OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?

[Jared]

Just a few quick responses, and them I'm out of this thread.

First, Shaviv is a Ph.D. in astrophysics that co-authored a paper w/Veizer saying that cosmic rays can account for global warming. This paper has been challenged and found wanting from a variety of scientists. I don't have the time to go into the details...but a brief summary can be found at the BBC, a detailed response to Shaviv and Veizer is here, and a response to another Veizer paper on "celestial" global warming is here.

As for Wegman, I don't care to "poke holes in his credentials". I'm not about poking holes in people's credentials, but rather, looking at the merits of the arguments on each side. IIRC, Wegman found that there was something wrong with a graph in one of Mann's papers, showing an increase in global temperature in the last 150 years. Lots of global warming skeptics have jumped on this to say that there is no global warming. But what most don't show is that when the analysis is corrected, the results show the same pattern (see here for a discussion), and that many other studies using different methodologies have found the same pattern: anomalous increases in global warming in the last 100 years (see here for a graph showing temperature reconstructions for the last 1000 years from ten different studies).

Now all of this information is easily accessible. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself about the actual evidence for global warming (partially to educate yourself, partially b/c I'm tired of doing it for you). Start with wikipedia if you want, or dig around...there are a lot of primers that lay stuff out. As for people that question global warming, that's great...any theory should be questioned and scrutinized. But it's important to see if the criticisms are with merit, or are just bad science masquerading as healthy skepticism. I suggest that when you dig up "critics" of global warming, you put forth the same amount of effort in analyzing their work as you do with global warming literature.

[RandyM]

First, Shaviv is a Ph.D. in astrophysics that co-authored a paper w/Veizer saying that cosmic rays can account for global warming.

Darn, and here I thought he was a scientist. Thanks for clearing that up.

As for Wegman, I don't care to "poke holes in his credentials". I'm not about poking holes in people's credentials, but rather, looking at the merits of the arguments on each side.

You've actually done almost NONE of that. Most of your responses are sweeping generalizations (your 'hacks' comment) or comments about their funding (I had a chuckle going to 'sourcewatch.org' and noticing how hard it is to find Hansen's funding from the heinz foundation, who coincidentally gave him an award. At any rate, the link I posted earlier contains a profile of several 'skeptics', all of whom are credentialed scientists. Yes, we can play the "my link can beat up your link" game...because it's pretty clear that there are links from both sides trying to discredit the other. Of course that just means it's a debate. not always a nice one, but one nonetheless.

Lots of global warming skeptics have jumped on this to say that there is no global warming.

And lots didn't go that far but simply pointed to this as a measure of which the science is either being abused or not being done properly based upon statistical methodology, and that a small group of climatologists is doing most of the work and peer reviewing each other's papers. An interesting set of hits can be had on Google by searching for the phrase "peer review under fire". Most illuminating the abuse that is going on of this process, making a mockery of it.

But what most don't show is that when the analysis is corrected, the results show the same pattern (see here for a discussion), and that many other studies using different methodologies have found the same pattern: anomalous increases in global warming in the last 100 years (see here for a graph showing temperature reconstructions for the last 1000 years from ten different studies).

Now all of this information is easily accessible. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself about the actual evidence for global warming (partially to educate yourself, partially b/c I'm tired of doing it for you). Start with wikipedia if you want, or dig around...there are a lot of primers that lay stuff out.

I've actually read a fair # of the sites on the hockey stick on your side. As well as a fair # of sites that refute your sites. Again, it comes down to a 'my link can beat up your link' thing, because each of the articles you mention are rebutted elsewhere, and I'm sure you'll find rebuttals to the rebuttals, and on and on. There's no end to it. It seems that the only time it ends is when you've decided to believe one side or the other and you'll read no more 'rebuttals'.

