So the official term for someone who pretends to be an expert on this subject while trying to spread fear to the masses is "hobby climatologist?"

Who knew? I always thought it was called an "Indy."

In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States "polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming". Below is an excerpt from the article titled "Climate Killers" about Fred Singer.

A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming...For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that "the climate has been cooling just slightly." Last year, Singer served as a lead author of "Climate Change Reconsidered" — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's scientific authority on global warming...Heartland's climate work has long been funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife. -http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer

Johhny Cash, you're killin' me here. Hahahaha!

ricketzz,

Did you really just try to discredit a scientist by cutting-and-pasting an article from a rock'n'roll magazine?

What's next; advice for solving the Israel/Palestine feud from an ad in the TV Guide? A lesson on quantum mechanics from an episode of "Oprah?"

Good grief!

"A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming"
Ricketzz, I'm glad that you brought your post to light !!
VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY interestingggggggggggggggggggggggg !!!!!!!!

"Did you really just try to discredit a scientist"

former scientist turned lobbyist. He's not and never was a climetologist. He used to be an expert on satellites in the early 60's. That's why he was director of U.S. Weather Satellite Service in 1962.

He also believes that second hand smoke is harmless and that Mars' moon Phobos is hollow and is really an alien spaceship.

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

Yeah, yeah, I know. You think Wikipedia is a socialst conspiracy too - just read the articles referenced at the bottom of the article then.

"A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming"


Well, that solves it! I was going to go needlessly water my lawn, but now I'm not. I'm convinced! The globe is officially warming. Now I'm going to....ahhhhh.....errrrr.....Ladimas, what do I do now? Help me, I've fallen and I can't get up!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII cccccccccccccccccrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk mmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyyyyssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllffffffffffffffffff uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppppppppppp.................

Singer also contends that second hand smoke is not bad for you.

He also invented the sewing machine.

Can someone cite a victim of second hand smoke?
I'm not a smoker, but I've read that some researchers say second hand smoke is more dangerous than what the smoker inhales....c'mon now, are you going to believe that? A doctor said it...

Isn't Singer a doctor? Are you gonna believe that?

A doctor said? Well, three out of four doctors say . . .

The congressional hearing on worldwide global warming was cancelled due to a snow storm today in Washington, D.C.

Well, that must prove it then. Global warming is a hoax because it snowed one day in winter in the northeast.

Of course, a single day of record heat in the summer must then prove that global warming *is true*, mustn't it...IF you don't understand a thing about science, or statistics, or climatology, or weather (bluto, q.v.).

Who believes Stevoreno is not invested in green energy holdings? And Stevo, please explain how Mother Earth's ice age ended; Neanderthals created fire, right?

The LTE writer is perpetuating a list of people that was debunked by a physicist in Australia that has a great phone app called ‘Skeptical Science’.

If you get the app, just search ‘31000’ to get the full explanation for the lack of foundation of this claim.

Briefly, this list originated in 2008 at the ‘Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) and included only a handful of climatologist.

Notice the LTE writer neither linked you to the report or the ‘list’.

In any event, among climatologist, perhaps 95% realize that burning huge quantities of fossil fuels is raising the concentration of CO2 which we can measure and confirm.

This all started at the beginning of the industrial age and the rise in CO2 is consistent with this time period.

Anyway, it’s understandable that the fossil fuel industry will fight to protect its ‘market share’ in the short run do to the amount of assets it has to extract oil, coal, and natural gas.

And to be fair to them, nobody knew what the burning of fossil fuels would lead to until the science caught up and our ability to measure got better . . . realizing that CO2 is measured in parts per million.

But now that we do know, it’s important we act appropriately and do so to protect our long term interest.

Finally, when I see mentioned the issue of believing the ‘UN’ my radar immediately goes up not to mention the issue of a ‘carbon’ tax that would address the over consumption of fossil fuels and take into account the economic externalities that are not seen in the current prices of fossil fuels.

