Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

Conveniently, the fact that land ice is the most important item for this subject is ignored.

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.

And I hold that we cannot argue about Global Warming because of lack of information.

http://statismwatch.ca/2009/11/29/latest-climategate-revelation-climate-change-data-dumped/

Slanderous

There is no empirical evidence that man is the primary cause.

Back to the Cartoonists website I see.

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.

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

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…

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

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.

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

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?

“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.

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.

Oh, okay.

There is no science. They UK climate lab threw away raw data. NASA is not releasing raw data. There is no science.

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://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/mcintyre_has_another_go_at_han.php

That is a fantastically worthless statements, thanks.

Nothing deceptive about the papers they are all cited and linked.

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.

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.

Please show me which of Hansen’s scenarios match the current emissions. If you cannot do this all of his modeled results are useless.

“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.