As for people that question global warming, that's great...any theory should be questioned and scrutinized

You seem to be increasingly isolated in that tolerant opinion, as most of the press seems to be absolutely hellbent on comparing any skeptic with a 'holocaust denier', saying the debate is over, saying we have consensus, etc. etc. This kind of rhetoric doesn't serve REAL science. REAL Science doesn't try to silence dissenters by anything other than more science. I am sure we could nitpick for hours about each of the 'skeptics' profiled on the pages in that Canadian newspapers, but I do think that they all have sufficient scientific credibility to be at least read and taken somewhat seriously by anyone interested in reading both sides of the debate. Then if one wants they can easily google and find all the people slamming each person, then the people slamming the slammers, etc.

But it's important to see if the criticisms are with merit, or are just bad science masquerading as healthy skepticism. I suggest that when you dig up "critics" of global warming, you put forth the same amount of effort in analyzing their work as you do with global warming literature.

You kinda miss my point, honestly. It is not my intention to claim that I have proof that the GWA position is incorrect. I'm not qualified, honestly, to peer review climatologists (and I doubt that anyone here is). What I am saying is that to dismiss REAL SCIENTISTS on the skeptical side as being nothing more then paid shills for the oil industry or crackpots or poor scientists is not fighting science with science, it's trying to win an argument simply by holding the other side in contempt. Yes, there are going to be a lot of skeptics that are getting funding from the energy industry. Undoubtedly they can't really expect a lot of funding from groups that lean towards global warming alarmism. So they are getting their money from the other side. If we're truly going to say that this should be a debate on science and nothing else, then one has to isolate one's comments on science to the actual science and not who is paying the bills....OR you have to be just as willing to look at ALL the funding and agendas, and go that route. You can't pick and choose.

My point was not to say that one side has it wrong or right on the science. Each person is perfectly capable of spending the hours needed to read the claims and counterclaims and decide for themselves who has the better argument. My point is that I HAVE Provided sufficient #'s of REAL scientists who really do peer reviewed scientific work who have serious problems either with the global warming science, its conclusions, or the politicization of the science. Some of them have, in the past, contributed to IPCC reports. You can't say they were reliable good scientists then, and now they are not, simply because they have jumped off the bandwagon.

All I'm saying is stop treating scientists with an opposing point of view as somehow 'lesser' scientists than those advocating global warming, strictly upon their conclusions. That just doesn't fly with me. And all the defamation links you point me to aren't going to change that.

Randy

[RandyM]

As for Wegman... But what most don't show is that when the analysis is corrected, the results show the same pattern (see here for a discussion), and that many other studies using different methodologies have found the same pattern: anomalous increases in global warming in the last 100 years (see here for a graph showing temperature reconstructions for the last 1000 years from ten different studies).

Now all of this information is easily accessible. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself about the actual evidence for global warming (partially to educate yourself, partially b/c I'm tired of doing it for you).

I'm sure then, that you did NOT stop with the RealClimate link you sent me, but in turn saw the rebuttal of THAT piece:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=756

You did read that, right? For instance, here's one of the responses RealClimate got for the piece you linked:

-----------
The RC response to Wegman is a typical pea and thimble trick. They say using centred data, “after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate” the reconstruction is the same. They neglect to mention that this means taking the bristlecones in via PC4 (explaining only 8% of the variance.)

The subsequent regression stage, however, dosn’t “care” about the order of the PCs - they all receive the same weight. So under this procedure, it doesn’t matter if the bristlecones are PC1 (dominant component of the variance) or low order PC4 - they have equal weight. So it’s hardly surprising that the centred and decentred methods produce the same results, as long as you admit the low-order PC4).

The main problem with MBH. It’s not robust to the presence or absence of bristlecones. It’s impossible to think that the authors at realclimate don’t know this, and it’s disappointing to see them present such a misleading defence.

Still on the same RC posting, does anyone understand the graph illustrating the “throw out the PCA entirely”? It sems that the reconstructions all stop at about 1850, and then the instrumental record is grafted on. Given that most of the proxies extend up to at least 1980, why the truncation? Could it be that “when the raw data are used directly” they don’t rise in the 20th century?

