but if a few organizations have a consensus, thats not the same as the whole scientific community having a consensus

i mean just post a link to the overwhelming consensus pre-IPCC report if there are so many

6/5/2007 4:50:12 PM

A "few?"

Please.

A consensus was widely acknowledged among the scientific community, and the IPCC report had no effect on it. The only reason it's cited so often is because it's the latest and greatest.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 4:57:50 PM

i mean just post a link to the overwhelming consensus pre-IPCC report if there are so many

6/5/2007 5:04:30 PM

I enjoy the questions due to Mr. aaronburro.

Quote :

"by the way, do you care to provide and numbers that support your claim of "95%" of climate scientists? I'd love to see that poll..."

Quote :

"so, uh, anybody care to offer, oh, I dunno, hard-numbers to back up their claim of this alleged "scientific consensus," or will they instead hide behind the IPCC and it's "report" which has been edited by gov'ts of various nations who have butchered it to their liking in order to support their agendas, and which has had several leading scientists come forward and say "I didn't author a damned bit of that report...""

6/5/2007 5:15:04 PM

As mentioned before in this thread, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the Joint Science Academies, and the American Meteorological Society all accepted a consensus before the report came out.

Do you mean to tell me that that doesn't represent a consensus?

6/5/2007 5:15:50 PM

i mean just post a link to the overwhelming consensus pre-IPCC report if there are so many

6/5/2007 5:16:09 PM

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Now...

Quote :

"In fact, here's how you can prove your point-- name me a single scientific organization that recognized the consensus only as a result of the report."

6/5/2007 5:24:05 PM

Quote :

"The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf)."

wow IPCC and JNA...sounds like the whole scientific community!

6/5/2007 5:25:42 PM

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

Quote :

"In fact, here's how you can prove your point-- name me a single scientific organization that recognized the consensus only as a result of the report."

6/5/2007 5:28:01 PM

ok, the first link doesnt even mention a consensus...do you even read the links you're posting?

and the 2nd link claims a consensus amongst the AMS, not the scientific community

let alone your whole premise is trying to prove that a majority of people's opinion is that humans are fucking up the planet...now thats some exact data!

6/5/2007 5:35:45 PM

I'm trying to prove that among scientists, there's a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

I think that citing a number of major scientific organizations representing a significant number of scientists achieves that end.

Meanwhile, you've given me nothing to counter these organizations.

Or did you want to throw in those Canadians into the mix?


Oh, and bullshit. The first one says, and I quote: "humans have had an impact on climate"

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 5:43:29 PM

No thats not at all what you were trying to prove. You were trying to prove that there was a consensus among the scientific community of anthropogenic climate change before the IPCC report was released

And what Canadians do you keep babbling about? Why don't you throw some NC State professors in the mix.

Quote :

"humans have had an impact on climate"

wow...groundbreaking

6/5/2007 6:57:35 PM

Dude,

I've demonstrated that major scientific associations supported climate change before and after the IPCC report.

You've yet to link to a single shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise.


Until you do, you're just trolling.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 8:40:14 PM

sure thing van driesen

6/5/2007 8:59:34 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: nevermind the fact that carbon credits are little more than environmental snake oil"

Don't make this out to be some kind of ploy only perpetuated by the "wacky environmentalists". In fact, the first place I heard about this horrid idea of cap and trade (or rather profit and pollute) was proposed by your boy, W. under his lame excuse for environmental policy "The Clear Skies Act" (which thankfully even a republican congress could see was full of shit).

Quote :

"Clear Skies is modeled on the cap-and-trade provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act's extremely successful Acid Rain program. * Mandatory emission reductions would be achieved through a cap-and-trade program. * Federally enforceable emissions limits (or "caps") for each pollutant would be established. * Sources would be able to transfer these authorized emission limits among themselves to achieve the required reductions at the lowest cost. * Clear Skies would not replace the authority of state and local government to set source-specific emissions limits to ensure that ambient air quality standards will be met."

http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/basic.html

6/6/2007 12:18:11 AM

And W got the idea from those environment-hating, profit-driven Europeans!! ....

A Cap-and-Trade policy for greenhouse gases have been in place in the EU for more than 2 years. It's a learning process for both businesses and policymakers. Try to keep up.

here's a recent link:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/g8_cap_and_trade.html


[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 12:30 AM. Reason : 2]

6/6/2007 12:28:08 AM

Quote :

"Unless otherwise noted, the data presented throughout this Web site reflect EPA’s 2003 modeling and analysis of the President's Clear Skies Act of 2003."

From the very site I linked above.

2005 > 2003

Try to keep up.

6/6/2007 12:32:11 AM

You're trying to say that the EU copied from W's proposal for the Clear Skies Act? Are you joking?

The Europeans were hatching this idea before Bush even came into office. Here's a paper about Denmark's cap-and-trade program which was started in 1999.

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/DocRoot/6FsOBJXLaLck3X9FToIp/Danish_CO2_cap_Final.pdf

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : 2]

6/6/2007 12:40:55 AM

Quote :

"In fact, here's how you can prove your point-- name me a single scientific organization that recognized the consensus only as a result of the report."

Boone-tard

How about sixteen of them?

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

Quote :

"In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."