The free app provides the full explanation and it’s worth reading . . . and provides the data and links.

Read on!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

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

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

"please explain how Mother Earth's ice age ended; Neanderthals created fire, right? "

Again, a logical fallacy. Because A caused B in the past, it does not follow that C cannot cause B in the future.

Might want to research Mr. Watts a bit before using him as a source for climatology information...

@stevehw:

Thanks for illustrating the point in the 2nd link.

Facts, without regard to source, remain so. Evaluate the data.

Ice Ages occurred because of long-period cycling of the Earth's orbit relative to the sun. Our CO2 footprint is more powerful than the changes caused by orbital cycles, so the next ice age has been cancelled.

Rolling Stone has always been a public affairs paper, as well as covering the music scene (gotta pay the bills). Matt Taibbi (their finance reporter) is unmatched in his ability to accurately explain the criminal behavior of the Too Big To Fail banks. The late Dr. Hunter Thompson's coverage of campaigns and politicians is legendary. Unlike Newsweek, RS still puts out a paper every couple weeks.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics

What I find fascinating is that some Americans believe climate change is simply based on one’s ‘beliefs’ and not science.

We all know about earth’s history including the ‘fact’ that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does trap solar radiation that keeps this planet warm. Without this, we'd be living on a ice ball in space . . .

The problem is that we’re increasing the CO2 very very quickly.

But first, the simple chemistry:

C + O2 = CO2

When we burn fossil fuels, we are taking carbon from the carbon chains in the fuel, combusting it with oxygen in the air, using the heat and exhausting the combustion products that include CO2.

How much of the CO2 is being emitted to the atmosphere?

Consider the following just for the USA:

- we burn about 1.1 BILLION tons of coal each year (about 3 tons per American)

- we burn about 7 BILLION barrels of oil each year (about 23 barrels per American)

- we burn about 23 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas (75,000 cubic feet per American)

All of this carbon is being ‘dug out of the ground’ and reintroduced to the atmosphere. This is causing the concentration of CO2 to raise from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm (parts per million) to now going into the 350 ppm range.

This has caused the mean thermal temperature of the earth to raise about 1.5 degree Fahrenheit (read global warming).

So the science is well understood and we can see that ‘humans’ are burning more and more carbon raising the concentration.

The question is what will all of this mean?

Well, more energy on the planet will create changing weather patterns (aka ‘climate change’) as the heat absorbed raises both the air and water temperature.

Higher air temperature causes the air to hold more water and thus rain output will increase the magnitude of rainfall in some areas.

Higher ocean temperatures will cause storms of greater magnitude.

What these will be and their aftereffects we’re just starting to understand. But these changes are happening . . . and their consequences could be significant.

So there’s little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is having an ‘effect’ and we’re going to have to try to understand what that means long term.

For links to the rising temperature due to climate change introduction of more CO2:
But we can see the rising global mean temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

And we can also see the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as we burn more and more fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

technologist wrote: Thanks for illustrating the point in the 2nd link.
Facts, without regard to source, remain so. Evaluate the data.

Indy: Yes, your using a ‘circular logic’ premise with that link in that you’re auguring the data isn’t consistent with climate change when we can ‘see’ that it is.

The organization that has been referenced by the LTE writer has been rebuffed and its use as a political tool to foster fossil fuels is well known.

It only appeal is to folks that don’t understand the data nor the science and thus the idea that a good organizer got ‘signatures’ in large numbers is ‘proof’ of no climate change which isn’t supported, again, by the data.

Take a moment and download that free app ‘skeptical science’. The full story on the LTE signature issues is explained in detail with the ‘facts’.

If over 95% of the climatologist see the warming, it’s likely that some of the same folks will never accept it since that’s the nature of science that is based on ‘provision conclusions’. So it’s good that a few folks keep challenging the consensus which further validates the conclusion.