---------------
You seem very happy to find rebuttals to links I send, but I do wonder whether you stop there.


Randy

[TRI]

Solar activity on the sun determines weather variables like temperature, precipitation etc MUCH more so than the composition of the atmosphere. Something else you may not be aware is the carbon dioxide is a weak green house gas. It does not trap heat as well as methane or water vapor and is consumed through photosynthesis by plant life. Florocarbons cause cooling and has a long life in atmosphere so it helps offset the very small warming effect of cabon dioxide.


Keep in mind that some of the scientists promoting the global warming hype get funding from the government so they have a financial interest to keep the hype going despite whether it is true or not. The love of money and politics drive the global warming issue not science.


The meteorologist at accuweather.com Joe Bastardi does not believe in global warming and he is the best or at least amoung the best in the world. Joe knows weather and he has the best weather models.

[TRI]

Another reason to doubt long term global warming is that temperatures in the upper level of the atomsphere have been declining. This should not the case if global warming were significant.

[RandyM]

Well, actually, the best ally of us 'skeptics' or as they like to derisively call us "deniers" is TIME.

My Prediction (which should be more accurate than the computer models have been shown to be ! ) is that within 20 years, the warming cycle will have reversed or stabilized and the doomsayers will be forced to:

a. Admit they were wrong (unlikely)
b. Move onto a new global threat and pretend that the warming didn't happen (70's global cooling reaction all over again)
c. Take CREDIT for the reversal/stabilization and say it was all their hard work today that caused things to get better.

I believe (b) is most likely, but given the sheer scale of the global warming alarmism, I won't dismiss (c) out of hand..

Randy

[JackB1]

I just don't understand how anyone can look at those "before and after" photographs of glaciers and ice sheets and just dismiss them? Do you actually think that they will somehow reverse this process...start freezing up again at some point and grow back to where they were? Or, do you just think that the ice sheets will just eventually melt away and there is nothing we can do to stop it? One of those 2 things will happen and the 2nd choice seems far more likely. The rising water levels will pose a serious problem to the world and I guess we will jsut have to deal with it then.

[Brando70]

Well, actually, the best ally of us 'skeptics' or as they like to derisively call us "deniers" is TIME.

My Prediction (which should be more accurate than the computer models have been shown to be ! ) is that within 20 years, the warming cycle will have reversed or stabilized and the doomsayers will be forced to:

a. Admit they were wrong (unlikely)
b. Move onto a new global threat and pretend that the warming didn't happen (70's global cooling reaction all over again)
c. Take CREDIT for the reversal/stabilization and say it was all their hard work today that caused things to get better.

I believe (b) is most likely, but given the sheer scale of the global warming alarmism, I won't dismiss (c) out of hand..

Randy

Or d, continue to stick your head in the sand. When it fills with water from rising ocean levels, you'll know that you were incorrect.

[Jared]

(I said the last one would be my last reply to Randy...but I was wrong.)

I'm responding, primarily because you bring up one of the arguments that I can't stand...the "my link can beat up your link" thing. Essentially, the implication is that there are arguments on both sides, therefore, there is serious/real debate. This tactic is used often in "debate" against science (see discussion on evolution, vaccination, whether HIV causes AIDS, etc.). They find that someone believes in the minority opinion, says that there is a real debate, and then basically stops there. As in the case with this other stuff, you can't just stop there. Just because there's an argument on one side doesn't mean that that side has validity. You have to actually evaulate what's in these links and see if there's actually merit to them or not. Then you evaluate/praise/dismiss them based on the CONTENTS of their argument.

Hence why I've tried to actually bring up counter-points to what you've said. You've brought up the junkscience guy, and I've shown a variety of places where he's been wrong and shown no knowledge of science. I've provided evidence for a decline in polar bear population, that the Peiser abstract paper is seriously flawed, that the 70s scientific consensus was not that we were in global cooling, that there are major problems with the Shaviv paper, admitted that there were issues with the statistical analysis of the original Mann paper, etc. So I have absolutely no idea how you can say that "most of your responses are sweeping generalizations (your 'hacks' comment) or comments about their funding". (And this is even after I've made it clear what I meant by hacks, and made it clear that the money isn't the important part of the debate.) You've seem to be more interested in having an argument with a straw-man instead of actually having a rational discussion with me. To repeatedly misrepresent my position is fundamentally dishonest and kind of pathetic.