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

But it doesn’t matter. No matter how much evidence you present to Boone-tard he clings ever more desperately to his failed ideology. Here is an example, from this very thread, of him tauntingly calling for "peer-reviewed" evidence against the consensus. When I produced multiple papers, all Boone-tard did was offer his typical and stupid scoffing--because he lacks the capacity to debate the issue on the merits.

Quote :

"1. Cite a peer-reviewed article that goes against the consensus 2. Cite a peer-reviewed article that explains how current scientists are using 'bad' science"

Boone

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755&page=7

And my response:

Quote :

"Link to multiple peer-reviewed climate science papers critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the so-called consensus:"

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

6/6/2007 1:37:43 AM

I never mentioned the EU. You did. I am saying that it's not just capitalism hating, sandal wearing, hippy environmentalists who are trying to advocate for cap and trade. But I guess W. gets a free pass, right?

6/6/2007 2:53:00 AM

"They call this a consensus?"

Quote :

"'Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.' So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable. Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent. More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series."

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Quote :

"Lawrence Solomon, one of Canada's leading environmentalists, is a proponent of efficient, high-density cities and of competition in municipal services through deregulation and privatization. He is also an authority on public utilities, and regulation. In the late 1970s, he was an advisor to President Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report). His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), which popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s, became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life. He has since been at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement and movements to reform the World Bank and foreign aid agencies."

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=547


[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 4:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2007 4:05:29 AM

Quote :

""1. Cite a peer-reviewed article that goes against the consensus 2. Cite a peer-reviewed article that explains how current scientists are using 'bad' science" Boone http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755&page=7 And my response: Quote : "Link to multiple peer-reviewed climate science papers critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the so-called consensus:" http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf "

You seem to have a habit of posting things you haven't read, or at least read properly.

The Friends of Science link is intriguing, but upon closer inspection, a majority of those aren't objections to global warming. They are individual studies that an editor has taken out of context (since their conclusions and global warming are not mutually exclusive). The entire second section can pretty much be thrown out as an objection to the IPCCs assay of global warming, because they actually DO consider the impact of the sun (noting 50% of temp variability was due to sun pre industrial revolution), but CO2 concentrations are quickly becoming a primary factor.

The sea-level rise section they have is a joke. They have one study that says "it's not possible to measure sea level rise" then another that says "sea levels are rising but not as much as we thought." In terms of support the case for anti-climate change, that's a pretty piss-poor way of doing it. They actually do this throughout... in the solar section, they have a study showing the north atlantic is warming due to the sun, then in the ocean section, they have studies showing the north atlantic might actually be cooling.

Those studies don't show that humans aren't causing global warming. They show that warming is occurring, but humans MIGHT not be the worst of it. At BEST that bibliography entry compilation results in a stand off WRT the anthropogenic global warming issue.

In fact, the very first stated conclusion there is this:

Quote :

"The recent warming of the earth’s surface (~0.4°C ) is significantly influenced by human activity on ground like urbanization, land- use change etc. The warming due solely to human- added CO2 appears to be a smaller part of the total recent warming. "

Even an organization whose sole purpose is to discount global warming to try and get Kyoto Protocol actions thrown out (the "Friends of Science" ) can't completely say humans aren't affecting the climate. The BEST that these DOUBTERS can even say is "it's not as bad as you think" which still means we shouldn't ignore it, and in fact, should do something about it.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf

That's the IPCC scientific report section on the climate models. You can see that they are not chicken littles running around in a paranoid frenzy. They're pretty well balanced on their views and the methodologies are carefully explained.

edit:

I read most of the National Post thing too and most of that is the same tactic of taking things out of context.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 5:03 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2007 5:00:33 AM

^

1. Your post is bullshit--as usual.

2. The title of the report follows (note that it is the short version):

Questioning the Global Warming Science:
An annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers
(Short Version)

3. The papers are all peer-reviewed and do not support the so-called consensus and the so-called science of global warming, which was the point.

4. Why didn't you post the entire list of summaries and conclusions? Talk about taking something out of context--no matter, I'll post them for you:

Summary & Conclusions

1. The recent warming of the earth’s surface (~0.4°C ) is significantly influenced by human
activity on ground like urbanization, land-use change etc. The warming due solely to human-added CO2 appears to be a smaller part of the total recent warming.

2. Solar variability and changes in large-scale atmospheric flow patterns in recent years have
also contributed to some of the recent warming of the earth’s surface.

3. The Arctic basin temperature changes of the last 125 years, appear to be intimately linked to
the Total Soar Irradiance (TSI) while showing a weak correlation with atmospheric CO2
concentrations.

4. The earth’s climate experienced Rapid Climate Change during the entire Holocene period.
and in particular during the last 5000 years or so. Ice core and other proxy data document
mid-Holocene warming of the Arctic as well as the Antarctic. This Holocene warming
appears to be strongly linked to solar variability and not to the greenhouse gas forcing.

5. There does not appear any discernible link between Global Warming and recent increase in
extreme weather events world-wide. The apparent increase in extreme weather events is
more a perception than reality, this perception being created due to increased media
attention and publicity of extreme weather events.

6. North Atlantic hurricanes appear to have strengthened in recent years; however typhoons
and tropical cyclones in other ocean basins do not show consistent increase in strength in
recent years.

