit your premise.

The truth is, Gore is a hypocrite and believes he is above his own recommendations.    

i'm still waiting for you to explain the bias in the statement that companies whose profits will be affected are denying man made global warming. 

AA - Agreed, Gore is a hypocrite. (just one of the basic traits that is universal to humans). What Al Gore is and is not in no way changes the science. In a nutshell, climate scientists, based on 40 years of research, noticed that the Earth should be entering a cooling phase, but, they were surprised to see that year after year, decade after decade, the data consistently showed a gradual warming. What the heck? After scouting around they discarded several warming theories (increased solar radiation for instance) and found that the increase in man made greenhouse gas emissions over the last 150 years nearly perfectly matches computer models. Computer models based on data collected from ice sheets, deep ocean deposits etc. that have preserved a history of Earth's climate for the last 800,000 to 5 billion years. That is what your dreaded consensus is based on.

Hey Goodfella,

What are you talking about?  You present a Weatherman who has no science to back up his claims.

What does that mean?

Are you as stupid or dishonest as AA?

"Are you as stupid or dishonest as AA?"- skeptical

So I am stupid AND a liar? You left out fat....

Once again, the true colors of the close-minded left come through. Rather thandiscuss an issue, you feel the need to resort to petty name-calling.   Very sad.

Goodfella,

If there was something to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it.  You posted something stupid, so either you are stupid and believe it or you don't believe it and posted because you are dishonest.

There are no other options.  This isn't a matter of opinion.

If you want to have a discussion, let's discuss what to do about global warming.  What is the best way to reduce it's effects and maintain our economy.

To deny it's existence is simply stupid!