I'm happy to discuss this stuff with people that want to have an honest discussion. But you're not doing that. So I'm not going to waste my time in discussing this with you anymore. If you want to revisit this stuff honestly, I'll be more than happy to do so.

[matthewk]

I just don't understand how anyone can look at those "before and after" photographs of glaciers and ice sheets and just dismiss them?

I am more willing to dismiss the melting glaciers than I am dissappearing forests. Take a look at some before and after pictures of those. At least that is something I know we are in control of and directly responsible for.

I am not a scientist (and it's not a hobby of mine), so any detailed knowledge I get is from recent reading and searches on the internet. That said, I looked up "sea level" on wikipedia. I found it interesting that over the past 100 years, the sea level has risen....a whole 8 inches. Also, that is still lower than what it is figured to have been throughout most of history.

The planet changes, with or without us. before we go screaming that the sky is falling, I'd rather we first take care of the things we know we have some control over.

Do you actually think that they will somehow reverse this process...start freezing up again at some point and grow back to where they were?

Yes. That is what history has shown us. This is more likely to be a cyclical process than anything caused by man.

Edit: I'll bet on option B) too.

[spooky157]

These normal planetary changes should take place over hundreds of thousands of years. They don't just happen over a hundred years or so with industrialization. They should be almost imperceptible to us. The fact that these changes are measurable in our lifetime is disturbing.

[RandyM]

I just don't understand how anyone can look at those "before and after" photographs of glaciers and ice sheets and just dismiss them?

I'm not dismissing them. But they are the beginning of the inquiry, not the end. When you see these things, you have to ask several questions:

a) Is this a local phenomenon or is it global?
b) What is the cause of it?
c) How severe is it?
d) Can we do anything about it? (Indeed SHOULD we?)

Those are the issues that are under hot debate, not whether we see evidence of climate change.

Do you actually think that they will somehow reverse this process...start freezing up again at some point and grow back to where they were?

Do some google searching, and you'll find that some areas are getting colder and the ice is getting thicker. Iceland is bucking the trend according to what I'm reading. Also, if in fact solar activity is the main driver of temperature change here, then fluctuations in that activity are going to cause freezing, and melting, and freezing, and melting, etc. Hence the past "ice ages" that we have come out of. So yeah, provided the drivers for warming change, either because of a atmospheric feedback engine or an external driver (such as the sun), then yeah things will start cooling and freezing again, as it has throughout the earth's history.

Or, do you just think that the ice sheets will just eventually melt away and there is nothing we can do to stop it? One of those 2 things will happen and the 2nd choice seems far more likely. The rising water levels will pose a serious problem to the world and I guess we will jsut have to deal with it then.

I don't think it'll happen. I think the cycles and feedback mechanisms will prevail, we'll undergo a cooling trend, and then we'll see the alarmists either take credit for the reversal or quickly jump to a new 'sky is falling' theory and hope we forget how wrong they were in the past, as they have for the last 100+ years of doomsaying climate predictions.

One of the things I notice is that those who are skeptical and critique the science of global warming are called hacks and poor scientists. However, when THEIR methodologies are proven to be flawed, the answer we get is: "So what. As long as the answer they arrive at is correct, who cares if the methodology is flawed". So only global warming SKEPTICS have to exercise rigorous science that passes all scrutiny. The global warming alarmists get a pass on methodology flaws...as long as their answer is 'correct' they sail right through peer review (joke that peer review has become) and get published.

Randy

[RandyM]

Or d, continue to stick your head in the sand. When it fills with water from rising ocean levels, you'll know that you were incorrect.

Yup, just like I was completely hammered here in Tampa during a very active 2006 Hurricane season that was predicted by computer models.

