# Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2010, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118 "2010-03-20T08:31:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/101 "2010-03-21T03:33:42Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > There are hundreds of scientists that have gotten published and many in climate journals, > > **[500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)** > It is not getting smaller every year it has increased in size since the 2007 single day summer minimum and the Antarctic ice is increasing, > > **[Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era](http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/)** (_World Climate Report_) > **[Antarctic sea ice increasing: study](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm)** (_ABC News, Australia_) > **[Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-11949,00.html)** (_The Australian_) > **[Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover](http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html)** (_NASA_) Conveniently, the fact that land ice is the most important item for this subject is ignored. > **[Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?](https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm)** > > \While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing \despite\ a strongly warming Southern Ocean.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean. > > It’s important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fail to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarise the situation with Antarctic ice trends: > > ``` > * Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate > * Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean > > ``` > > Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing > > Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet’s massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. The satellites measure changes in gravity to determine mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Initial observations found that that most of Antarctic mass loss comes from Western Antarctica (Velicogna 2007). Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2005, East Antarctica was in approximate mass balance. The ice gained in the interior is roughly balanced by the ice loss at the edges. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which contrasts the ice mass changes in West Antarctica (red) compared to East Antarctica (green): > [@](#): > > If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009). > > Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). > > In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/102 "2010-03-21T03:35:40Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > [There you go.](http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_inventory/query.html) The problem is that is not every glacier in the world and the records for everyone do not go back far enough to draw any conclusions. All we know is the majority of glaciers that are melting worldwide started at the end of the little ice age. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/103 "2010-03-21T03:37:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So an AGW denier in the end.. > > It is not really as slanderous, you are indeed refusing to accept the current evidence. You are entitled to your opinions but not the facts. > > [The minor role of land use in global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/land-use-and-global-warming.htm) > [Phil Jones and the meaning of 'statistically significant warming'](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm) > [http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm](http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm) > > [What ended the Little Ice Age?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm) And I hold that we cannot argue about Global Warming because of lack of information. > **[statismwatch.ca](http://statismwatch.ca/2009/11/29/latest-climategate-revelation-climate-change-data-dumped/)** > > This domain may be for sale! > **[Another UK climate data withholding scandal is emerging](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/14/another-uk-climate-data-scandal-is-emerging/)** > > As many WUWT readers know, Steve McIntyre’s tireless quest to get the raw data that makes up the gridded Hadley Climate Research Unit HadCRUT dataset has been fraught with delays, FOI denials… ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/104 "2010-03-21T03:38:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So an AGW denier in the end.. Slanderous > [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not really as slanderous, you are indeed refusing to accept the current evidence. You are entitled to your opinions but not the facts. There is no empirical evidence that man is the primary cause. Back to the Cartoonists website I see. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/105 "2010-03-21T03:50:34Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Maybe you are confused? The paper specifically says, > > “Soon (personal communication, August 31, 2006) observes that NASA funds programs mainly on social-political reasoning rather than science.” > > Which is very relevant since various parts of NASA are proponents of AGW and alarmism. I have to comment here, but Soon was wrong, but not in the way you think. In reality the social-political reasons were there, but going the other way; most satellite missions of the Bush era could be seen as being started to look for evidence for the best items that could point to global warming as not being a problem. > **[Earth - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/)** > > Your home. Our Mission.And the one planet that NASA studies more than any other. > [@](#): > > CESat provides primarily ice sheet and sea ice altimetry products with secondary products being cloud/aerosol and land/vegetation data. In particular, the mission determines variations of ice sheet elevation through time over Greenland and Antarctica, altitude and thickness of clouds and aerosol layers, vegetation properties, land topography, and ocean surface and sea ice altimetry. Indeed, items that could trow away most of the predictions were things like the cloud cover, water vapor feed backs and other items that skeptical scientists mentioned as the most likely things that would force researchers to back down on their global warming warnings. It turned out that the evidence found was not to the liking of the Bush administration. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html) ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/106 "2010-03-21T03:51:15Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > No I do not believe humans are the main cause of the minor warming since the little ice age and no I do not believe CO2 is the primary driver. Well, why didnt you say so?!? ## Discussion over!!! Mods, please close the thread—The debate over AGW is settled once and for all. Now on to which is the one True Religion. Poptech, we are waiting for your edification… ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/107 "2010-03-21T03:52:45Z")