In any event, we are faced with a more serious challenge that in that there are no easy replacements for fossil fuel energy.

And since Reagan removed the solar panels off the White House in defiance of what Jimmy Carter saw when he noted that crude oil production ‘peaked’ in 1970, the fossil fuel industry has been in a full court press to protect it’s ‘market share’ even seeing the consequences of doing that.

At the end of the day, until we have a open debate on what a ‘sustainable growth’ entails including population stabilization, we’ll just be rearranging the deck chairs while the ship continues to sink . . .

@Indy:

A nice summary of current climate theory.

The crux of the argument is whether the climate models are correct in ascribing anthropogenic CO2 generation as the primary "forcing" in global climate variability. Leaks of the upcoming IPCC report indicate that based on empirical data this perspective may be altered to reflect other factors of import.

Of note is that the climate has not warmed in the last 16 years as projected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

The challenge of modeling the global climate is daunting and utilization of the self-correcting Scientific Method is the optimal approach. Politics and religion (traditional or the green variety) are not. Therefore, skepticism is a rational approach.

To preempt appeals to authority, i.e. "consensus", I offer this observation:

Note Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric observations, the germ theory of disease, H. pylori causation of peptic ulcers, etc. and the “consensus” they enjoyed upon introduction. Science isn’t established by vote but by data gathered via the Scientific Method. And theories can always be challenged with new data (if it isn’t censored or defunded).

I see that several here are regular members of Al Gore's Church of Real Climate Change Life.

@Indy:

"And since Reagan removed the solar panels off the White House in defiance of what Jimmy Carter saw…"

That's the 2nd time I've noted this assertion so you must deem it a seminal event. From my perspective, it underscores my point about the focus on science rather than politics, or more specifically, political symbolism.

"Science isn’t established by vote but by data gathered via the Scientific Method. And theories can always be challenged with new data"

This is correct, but there's more to it. There will *always* be new data, but the way to challenge a theory (or invalidate an hypothesis) is with data that does not fit the prediction(s) of the theory, AND to provide an alternative theory that a) is as powerful as the one being tested, and b) incorporates the new data or results, as well. (It also has to be a theory in its own right, capable of being tested and making predictions, etc.).

It's not enough to say "this new data doesn't fit, therefore, theory A is wrong". You have to have a theory B which is *at least as powerful* as theory A AND accounts for the data which don't "match" theory A (i.e., theory A predicts some results, and the actual data don't match those results).

@stevehw:

"There will *always* be new data, but the way to challenge a theory (or invalidate an hypothesis) is with data that does not fit the prediction(s) of the theory…"

Indeed. The climate has not warmed as predicted in current climate models as I noted. The prudent course is continued study to perfect climate models to align with historical and future real data.

"AND to provide an alternative theory that a) is as powerful as the one being tested, and b) incorporates the new data or results, as well. (It also has to be a theory in its own right, capable of being tested and making predictions, etc.). "

One hopes this is what will be reflected in the new IPCC report. In the interim, there's no demonstrable climate crisis.

@Indy:

"And since Reagan removed the solar panels off the White House in defiance of what Jimmy Carter saw…"

"That's the 2nd time I've noted this assertion so you must deem it a seminal event. "


You must be sure by now that everything Indy writes about is a seminal event, at least in his opinion. Wait till he talks about demands and stuff....

@Dumbounded:

Are you familiar with the lyrics of Iggy Pop's China Girl (popularized by David Bowie)? I recollect this stanza:

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It's in the white of my eyes

Technologist wrote: Of note is that the climate has not warmed in the last 16 years as projected.

Indy: I looked at your link and became suspicious when the writer started using political terms like ‘Left-wing academics’.

The data plots I referred to you from NASA clearly show the rising temperatures and as well.

And from here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
“2012 Warmest Year on Record for U.S.”

In any event, if you choose to believe a reporter for an on line paper in the UK, that’s all well and good.

But when reporters like this use political charged rhetoric to defame those in disagreement with them, then they are not interested per se in the data but in making a political point.