Or the way we were all frozen to death by global cooling predicted in the 70's.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Something to keep in mind: Each subsequent IPCC report has predicted a LOWER number for sea level rise, temperature rise. It's funny how the actual scientific reports keep revising their estimates DOWNWARD since the original report in 1990, while the rhetoric and shrillness keeps RISING in inverse proportion to those numbers.

I'm going to go the Michael Chrichton route. When those computer models can, within a reasonable error, predict temperature and sea level increases even over a 2-5 year period, I'll put more faith in them. So far their prediction record has been abysmal. Don't you think that if we are going to invest trillions of dollars in trying to artificially affect climate change that maybe we demand a halfway decent track record from those doing the predictions?

Randy

[pk500]

It's f*cking cold here today in Central New York. Very f*cking cold.

Thought that was worth a mention as actual on-site, scientific research in this pissing match, er, debate.

Take care,
PK

[RandyM]

Just because there's an argument on one side doesn't mean that that side has validity. You have to actually evaulate what's in these links and see if there's actually merit to them or not. Then you evaluate/praise/dismiss them based on the CONTENTS of their argument.

As best as I can, I have done so. Sometimes I see the rebuttals as being fairly worthless, and other times I see them raising good points. Criticizing Mann's shoddy statistical methods was perfectly accurate. The global warming side tried VERY hard to defend the methodology by attacking M&M directly. When Wegman entered the picture and validated the criticisms in a way that could NOT be refuted, the fallback position was "Well so what if he messed up on the data and statistical analysis, at least his conclusion was correct". You yourself tried this a few posts back. I find this to be a terrible double standard. You attack those who disagree with AGW as being guilty of 'poor science' but you effectively EXCLUSE sloppiness or bias on the part of AGW advocates by in effect saying "oh well, doesn't matter, they got the answer right".

I can only imagine what you'd be saying about a skeptic whose methodology was shoddy and proven to be so by the geniuses at RealClimate. It would totally validate your contention that REAL scientists don't dispute the anthropogenic global warming theories. But when it goes the other way...doesn't matter.

Hence why I've tried to actually bring up counter-points to what you've said. You've brought up the junkscience guy, and I've shown a variety of places where he's been wrong and shown no knowledge of science.

Yeah, but I bet he has a better track record for accuracy than global warming climate computer models based upon their actual vs. projected to date!

I've provided evidence for a decline in polar bear population, that the Peiser abstract paper is seriously flawed

Peiser was not the only one to take a hard look at the search for peer reviewed articles. I quickly did realize that there flaws in the comments by both sides of that argument, but you'd never give an inch on your side, so I just moved on. There was no point to it. She is as guilty as taking abstracts and saying they support the consensus (when they were often neutral or indifferent) as he was in saying that that he had abstracts that DIDN'T support the consensus. Both sides interpreted the data how they WANTED to interpet it. The only problem is, because she's on the 'consensus' bandwagon, you give her a pass on any methodological or bias errors, while you come down hard on the methodology of her critics. The gross double standard for what constitutes 'good science' on your side is apalling. You raise the bar quite high to be a skeptic, but the bar is VERY low on being a AGW advocate. Were you nearly as rigorous in scrutinizing the work of AGW, especially that seems to sail through peer review, errors and all, as you are in scrutinizing the work of skeptics, then you might have a different conclusion.

, that the 70s scientific consensus was not that we were in global cooling,

Yeah they weren't alarmist at all about it. As newsweek wrote:

"[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it,"

massive accumulation of evidence in support of global cooling?! Sound familiar?

that there are major problems with the Shaviv paper,

They aren't any more major than the problems with the Mann paper from what I've read. The difference is not whether there are problems. It's just that problems from your side of the argument are excused, whereas problems from the skeptical side are used as proof that the scientists are unqualified hacks.

admitted that there were issues with the statistical analysis of the original Mann paper, etc.