Not only did the lying liberals convince the IPCC renegades, and the media, they convinced hundred of bird species to nest and breed in bands which have move 100 miles north in fifty years, and tree species to move their ranges by a similar distance in a century! There is just no end of the number of fools who believe this lie. Tris ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/108 "2010-03-21T03:55:10Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > And I hold that we cannot argue about Global Warming because of lack of information. > > [statismwatch.ca](http://statismwatch.ca/2009/11/29/latest-climategate-revelation-climate-change-data-dumped/) > > [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/14/another-uk-climate-data-scandal-is-emerging/](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/14/another-uk-climate-data-scandal-is-emerging/) Meh, there were already replies to that, in essence the science behind what Phil Jones said did not change. And “watts up with that” is just a hack. > **[Message to Anthony Watts](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/)** > > Anthony: It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature are correct. Your claims, in your document with J… > [@](#): > > Anthony: > Message to Anthony Watts > March 5, 2010 · 286 Comments > > It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature are correct. Your claims, in your document with Joe D’Aleo for the SPPI, are just plain wrong. > > You’ve avoided answering this criticism, claiming that you can’t replicate my results without my code. Yet several others managed to do just that. It’s not that difficult, and you were irresponsible not to investigate this issue before publishing your claims. The posts by E.M. Smith are so incoherent they resemble the ravings of a lunatic more than the results of a qualified analyst. Your only other response has been to call me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym. That’s nothing but a desperate attempt of a scoundrel to deflect attention from his own misdeeds. > > Furthermore, your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical. > > If you have any honor at all, you’ll set the record straight. You owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were wrong. And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize. You need to make a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/109 "2010-03-21T03:56:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have to comment here, but Soon was wrong, but not in the way you think. In reality the social-political reasons were there, but going the other way; most satellite missions of the Bush era could be seen as being started to look for evidence for the best items that could point to global warming as not being a problem. > > [Earth - NASA Science](http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_homepage/mission_profiles/show_mission.php?id=13&mission_cat_id=20) > Indeed, items that could trow away most of the predictions were things like the cloud cover, water vapor feed backs and other items that skeptical scientists mentioned as the most likely things that would force researchers to back down on their global warming warnings. > > It turned out that the evidence found was not to the liking of the Bush administration. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html) I would love to see the raw data that this report was based on. But no. [http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5711-scandal-over-missing-climate-documents-continues](http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5711-scandal-over-missing-climate-documents-continues) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/110 "2010-03-21T03:56:41Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I am glad you can now determine the full and complete discussion of a paper by it’s title. I have found that if a scientific paper doesn’t contain a description of its subject in its title, its usually not worth reading. What kind of obsessive compulsive douchebag came up with this list of yours in the first place? Was it a cloud of 10,000 monkeys combing the literature for catty asides related to global warming? Someone put in way too many hours coming up with a list of publications that would be darn hard to use in anything but a deceptive fashion. I am not at all surprised by your intent to conflate social studies, economics and opinion pieces with proof or disproof of AGW. It’s human nature for those who can’t understand the world to make up a reality that’s more comprehensible to them. One bit of advice though, if you need to simplify your world in order to understand it, at least try to create one that lets you be a happy person. You seem awfully upset about the possibility that we humans are messing with the climate. Why not just forget about that problem, and spend your time fixing hot rods or looking for seashells on the beach? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/111 "2010-03-21T03:59:35Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Slanderous > There is no empirical evidence that man is the primary cause. > > Back to the Cartoonists website I see. “Attacking the messenger”. So in the end you are reduced to resort to fallacies, it is easier than dealing with the linked research. I expect the Poptech to ignore the evidence and continue ranting, but that is ok, that is what also identifies a climate truther. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/112 "2010-03-21T04:02:22Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > I would love to see the raw data that this report was based on. But no. > > [http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5711-scandal-over-missing-climate-documents-continues](http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5711-scandal-over-missing-climate-documents-continues) Nope, point to the item or quote what you want us to deal with, at least demonstrate that you can identify the points or that you understand what are the issues. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/113 "2010-03-21T04:05:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, there were already replies to that, in essence the science behind what Phil Jones said did not change. > > And “watts up with that” is just a hack. > > [Message to Anthony Watts | Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/) Oh, okay. > **[Informath \>\> Tree-ring data at Queen's University Belfast](https://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm)** > > Informath is a web site of Douglas J. Keenan There is no science. They UK climate lab threw away raw data. NASA is not releasing raw data. There is no science. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/114 "2010-03-21T04:10:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, point to the item or quote what you want us to deal with, at least demonstrate that you can identify the points or that you understand what are the issues. James E. Hansen public warnings are not based on science. If he showed his math and released the raw data okay. But he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/115 "2010-03-21T04:14:28Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > Oh, okay. > > [Informath \>\> Tree-ring data at Queen's University Belfast](http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm) > > There is no science. They UK climate lab threw away raw data. NASA is not releasing raw data. There is no science. [http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030](http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030) > [@](#): > > In fact, original data is held by meteorological services > > CRU scientist: “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there.” According to an October 14 Greenwire article, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there – you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.” The article said that Jones’ statement came after the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) "blasted the research unit for the ‘suspicious destruction of its original data.’ " The article further noted that Jones “said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all” and that “[t]he research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.” > > > [@](#): > > > > At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies. > > > > ``` > > Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." > > > > Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency. > > > > The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said. > > > > "When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world." > > > > Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center." > > > > ``` > > NASA climate modeler: “The original data is curated at the met services where it originated.” In response to a comment on his blog Real Climate asking whether it is true that the CRU lost the data, Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, replied: “No. The original data is curated at the met services where it originated.” > **[Evidence for global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)** > > \There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the poleward migration of plant and animal species across the globe.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the inexorable poleward migration of plant and animal species across the globe. > > The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming: > > ``` > * Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009) > * The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release) > * Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006) > * The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006) > * There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release). > * A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009) > * Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008) > > ``` > > Ice Melt > > ``` > * Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section 4.7.2.3) > * Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006) > * Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009) > * Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009) > * Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008) > * Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007). > * Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005) > > ``` > > Biological changes > > ``` > * > Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmesan 2003) > * The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmesan 2003) > * > Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterflies (Kearney 2010) > * > Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008) > * > Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008) > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/116 "2010-03-21T04:19:12Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > James E. Hansen public warnings are not based on science. If he showed his math and released the raw data okay. But he didn’t. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/mcintyre\_has\_another\_go\_at\_han.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/mcintyre_has_another_go_at_han.php) > [@](#): > > McIntyre has another go at Hansen’s 1988 paper > > Global warming skeptics just keep trying to show that Hansen’s projections in in his 1988 climate model were wrong. We’ve had Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen’s graph, Willis Eschenbach at Climate Audit, who used the wrong baseline for temperature data and Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS. > **[RealClimate: Jim Hansen’s opinion](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/jim-hansens-opinion/)** > > RealClimate: Several people have written saying that it would be useful to have an expert opinion on the state of the surface temperature data from someone other than RealClimate members. Here you go: TemperatureOfScience.pdf You don't get more... ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/117 "2010-03-21T04:24:11Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I have found that if a scientific paper doesn’t contain a description of its subject in its title, its usually not worth reading. That is a fantastically worthless statements, thanks. > [@Squink](#): > > Someone put in way too many hours coming up with a list of publications that would be darn hard to use in anything but a deceptive fashion. Nothing deceptive about the papers they are all cited and linked. > [@Squink](#): > > I am not at all surprised by your intent to conflate social studies, economics and opinion pieces with proof or disproof of AGW. It’s human nature for those who can’t understand the world to make up a reality that’s more comprehensible to them. I haven’t conflated anything. There is more to the debate then just the Science that is why there is a WGIII for the IPCC report. Nothing is made up, they are all real. I understand this upsets you, this is not my problem. I also realize that the propaganda that no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist cannot be used anymore, a shame. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/118 "2010-03-21T04:24:39Z")
So when I say that the Arctic ice is disappearing you call me wrong because you have news reports, not scientific peer reviewed journal articles, talking about Antarctic ice? You do understand that these are two different places at opposite ends of the earth? If the Arctic ice completely melts, sea currents will change. And if it isn’t hotter, why is it melting. You also point me to 500 articles, rather than one article. I don’t want 500 articles. I want one peer reviewed climate article that says the world is not getting warmer in its conclusion. One. Peer reviewed. World not getting warmer. Climate journal. Not irrigation journal, not economics journal. Not an article calling into question someone else’s methods, but stating in a conclusion that the world is not getting warmer. One. Just one. Northern ice cap getting thinner each year, sea levels rising. I don’t believe you, I believe my eyes. All you have is a lot of obfuscation. Not only do you apparently not know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic, but you don’t know how to understand a scientific paper in a relevant peer reviewed journal either. No wonder you are so angry and confused. All I want is one article that has a definitive conclusion that says global warming isn’t happening and that it is a peer reviewed article in a climate journal. One, and I will agree there is grounds for skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/119 "2010-03-21T04:27:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [RealClimate: Jim Hansen’s opinion](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/jim-hansens-opinion/) Please show me which of Hansen’s scenarios match the current emissions. If you cannot do this all of his modeled results are useless. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/120 "2010-03-21T04:28:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030](http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030) > [Evidence for global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm) “Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.” What small amount? Which figures? Did you actually read what you post? Jones “said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all” Uh huh. What’s a vast majority? "Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there – you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center” Nope. “That’s all value added stuff.” Hence the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get access to the NOAA raw data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=7)