7. The Sea Level Rise of the 20th century is influenced significantly by inter-decadal variability.
The most recent study (published January 2007) shows that the sea-level change in the last
fifty years were smaller than those in the early part of the 20th century. There is no evidence
of accelerated sea-level change in recent years.

8. Present state-of-the-art coupled climate models still cannot simulate many important
features of major climate events like El Nino South oscillation and tropical and/or Asian
Monsoon at this time. The climate models do not simulate many features of convective or
large-scale precipitation characteristics.

9. The Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic has exhibited considerable variability in
the 20th century; however this variability appears to be part of natural multi-decadal climate
variability and does not appear to be linked to Global Warming.

10. Future projections of earth’s climate using present climate models do not have sufficient
reliability for climate policy decisions.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

You're nothing more than a sophist.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 5:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2007 5:25:45 AM

Quote :

"In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."

1) We're talking about the 2007 report-- this was published in 2001.

2) This quote says "the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science." Not "The IPCC report is the consensus," or "The IPCC report created the consensus." It clearly states that the report represented an existing consesus. Great reading comprehension skills, dude.

2) In order to fail at even making that small point, you've just admitted that there's a consensus from all major science academies. gg on that.

3) None of the studies from the bibliography you listed cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change. They question the extent of humanity's impact, and the extent of other factors, but not anthropogenic climate change itself. Way to show off that reading comprehension again.

4) There you go quoting that Canadian again. gg. This one obscure guy trumps the 16 national science academies.

6/6/2007 11:27:57 AM

All the usefulness of this thread ended about 7-8 pages ago

6/6/2007 1:24:34 PM

^^ You're so goddamned stupid it's unbelievable. I shudder to think what kind of revisionist history indoctrination you may be subjecting young people to.

Let's review how this exchange got started:

Quote :

"In fact, here's how you can prove your point-- name me a single scientific organization that recognized the consensus only as a result of the report."

Boone-tard

Quote :

"In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science."

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

Quote :

"1) We're talking about the 2007 report-- this was published in 2001."

You may not want to talk about 2001, but I'm talking about the so-called consensus. Clearly, the "scientific" organizations at issue simply recognized--and adopted--the IPCC position as THE consensus.

Quote :

"2) This quote says 'the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science.' Not 'The IPCC report is the consensus,' or 'The IPCC report created the consensus.' It clearly states that the report represented an existing consesus. Great reading comprehension skills, dude."

Great spelling, dude ("consesus" [sic])--and the word "existing" was not in the quotation at issue. YOUR quotation is a total and typical misrepresentation. If this existing consensus that you CLAIM existed was so widespread, you should be able to show overwhelming evidence of it, yes? Let's see it. And why did the 16 academies even need to acknowledge the IPCC position? One would think that the weight of a 16-country joint statement would be enough--but here are a few problems:

Quote :

"A Gallup poll at the time [1992] reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable."

Quote :

"What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. 'The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,' the IPCC Secretariat responded. 'The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.'"

Quote :

"A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Quote :

"2) [AGAIN!] In order to fail at even making that small point, you've just admitted that there's a consensus from all major science academies. gg on that."

I can count. Apparently, you can't--way to make a four-point five-point list. GG on that! And there are scientists all over the world that disagree with the academies, too.

Quote :

"3) None of the studies from the bibliography you listed cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change. They question the extent of humanity's impact, and the extent of other factors, but not anthropogenic climate change itself. Way to show off that reading comprehension again."

Well, guess what? The papers cast a hell of a lot of doubt on the cause for any warming to be C02--and that's what Al Gore and the other alarmists are saying IS the cause. Because if the cause is NOT C02, so-called carbon offsets--usually planting fucking trees--won't do a goddamned thing to ameliorate the effects of, say, urbanization, for example. And I see what a lot of you are doing in trying to shift from mentioning C02 to mentioning "anthropogenic." Nice try.

Quote :

"4) There you go quoting that Canadian again. gg. This one obscure guy trumps the 16 national science academies."

Are you discriminating against Canadians or something? Fucking xenophobe! Lawrence Solomon has done a series of reports on his interviews with "The Deniers" (highly respected scientists that dispute various aspects of global warming hysteria), and he lists multiple surveys of scientists and environmental professionals. He is NOT just reporting the opinion of one guy, and he is NOT just some right-wing kook--he worked for the Carter administration, for God's sake!

I know it hurts--but you've been owned again, Boone-tard. You really suck at this.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2007 2:55:45 PM

Quote :

"3. The papers are all peer-reviewed and do not support the so-called consensus and the so-called science of global warming, which was the point. "

You clearly don't understand anything there, except what you were spoon-fed.

What part of those conclusions goes against climate change? Do you realize that they are ALL (except the last one which is just assertion) just saying "the climate is changing due to humans just not as bad as the IPCC thinks"? And that their reasoning for believing that, as I pointed out, is specious*?

The fact is that your wingnuts have been tricked by right-leaning media to think that the climate-changers are a bunch of left-leaning nuts, when it's really an issue of science and comprehension. I have acknowledged that the media distorts the issue, but the reality is that it's the scientists doing the studies and reaching the conclusion of climate change, as the report that YOU POSTED clearly indicates.