There’s really little left to be skeptical about but as I noted, science is based on skepticism and the overwhelming consensus is that the current rise in mean global temperature is due to the enormous amounts of carbon being burned by 7 billion people per the chemical equation I noted and the amounts of fossil fuels I noted.

And the rise in CO2, a greenhouse gas, is consistent with that burning.

Technologist posted:@Indy: "And since Reagan removed the solar panels off the White House in defiance of what Jimmy Carter saw…"

That's the 2nd time I've noted this assertion so you must deem it a seminal event. From my perspective, it underscores my point about the focus on science rather than politics, or more specifically, political symbolism.

Indy: The sad fact of the matter is that Presidents should be leading us not advocating fossil fuel companies ‘market share’ based on lobbyist dollars.

We’ve wasted 30 years since Reagan made that ‘statement’ and now find ourselves facing enormous problems with burning fossil fuels not to mention using them up faster.

And the time frame to switch to renewables has been made worse by ignoring the problems since Reagan.

Thus, the ‘science’ of limited resources as well as the consequences we face as a result gets lost in politics as we see in the climate change issue that has been resolved perhaps a decade ago.

And no doubt the fossil fuel industry will continue to feed political speculation that the observed data is ‘wrong’ even when we can ‘see’ the effects in the real world: extended droughts, melting glaciers, and more violent tornados and hurricanes.

So I guess the operative strategy for all of us is simple ‘practice what we preach’, no?

@Indy:

"Indy: I looked at your link and became suspicious when the writer started using political terms like ‘Left-wing academics’. "

It appears you never tire of poisoning the well as it caused you to overlook the source contained in the article, i.e. the Met Office/UEA HADCRUT3 global temperature data. Certainly, there are disagreements on the interpretation of the data as stated here:

"Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two."

Note that they both agree on the global temperature plateau.

As long as were discrediting sources, I find your overlooking the polemics of James Hansen of NASA interesting. Selection bias?

I don't share your certitude about anthropogenic CO2 climate forcing and petroleum resource scarcity. Given the action vs. rhetoric of nation states recently, no doubt we'll see who has the more accurate perspective.

Yes I am. Lets Dance was an underapprciated album in my opinion.

"factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

this is BS...*every* time this gets thrown out there, the actual climatologists who do the work have to refute it by saying that yes, their models do, indeed, account for solar output variability and cycles, etc. Every. Time.

Do you really think that after all these years of doing this research, by thousands of scientists who have spent their careers in this field, that they'd ignore the sun?

"I find your overlooking the polemics of James Hansen of NASA interesting. Selection bias?"

Hardly...Hansen is an actual scientist, working in the field in question. What he says about the *science* is valid for discussion, what he says about politics is on his dime.

Contrast that with a "reporter" for an on-line paper talking about science...hardly the same thing at all.

Technologist wrote: As long as were discrediting sources, I find your overlooking the polemics of James Hansen of NASA interesting. Selection bias? I don't share your certitude about anthropogenic CO2 climate forcing and petroleum resource scarcity. Given the action vs. rhetoric of nation states recently, no doubt we'll see who has the more accurate perspective.

Indy: I find your verbal dancing to be interesting but it does little to address the actual data we actually can see.

You wish to ignore the temperature data from NASA and the rising CO2 concentrations that is consistent with the rise of the industrial age, and you’re asserting I have ‘selection bias’?

That’s the whole strategy of the climate change deniers that ignore any ‘data’ that disagrees with their views that substantiates the anthropogenic warming of the climate.

In any event, I don’t see any controversy here. The visible observations including the satellite data and CO2 data show the causality that you refuse to acknowledge.

That’s your choice and asserting the data including the NOAA notation that 2012 was the warmest ever wasn’t even mentioned in your referenced article.

Finally, Hansen at NASA or Cook at Skeptical Science are clear that the forcing factors creating the current warming are manmade.