Yes, what a big concession from you. After debating me endlessly a couple of years ago about M&M, trying to discredit them utterly, FINALLY you agree that there were 'issues' (your word) with the statistical analysis that Mann employed only when you could no longer defend Mann with a straight face, then you resorted to saying (paraphrase) "well, we still get a hockey stick, so it doesn't matter". (And that is also in dispute, if you look at ClimateAudit vs. RealClimate posts on this). Wegman did say that once the bias was corrected, the hockey stick disappears, but hey, RC is going to stick to their guns on this.

So I have absolutely no idea how you can say that "most of your responses are sweeping generalizations (your 'hacks' comment) or comments about their funding".

I didn't introduce funding questions to this debate. That would have been you. I didn't call pro global warming scientists bad scientists or hacks. But you did this about skeptics. Saying "MOST" of them are.

And this is even after I've made it clear what I meant by hacks, and made it clear that the money isn't the important part of the debate.)

Yet it was the doorway by which you ENTERED the debate. The very first contribution you made was this. Ask yourself WHY.

You've seem to be more interested in having an argument with a straw-man instead of actually having a rational discussion with me. To repeatedly misrepresent my position is fundamentally dishonest and kind of pathetic.

what's kind of pathetic is someone who says they want to debate science but basically goes the route of condescension and derision.

I'm happy to discuss this stuff with people that want to have an honest discussion. But you're not doing that. So I'm not going to waste my time in discussing this with you anymore. If you want to revisit this stuff honestly, I'll be more than happy to do so.

I'd like to revisit it with you when you start holding the pro global warming side to the same scientific standards that you wish to hold the skeptics to, give the same amount of weight to funding and grants towards pro-global warming scientists as you do to 'industry funded' scientists, and so on.

When the playing field is level, we can talk. But you've made it abundantly clear that the playing field is NOT level, that the bar for skeptics is higher than the bar for Global warming advocates, and that smearing well credentialed scientists is a valid way to conduct debate.

So you're right, Jared, there can be no discussion with someone whose only offering to the debate is contempt and condescension, as well as an apalling double standard on scientific matters.

But you ARE part of academia, so I guess I shouldn't be entirely surprised.

Randy

[RandyM]

It's f*cking cold here today in Central New York. Very f*cking cold.

Thought that was worth a mention as actual on-site, scientific research in this pissing match, er, debate.

Take care,
PK

PK, the quote from Gladiator came to my mind when I read this:

ARE ... YOU .. NOT ... ENTERTAINED????



How's it going preparing for Monaco btw?

Randy

[TRI]

I just don't understand how anyone can look at those "before and after" photographs of glaciers and ice sheets and just dismiss them? Do you actually think that they will somehow reverse this process...start freezing up again at some point and grow back to where they were? Or, do you just think that the ice sheets will just eventually melt away and there is nothing we can do to stop it? One of those 2 things will happen and the 2nd choice seems far more likely. The rising water levels will pose a serious problem to the world and I guess we will jsut have to deal with it then.

You must also take into account the ice glaciers that are growing. You see photos of only those glaciers melting and only these make the news. Why? Because GW proponents have the wrong attitude and insist on global warming and any evidence that might create some doubt or skepticism must not be revealed to the public and all dissenters must be silenced. One piece of evidence that the global warming crowd hates is that the temperatures in the upper levels of the atmosphere do not show warming.

[RandyM]

That reminds me of the famous quote "We have to do something about the satellite data!" which shows how the agenda leads the science, and not the other way around.

I think it's interesting to look at wikipedia's entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... _consensus

You can find a decent list of scientists opposing global warming consensus here. I do find it funny. If you can get a list of credentialed scientists opposing a viewpoint, then how, by definition, do you call that viewpoint a 'consensus'?

The political corruption of science continues..

Randy

[kevinpars]

It is a nice idea that someone could simply read the literature associated with global warming and then make an informed decision, but you would have to take the further step of researching the source. Every magazine, every media outlet has an agenda. Everyone has to answer to someone – whether it is the editorial board or the advertisers who pay the bills.