The only thing that document questions is the scale, which is not what you or others are arguing here. If you want to reformulate your position in light of the document YOU POSTED, that's fine, but you can't say anymore that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

* I know you are a CHASS major and don't understand science (or logic it seems), so I'll spell things out for you, regarding those conclusions:
1. Without stating how much smaller the variation is, this is meaningless. Plus, it at least goes against 2-G in the biblio. So do they believe co2 is a problem, or not? Which is it? Seems like they want it both ways.
2. This has absolutely no bearing on the IPCC reports, because they acknowledge the sun's effect, and determining future atmospheric flow is the part of the point.
3. This is an issue of scale, not existence.
4. Has no bearing to IPCC. IPCC acknowledges natural affects, but states humans add on top of this, which is also what these people say in 1. This slightly contradicts at least their 7-a item too.
5. This contradicts number 6, where it is noted that hurricanes in the atlantic have in fact been getting stronger
6. Contradicts number 5
7. This is actually a valid criticism, from other things i've read, but this contradicts their 3-b
8. This is true, for the predictability of those specific events, but the models work reasonably well for the longer trends, which is what climate change scientists are concerned with. El Nino/la nina are fairly short term anomalies
9. I haven't read anything about this, so I won't comment
10. an assertion without reasonable basis... if you think the IPCC is jumping to conclusions, what do you call this?


Also, the authors of 2-d and 4-e there are cited at least once in that section of the IPCC report.
The authors of 3-B and 3-C are actually member scientist to the IPCC working study group. There are probably more authors that occur in both documents, but that's all I care to find for you right now.

Quote :

"4. Why didn't you post the entire list of summaries and conclusions? Talk about taking something out of context--no matter, I'll post them for you: "

Haha, I knew you were going to say that. I was just demonstrating how much fun it is to take things out of context.


[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2007 3:16:15 PM

Oh, and since you seem to be in a mood to accept the word of scientists, here is the bibliography on just 1 of the sections of the IPCC study (the section on the climate models):
This is just 1 of the 12 pages of references too, btw:

Abdalati, W., et al., 2001: Outlet glacier and margin elevation changes: 
Near-coastal thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 
33729–33741. 
ACIA, 2004: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA): Impacts of a 
Warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 140 pp. 
Adams, P.J., et al., 2001: General circulation model assessment of direct 
radiative forcing by the sulfate-nitrate-ammonium-water inorganic 
aerosol system. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1097–1111. 
Allen, M.R., 1999: Do-it-yourself climate prediction. Nature, 401, 627. 
Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in 
climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232. 
Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic 
climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228. 
Allen, M.R., D.J. Frame, J.A. Kettleborough, and D.A. Stainforth, 2006a: 
Model error in weather and climate forecasting. In: Predictability of 
Weather and Climate [Palmer, T., and R. Hagedorn (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 391–427. 
Allen, M.R., et al., 2000: Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of 
anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 407, 617–620. 
Allen, M.R., et al., 2006b: Observational constraints on climate sensitivity. 
In: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change [Schellnhuber, H.J., et al. 
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 281–289. 
Alley, R.B., P.U. Clark, P. Huybrechts, and I. Joughin, 2005a: Ice-sheet and 
sea-level changes. Science, 310, 456–460. 
Alley, R.B., T.K. Dupont, B.R. Parizek, and S. Anandakrishnan, 2005b: 
Access of surface meltwater to beds of sub-freezing glaciers: Preliminary 
insights. Ann. Glaciol., 40, 8–14. 
Alley, R.B., et al., 2002: Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. 
US National Research Council Report, National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC, 230 pp. 
Amann, M., et al., 2004: The RAINS Model. Documentation of the Model 
Approach Prepared for the RAINS Peer Review 2004. International 
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 156 pp. 
Ammann, C.M., G.A. Meehl, W.M. Washington, and C.S. Zender, 2003: A 
monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations 
of 20th century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1657. 
Andronova, N.G., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2001: Objective estimation of the 
probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 
106, 22605–22612. 
Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2006: Using multiple observationally-
based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 
L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259. 
Annan, J.D., J.C. Hargreaves, N.R. Edwards, and R. Marsh, 2005a: 
Parameter estimation in an intermediate complexity earth system model 
using an ensemble Kalman filter. Ocean Modelling, 8, 135–154. 
Annan, J.D., et al., 2005b: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with 
ensembles of paleoclimate simulations. Scienti
ic Online Letters on the 
Atmosphere, 1, 181–184. 
Arblaster, J.M., and G.A. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcings 
to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim., 19, 2896–2905. 
Arora, V.K., and G.J. Boer, 2001: Effects of simulated climate change on 
the hydrology of major river basins. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3335–3348.
Arzel, O., T. Fichefet, and H. Goosse, 2006: Sea ice evolution over the 20th 
and 21st centuries as simulated by current AOGCMs. Ocean Modelling, 
12, 401–415. 
Ashrit, R.G., K. Rupa Kumar, and K. Krishna Kumar, 2001: ENSO-
monsoon relationships in a greenhouse warming scenario. Geophys. 
Res. Lett., 28, 1727–1730. 
Ashrit, R.G., H. Douville, and K. Rupa Kumar, 2003: Response of the 
Indian monsoon and ENSO-monsoon teleconnection to enhanced 
greenhouse effect in the CNRM coupled model. J. Meteorol. Soc. 
Japan, 81, 779–803. 