And as far your rejection of basic economic scarcity, that really is the elephant in the room on this issue since the expectation of ‘unlimited’ growth in the short run can only be maintained by burning fossil fuels. And even as you noted from another posting, that the amount of energy from renewables can’t make any real impact today so the result would be ‘less growth’ and realization that over population requires a decision of ‘quantity over quality’.

Politicians of both parties ‘ignore’ this trade off and promise Americans things that just ignore basic economic scarcity.

All I can do is draw attention to the reality we are ‘seeing’ such that the public can be on the alert as to what to be looking out for that extends beyond the folklore/religious/ideology/patriotic recitals of our current leaders.

And indeed as we move forward the public will ‘see’ the ‘more accurate perspective’ and that’s all I can expect.

@stevehw:

Professor Jones and Curry are scientists, not reporters.

"We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing." - Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK

"The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4." - Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Are you positing that James Hansen does not at times conflate science and politics?

An example of unethical methods for devising and executing public policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCfxxXRRdY&feature=player_embedded

technologist,

At the end of the day, the fossil fuel industry has done well to confuse the issue to the public.

And since the public is in need of ‘cheap energy’ (if you ignore the externalities of burning fossil fuels), it’s an ‘easy sell’ to tell them that the majority of climatologist are just ‘blowing smoke’ (pun intended) to keep the energy flowing while we ignore the consequences.

So you’re work is bearing fruit if you will in that most of the public isn’t up to speed on the science including the simplest description of when you burn fossil fuels, you combine the carbon in same with oxygen during combustion and get the CO2 greenhouse gas as a pollutant.

In any event, you can ignore the totality of data that shows the human burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels that increase the concentration in CO2 density in the atmosphere and continue on knowing that you’ve done well in inhibiting a rational discussion of the issue.

And peppering in your debating strategy of things like ‘selection bias’ just makes you post more entraining and indeed creates the doubt the fossil fuel industry desires of you.

The only issue I have is with your name here where you imply that you’re a a technologist familiar with the basic science that gives you the authority to dismiss the majority of climate scientist that are trying to help people understand the consequences developing right before them.

And indeed that the dilemma facing most Americans who’ve elected politicians based on their ‘values’ but who often ignore the science to maintain voting advantages that essentially hurt the same voters long term.

Out of curiosity, what's the main site you use to get these links?

Everyone knows full well that climate change has occured throughout our planet's entire history, eons before humans evolved. Al Gore's "Church of Real Climate Change Life" does not give a whit about our weather, rather it's control over mankind.

Interesting article in today’s www.latimes.com newspaper regarding climate change:

Global warming on pace to set a record by 2100

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate-warming-20130308,0,1220004.story

The information was done be a study published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

But the graph used to display the data is most interesting:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate-warming-20130307-g,0,6028188.graphic

What’s noticeable is that mean global temperature that has fluctuated as some here have noted naturally but what’s striking is in the last 100 years, consistent with the explosion of humans burning fossil fuels, the rise in temperature approach exponential growth.

This is the conundrum for those arguing that humans have no effect on climate change when clearly the data disagrees.

In any event, the issue here is the quickness of the climate rise as well as the adaptability issue with respect to adapting to a change that normally takes thousands of years gradually versus just 100 years abruptly.

This is especially important that since modern civilizations has built itself up radically over the last 100 years; our global infrastructure will be severely put at risk especially in coastal areas whereas humans several hundred years ago when the change was gradual, just moved north or south without much of a fuss.

But even more important is the climate change itself since areas of the US that had somewhat ‘stable’ weather is now experiencing the quickness of climate change and creating droughts and other calamities that will severely disrupt our society most importantly in food production.

At the end of the day, building our future on nonrenewable fossil fuels was unwise but now the consequences for climate makes that even more detrimental to our collective future.