When you have a thesis to publish and during the process you find information that does not support your thesis, what do you do? Do you weaken your argument by including it or ignore it or dismiss it?

The same thing goes for scientists. If a scientist works for an oil company, do you really think that it is in their best interest to publish anything that would reflect negatively on that industry? Or is it just a coincidence that Michael Crichton has turned to the right when he is published by HarperCollins which is owned by Rupert Murdock??

[XXXIV]

This entire thread proves that none of us know sh*t about global warming because everyone appears to be taking the side to which their respective political ideology ascribes. Both sides can trot out scientists (mad, bad, both?) who support their beliefs.

Is there a liberal in here who has denied the existence of global warming? Is there a conservative who has said it's very real?

Exactly!!!

[pk500]

How's it going preparing for Monaco btw?

It's not.

Been horizontal with the flu and a sinus infection since Thursday night. Today is the first day I've even been close to human. Doubt I'll turn a lap before tomorrow night, as my body craves sleep. Tomorrow night will be my first-ever laps at the Principality.

Take care,
PK

[spooky157]

How's it going preparing for Monaco btw?

It's not.

Been horizontal with the flu and a sinus infection since Thursday night. Today is the first day I've even been close to human. Doubt I'll turn a lap before tomorrow night, as my body craves sleep. Tomorrow night will be my first-ever laps at the Principality.

Take care,
PK

I hope the safety car will be running on alternative fuels...

[Teal]

This entire thread proves that none of us know sh*t about global warming because everyone appears to be taking the side to which their respective political ideology ascribes. Both sides can trot out scientists (mad, bad, both?) who support their beliefs.

Is there a liberal in here who has denied the existence of global warming? Is there a conservative who has said it's very real?

Exactly!!!

This is what makes this whole discussion moot and bogus. Global Warming has been political from the word go. Case in point would be the deal with the Weather Channel gal saying that anyone who denies global warming should be stripped of their meteorology licence, or some such nonsense. Everyone who says this bullshit is bullshit is a hack, or a denier, or something else.

A conservative scientist says 'uh-uh, no such thing'. A liberal scientist says 'Oh dear god, we'll all be dead in 10 years and it's all our fault.' A senator, who has absolutely no idea about science, will pick up this ball and run with it, making movies out of it, and setting the stage for his own political aspirations. Meanwhile, God has to be entertained...

[RandyM]

I agree, it has been very political, and for one basic reason: because to say that humans have CAUSED it and can in some way STOP it, means a call to arms to change things, and that costs money and involves control and regulation.

And when the people that want to spend that money and regulate people, infringe their rights, property, liberty, etc are the same folks who have been doing it for a long time for social engineering reasons, it becomes pretty clear why the left has married global warming and why the right has married the energy industry.

Clear heads could look at this and say "Hey, let's have some sane environmental policies that don't pollute, and let's not also kill ourselves trying to control the planet's climate, especially since we are but one small moving part in a big system.". But clearer heads are generally ignored by both sides.

My problem with the whole debate is the most recent attempt to marginalize and silence dissenters. I would HOPE that those who claim to be scientists would speak out against censorship and silencing of opposing voices as contrary to the spirit of scientific research.

Obviously, I think that even though there are going to be bad eggs on the skeptics' side, they are the ONLY people holding the global warming bandwagon to account. Those cases of poor science that are being fast-tracked through peer review because they agree with the 'consensus' are only stopped by skeptics these days. Not by the people who SHOULD be stopping it as impartial referees. So if the skeptics serve no other purpose, and even if they are utterly wrong....at the very least they are providing a much needed check and balance against this runaway gravy train of global warming advocacy. This is something peer review should have taken care of, but as we are seeing in more and more cases, where science is being politicized, the peer review and grant process is being corrupted by those same politics.

Randy

[wco81]

So who politicized this issue?

Here is one clue:

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 78,00.html

Rest of the industrialized nations have no "lack of scientific certainty" on this. Strange how that works out, huh?[/b]