Ashrit, R.G., A. Kitoh, and S. Yukimoto, 2005: Transient response of 
ENSO-monsoon teleconnection in MRI.CGCM2 climate change 
simulations. J. Meteorol. Soc. Japan, 83, 273–291. 
Austin, J., and N. Butchart, 2003: Coupled chemistry-climate model 
simulations for the period 1980 to 2020: Ozone depletion and the start 
of ozone recovery. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 129, 3225–3249. 
Bahr, D.B., M.F. Meier, and S.D. Peckham, 1997: The physical basis of 
glacier volume-area scaling. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 20355–20362. 
Banks, H., R.A. Wood, and J.M. Gregory, 2002: Changes to Indian Ocean 
subantarctic mode water in a coupled climate model as CO2 forcing 
increases. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 32, 2816–2827. 
Barnett, D.N., et al., 2006: Quantifying uncertainty in changes in extreme 
event frequency in response to doubled CO2 using a large ensemble of 
GCM simulations. Clim. Dyn., 26, 489–511. 
Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and E. Roeckner, 2006: Storm tracks and 
climate change. J. Clim., 19, 3518–3543. 
Beniston, M., 2004: The 2003 heat wave in Europe: A shape of things 
to come? An analysis based on Swiss climatological data and model 
simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L02202. 
Berger, A., and M.F. Loutre, 2002: An exceptionally long interglacial 
ahead? Science, 297, 1287–1288. 
Berthelot, M., et al., 2002: Global response of the terrestrial biosphere to 
CO2 and climate change using a coupled climate-carbon cycle model. 
Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 1084. 
Bertrand, C., J.P. Van Ypersele, and A. Berger, 2002: Are natural climate 
forcings able to counteract the projected global warming. Clim. Change, 
55, 413–427. 
Bi, D.H., W.F. Budd, A.C. Hirst, and X.R. Wu, 2001: Collapse and 
reorganisation of the Southern Ocean overturning under global warming 
in a coupled model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3927–3930. 
Bindschadler, R., 1998: Future of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Science, 
282, 428–429. 
Bitz, C.M., and G.H. Roe, 2004: A mechanism for the high rate of sea-ice 
thinning in the Arctic Ocean. J. Clim., 18, 3622–3631. 
Bitz, C.M., et al., 2006: The in
luence of sea ice on ocean heat uptake in 
response to increasing CO2. J. Clim., 19, 2437–2450. 
Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003a: Climate sensitivity and response. Clim. Dyn., 
20, 415–429. 
Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003b: Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity. 
Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1135. 
Bond, T.C., et al., 2004: A technology-based global inventory of black 
and organic carbon emissions from combustion. J. Geophys. Res., 109, 
D14203, doi:10.1029/2003JD003697. 
B
¨nisch, G., et al., 1997: Long-term trends of temperature, salinity, density, 
and transient tracers in the central Greenland Sea. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 
18553–18571. 
Bony, S., and J.-L. Dufresne, 2005: Marine boundary layer clouds at the 
heart of cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys. Res. 
Lett., 32, L20806, doi:10.1029/2005GL023851. 
Bony, S., et al., 2004: On dynamic and thermodynamic components of 
cloud changes. Clim. Dyn., 22, 71–86. 
Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate 
change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482. 
Bosilovich, M.G., S.D. Schubert, and G.K. Walker, 2005: Global changes 
of the water cycle intensity. J. Clim., 18, 1591–1608. 
Boucher, O., and M. Pham, 2002: History of sulfate aerosol radiative 
forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, L1308, doi:10.1029/2001GL014048. 
Box, J.E., et al., 2006: Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance variability 
(1988-2004) from calibrated Polar MM5 output. J. Clim., 19, 2783– 
2800. 
Brabson, B.B., D.H. Lister, P.D. Jones, and J.P. Palutikof, 2005: Soil 
moisture and predicted spells of extreme temperatures in Britain. J. 
Geophys. Res., 110, D05104, doi:10.1029/2004JD005156. 
Bradley, R.S., F.T. Keimig, and H.F. Diaz, 2004: Projected temperature 
changes along the American cordillera and the planned GCOS network. 
Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L16210, doi:10.1029/2004GL020229.

6/6/2007 3:16:43 PM

So,

I'm stupid, I misspelled a word, and I used "2" twice in a list.

Great rebuttal there.

Quote :

"You may not want to talk about 2001, but I'm talking about the so-called consensus. Clearly, the "scientific" organizations at issue simply recognized--and adopted--the IPCC position as the consensus. "

Again, This quote says "the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science."

"The IPCC report is the consensus?"

"The IPCC report creates the consensus?"

No. it represents the consensus. The preexisting consensus.

This is once again assuming we're talking about the 2001 report, which we weren't, but thanks for butting in on a debate you clearly weren't following. The entire reason that the 2007 report is key is that you guys supposedly have evidence against it (although that evidence sucks as much as all your other "evidence").

Quote :

"And why did the 16 academies need to acknowledge the IPCC position? One would think that the weight of 16-country joint statement would be enough"

The report was a summary of science for political uses. Maybe it would be helpful for a political report on science to have the backing of the scientific community.

Quote :

"[...]it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.""

So did they not actually ask their opinions on anthropogenic climate change?

Largely responsible for current changes?
Prioritizing limiting carbon emissions?
Hurricanes being natural?