Nobody asked for this scenario and I don’t blame people for not really understanding it as since the science of 50 years ago was unable to understand the issue appropriately. But today we can ‘see’ what’s happening and we should act responsibly including getting the discussion going on what a ‘sustainable’ future means to us.

The longer we wait, the greater the risk and the more painful the adaptation required.

What are we waiting for?

@Indy:

I whittled a few gems out of your voluminous posts.

"…creates the doubt the fossil fuel industry desires of you."

"The only issue I have is with your name here where you imply that you’re a a technologist…" (I pause here to muse if my nick will become as seminal an event in your life as White House solar panel removal.)

"Out of curiosity, what's the main site you use to get these links?"

I'll admit I entertained the idea of stating all my source data was provided by Koch PR. Visualizing your foam flecked lips quivering with excitement at the keyboard because you hit conspiracy theorist pay dirt was risible. :-D

Alas, reality is rather mundane. The main site I use is Google as it returns a broad sampling of available sources and data.

Do you sometimes fantasize that you had the power to purge all dissent so we could move forward lock-step into a glorious centrally planned future?

technologist,

Why not just list your sources as well as why you chose your handle?

And then we’re back to the ‘google the information yourself’ that ignores your sources as well.

Why pontificate political rhetoric when you assert you have sources that dismiss the majority of climatologist that confirm climate change caused by the human burning of fossil fuels?

And why ‘ignore’ the data from the LA Times article?

You keep saying you wish to debate but in reality you just defer . . .

Creating doubt is wonderful for you but it solves nothing . . .

@Indy:

"Why pontificate political rhetoric when you assert you have sources that dismiss the majority of climatologist that confirm climate change caused by the human burning of fossil fuels?"

As is your wont, this is a straw man misrepresentation of my position. Why not peruse my postings to discern sources and actual thoughts?

I find your certainty about global climate models and primacy of anthropogenic CO2 forcing fascinating.

Carry on.

This just in: WIndy secretly serves as part time pastor at Al Gore's "Church of Real Climate Change Life".

Technologist, what do you know about the B.E.S.T. Study, out of Cal Berkeley? Who paid for it? Did it disprove Dr. Mann or did it confirm him?

Question for left wingers: What is the perfect climate? Hello...

"Left wingers"? Sheesh!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/nocera-how-not-to-fix-climate-change.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1361304285-chWPSajfuuGG3JP1YDGWdg&_r=2&

@ricketzz:

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

You found a hyperlink. Do you know what the conclusion of the study is thus far? Does it cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis or does it strongly agree with the IPCC, etc? Was it not funded in part by one of the Koch Brothers? Is it not run by a famous climate change skeptic?

You wanted to discuss this stuff; let's discuss.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

@ricketzz:

These are, no doubt, rhetorical questions that reinforce the political aspect of climate change discussions.

My position on this issue is as previously stated:

"The crux of the argument is whether the climate models are correct in ascribing anthropogenic CO2 generation as the primary "forcing" in global climate variability. Leaks of the upcoming IPCC report indicate that based on empirical data this perspective may be altered to reflect other factors of import.

Of note is that the climate has not warmed in the last 16 years as projected.

The challenge of modeling the global climate is daunting and utilization of the self-correcting Scientific Method is the optimal approach. Politics and religion (traditional or the green variety) are not. Therefore, skepticism is a rational approach."

ricketzz: "You wanted to discuss this stuff; let's discuss."

I did? Reviewing the postings, there isn't any discussion taking place.

Marco Rubio at CPAC today: "The people who are actually close-minded in American politics are the people that love to preach about the certainty of science in regards to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception."

AGW has been proven by elimination of all other possible causes. Regardless, its a great excuse to put the oil companies in their place for once and for all. We really need to quit burning things. The smoke has nowhere to go.

O.R. Is Rubio saying spermatazoa aren't alive? When did he start hating virility?

Hey Ricketzzz, make sure you don't buy oil nor gasoline... you might personally wreck our planet. What is the right climate here on Mother Earth?