Jesus, talk about quote mining. None of these questions actually ask scientists what they think on the issue. Why are all the figures this guy chose to select so roundabout?

Quote :

"Well, guess what? The papers cast a hell of a lot of doubt on the cause for any warming to be C02--and that's what Al Gore and others are saying is the cause. "

Where does it say that? Where, exactly, do those studies question whether or not CO2 emissions have an effect on climate? I see studies questioning the degree of the impact, but that's it.

Quote :

"He is reporting much MORE than the opinion of one guy"

He is reporting quote-mining much MORE than the opinion of one guy


Until you have more than a bunch of cherry-picked figures by some obscure scientist, keep your moonbattery to yourself.

6/6/2007 3:21:01 PM

Quote :

"Scope & Purpose of the Document This Document presents an annotated bibliography of selected peer-reviewed papers which question the current state of the Global Warming science. Seven major areas of the Global Warming science are identified and followed by a list of key papers questioning the present assessment."

1. Temperature reconstruction using proxy data: The Hockey-Stick Graph

The following studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockeystick
graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions.
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature
series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-
682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution
proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on
Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of
Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O
stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p.
741-751

2. Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science
Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review
Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,
Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones
during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as
identified through sunspot cycles.
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?”
Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for
solar impact on the earth’s climate.
3
g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13
(2003) p.4-10
Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometer”, how the earth’s temperature over last 500
million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation
with variations in the cosmic ray flux.
h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface
air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol.
32 (2005) L16712
Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface
temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.
i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p.
147-154
Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several
Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the
last 600 years.
j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability” Hengyi
Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot
numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures.
k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst.
Of Physics USA
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for
solar impact on the earth’s climate.
l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J
West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its
linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature
record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its
linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B
Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

6/6/2007 3:30:04 PM

3. Sea-level rise, ocean surface warming/cooling etc.

Sea-level Rise
a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and
Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182
In the region of Maldives a general fall in sea-level rise occurred some 30 years ago.
b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period” J A Church et al
J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625
Analyzes patterns of regional sea level rise over the period 1950-2000 and concludes that
it is not possible to detect a significant sea level rise over this period anywhere.
c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming” Sarah
Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V. 439 (2006) p. 311-313
Projects sea level rise from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland &
Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections.
4
d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical
Research V.111(2006) C09012
Obtains global sea level rise trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000
e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century” S J Holgate Geophysical
Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492
Analyses nine long and continuous records of sea level changes from 1904 through 2003.
Sea level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953. 1954-2003, sea-level change is
found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr.
Ocean Surface Warming/Cooling
a. “The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998” A Kumar et al J of Climate 14
(2001)p.345-353
Shows how the sustained North American land warming was primarily due to the intense
El Nino event of 1997/98, which produced and maintained high sea surface temperature
values over the Pacific basin, as well as other ocean basins through the middle of 1998.
b. “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” J Lyman J Willis & G Johnson Geophysical Research Letters
33 (2006) L18604
Documented cooling of the upper oceans and in particular of the southern north Atlantic.
c. “Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or
cooling?” V Ivchenko N Wells & D Aleynik Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L22606
Data from the Argo profiling buoys are analyzed for the North Atlantic, and found that the
southern north Atlantic has cooled in the last seven years.
d. “How much is the ocean really warming?” V Gouretski & K P Koltermann Geophysical Research
Letters 34 (2007) L01610
Studies global hydrographic data, as provided by bathythermographs, and found a
warming bias when the bathythermographs data are compared against bottle and current
temperature density data.

4. Arctic & Antarctic temperatures: from Holocene to present

a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey
& J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790
Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were
probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago.
b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13
January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)
Documents a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data.
c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V
Polyakov et al J ournal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077
Presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin,
and documents strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years.
d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255
Identifies Rapid Climate Change throughout the Holocene, involving cool polar regions
and wet (or dry) tropical regions.
e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek, J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004)
63 p. 201-221
Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average
annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.
f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic
Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442
Shows a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5°C warmer than present.
5
g. “Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1990-2005” P. Chylek, M K Dubey & G Lesins Geophysical
Research Letters 33 (2006) L11707
Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average
annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.
h. “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century” B M Winter et al J of
Geophysical Research 111 (2006) D11105
Extends Greenland temperature records back to the year 1784. The 1930s and the 1940s
were the warmest decades, with 1941 as the warmest year.
i. “Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula” C J
Pudsey et al Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) p. 2357-2379
Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were
probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago. Further concludes that the CO2
concentration was about 100 ppm lower than at present.

6/6/2007 3:30:28 PM

5. Impact of large-scale circulation patterns

a. “A study of NAO variability and its possible non-linear influences on European surface
temperatures” D Pozo-Vazquez et al Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17 (2001) p. 701-715
Shows that a positive value of the north Atlantic oscillation index can produce winter
season warming in Europe.
b. “Impacts of low frequency variability modes on Canadian winter temperature” B Bonsal, A Shabbar
& K Higuchi Int’l journal of Climatology, Vol. 21 (2001) p. 95-108
Shows how an El Nino event, together with positive values of the Pacific decadal
oscillation index, can provide strong positive winter temperature anomalies over most of
Canada.
c. “Are stronger North-Atlantic southwesterlies the forcing to the late-winter warming in Europe?” J
Ottermann et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 22 (2002) p. 743-750
Suggests that stronger south-westerlies in the North Atlantic may be producing early
spring-like conditions in parts of Europe.
d. “Variability of extreme temperature events in south-central Europe during the twentieth century and
its relationship with large-scale circulation” P Domonkos et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 23 (2003) p.
987-1010
Shows that a positive value of the north Atlantic oscillation index can produce winter
season warming in Europe.
e. “January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex variability and its relationship with hemispheric
temperature and regional teleconnection” R Rohli, K Wrona & M McHugh Int’l J of Climatology, Vol.
25 (2005) p. 1421-1436
Discusses the circumpolar vortex and its linkage to both the Atlantic oscillation variability,
and the Pacific North American pattern.

6. Extraneous influence on mean temperature trends: urbanization, landuse
change etc.

a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to
climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil.
Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719
Considered a landmark paper in the present global warming debate. This paper brings out
an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact.
b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29
May 2003, p. 528-531
Using the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA, re-analyses upper-air data and
an extrapolation to the surface, obtaining the urbanization impact on mean temperature
trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years.
6
c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol.
23, 2003, p. 1889-1905
Obtains the urban-rural temperature difference of over 20C during the winter months at
Barrow, Alaska.
d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004
Shows how anthropogenic heat released from highly industrialized and populated areas
can produce a permanent warming from 0.15° to 0.5°C.
e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P
Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173
Documents a definite warm bias in the temperature trend, as a result of non-climatic
impact of local (and regional) economic activity.
f. “Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China” L Zhou et al Proc. National
Academy of Science(USA) V. 101 (2004) p.9540-9544
Obtains urbanization impact over China to be more than the estimated 0.27°C in the USA
during the 20th century.
g. “Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface
temperature trends” A T J De Laat & A N Maurellis, International J of Climatology, 26, 2006, p. 897-
913
Studies the influence of anthropogenic surface processes on mean temperature trends,
estimated using green house gas emission world-wide database as proxy for industrial
activity. The mean temperature trends at highly industrial regions and locations were
found to be higher than elsewhere.
h. “Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico” A Velazquez-Lozada, J E Gonzalez &
A Winter, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 2006, p. 1731-1741
Documents a strong urban heat island effect at San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is estimated that
the urban-rural temperature difference could increase to about 8°C by the year 2050.

6/6/2007 3:31:27 PM

7. Uncertainties in climate model simulations of regional & global features

a. “Potential role of solar variability as an agent for climate change” C Bertrand & J Van Ypersele
Climatic Change V 43 (1999) p.387-411
It is shown that, although total solar irradiance reconstruction is insufficient to reproduce
observed warming of the 20th century, the model response suggests that the Gleissberg
cycle (~88 yr) solar forcing should not be neglected in explaining the century-scale time
variations.
b. “Simulated impacts of historical land-cover changes on global climate in northern winter” T N Chase
et al Climate Dynamics V 16 (2000) p. 93-10
The simulations suggest that anthropogenic land cover changes can produce teleconnection
patterns affecting global temperature and precipitation distributions.
c. “Monsoon prediction-why yet another failure?” S Gadgil M Rajeevan & R Nanjundiah Current
Science(India) V 88 (2005) P.1389-1400
Examines prediction of the Indian monsoon for 2004 and conclude that the skill in
forecasting the Indian summer monsoon variability has not improved in the last fifty years
d. “Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern & southern African rainfall change” M
Hoerling et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p. 3989-4008
Finds that the Sahel region drought of 1950-2000, was not influenced by the green house
gas forcing, indicating that the Sahel drought conditions were likely of natural origin.
e. “ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentieth-century climate simulations: realistic
representation?” R Joseph & S Nigam J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4360-4377
Concludes that climate models are still unable to simulate many features of El Nino
southern oscillation variability, its circulation and hydro-climatic tele-connections. Further
the climate system models are not quite ready for making projections of regional-tocontinental
scale hydro-climatic variability and change.
7
f. “Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models” Aiguo Dai J of Climate V 19
(2006) p.4605
Concludes that considerable improvements in precipitation simulations are still desirable
for the latest generation of the world’s coupled climate models.
g. “Is the thermohaline circulation changing?” M Latif et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4631-4637
Examines the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic, which is responsible for large
amounts of heat and freshwater transport by the Gulf Stream. Suggests the changes in the
thermohaline circulation during the 20th century are likely to be the result of natural multidecadal
climate variability.

8. Miscellaneous Studies

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis
Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074
Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.
b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs
climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112
Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.
c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in
the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228
Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes
during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise
in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of
tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.
d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290
Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.
e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586
Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.
f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331
Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.
g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D
Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238
Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in
the mean temperature which preceded it.
h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313
(2006)p.452-454
Suggests the Dvorak technique, developed to estimate hurricane strength, was not
available in the late 1960s and early 1970s or before, when some of the hurricanes and
tropical cyclones may have been stronger than estimated.
i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” M- C Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS
Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006
Suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal
increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 to 2004.
8
j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V
Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910
Presents a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over
geological times. The present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in
the earth’s geologic history. Human activity (anthropogenic green house gas emission)
may be responsible for only 0.01°C of the approximately 0.56°C warming of the 20th
century.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

6/6/2007 3:32:04 PM

Haha, that's funny.

I take it that's your sign for defeat? Do you realize you are wrong now?

6/6/2007 3:35:27 PM

lol

"You pointed out major flaws in my sources.

To rebut, I'll quote them again, but in further detail.

But I still won't actually read any of it."

6/6/2007 3:40:26 PM

^^ and ^ I'm not wrong--you two are just left-wing wack jobs that won't accept any relevant evidence, no matter how convincing. So go jerk each other in traffic, m'kay?

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2007 4:05:26 PM

All you have to do is actually rebut our arguments,

but, if you e-hate us that much, whatever.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2007 4:07:35 PM

Quote :

"No. it represents the consensus. The preexisting consensus. "

Actually, it looks to me like the scientific academies or whatever aren't saying there is a consensus. They are saying that the report represents the consensus. That doesn't prove one fucking bit that there actually is a consensus. It is little more than someone else claiming there is a consensus without actually proving it. Good try, though

6/6/2007 8:27:16 PM

Man, ya'll are really grasping at straws, here. Let's look at the quote again:

Quote :

"In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science."

16 national science academies issued a joint statement agreeing on something. Wouldn't you say that's a perfect example of a consensus? Among the international science community? One might even go as far as to say a *gasp* scientific consensus?

Quote :

"That doesn't prove one fucking bit that there actually is a consensus"

"[...]explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science."

The scientific consensus... that doesn't exist? The one they reference in the same sentence? They're saying that the IPCC represents the consensus, but at the same time, they're saying a consensus doesn't exist.

You're going to have to explain that one a little better.

6/6/2007 9:02:16 PM

you don't get it. They could point to Ronald McDonald and claim that he represents the consensus, but that doesn't mean there is a consensus.

try this one out. GhostHunters on Sci-Fi represents the scientific consensus that the earth is flat. Does that now mean there is a scientific consensus that the earth is flat?

6/6/2007 9:40:42 PM

anything with IPCC in it I automatically disregard.

6/6/2007 9:41:54 PM

^^Do the Ghosthunters represent 16 national scientific academies?

Are you not understanding that a joint statement of agreement by all major science academies represents a scientific consensus?

Is there a single science academy that rejects anthropogenic climate change?



^ As you should. If it's not some obscure scientist at an obscure Canadian university, you just can't trust it.

6/6/2007 9:45:13 PM

This thread has killed me. It has literally killed me. I am now dead because of the fact that this thread has gotten so motherfucking ridiculous.

6/6/2007 10:00:13 PM

^^I try to stay away from politically driven bullshit.

^so true.

6/6/2007 10:44:12 PM

This thread is 23 pages?

So, 5 pages of content, 3 pages of trolling, 2 pages of nothing, and 13 pages of repeating the first 5 pages, right?

6/6/2007 10:50:51 PM

SHUT THE FUCK UP, BLIND HATE, YOU STUPID CUNT

6/6/2007 10:52:53 PM

^^^ So the "Friends of Science" is not politically drive bullshit?

And, what do you consider not-politically driven bullshit?

Do you realize the IPCC report has 12 pages of bibliographies containing pre-existing (not commissioned by/for the IPCC) research on the issues relating to climate change?

6/7/2007 1:52:09 AM

Quote :

"but, if you e-hate us that much, whatever."

Boone-tard

Just because I suggested that you perform a sex act on your ideological soul mate in a public yet dangerous place doesn't mean that you have to accept my suggestion. And you have proved nothing here except that you are yet another Chicken Little alarmist screeching for forced adoption of your unproven positions. GROUPTHINK! OR ELSE!

Well, fuck that noise. I will fight assholes like you until I draw my last breath.

PS: NEWSFLASH--things change:

Democrats Lose Their Edge
Poll Shows Congressional Approval Ratings Have Returned to Pre-Election Levels

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3242551&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 11:28:58 AM

Can people please stop with the name calling. It makes you look immature and weakens whatnever post you have.

^^I've looked over the IPCC report and don't feel like relooking that crap up over and over. Their main point with the "hockey stick" has already been severely disproven, what more do you need.

6/7/2007 1:23:57 PM

^ The name-calling? Probably not. At my age, I'm not concerned with looking mature. But I did think of a new slogan: The Wolf Web: Your Source for Maturity.

Concerning my stand against groupthink, here's what the alarmists demand when you step out of line--even if you run NASA:

NASA's Griffin regrets global warming remarks

Quote :

"Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn't sure global warming was a problem. 'I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,' Griffin said on NPR. 'I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

PS: Here's yet another paper debunking some of the global warming hysteria:

Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion

Quote :

"If there is any human enterprise that should be free of appeal to authority, it is science, where observation and impartial analysis are supposed to reign supreme. However, when the outcome of an ongoing scientific investigation is perceived to be a powerful catalyst for governmental action by the world's community of nations, and when the leading policy prescription for those actions is something akin to a massive restructuring of the way the energy that runs the modern world is produced, distributed and used - and especially if the policy is developed before all pertinent data have been acquired and properly analyzed - this principle can easily be forgotten. In such circumstances, and even more so if the subject being studied is extremely complex - such as how human activity will impact global climate centuries into the future - and when a divergence of views develops because of ambiguities in the observations and different methods of analysis, it is important that personal opinion be clearly differentiated from demonstrable fact. Sadly, however, this distinction is hard to make on a consistent basis, even for some of the very best of the world's scientists."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 2:19:39 PM