Climate Change Skeptics

I wonder if you are able to recognize your own bias. "Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists).." yet you quote two scientists leading the skepticism.

You dismiss the fact that the global temps have been both stable and even trending downward for the past decade. You ignore the not-so-minor trivia regarding the effects of solar activity, most notably the absence of sunspots. Why not just ignore the facts that James Hansen was caught falsifying the data, to make it seem like the sky is falling.

Finally, you are blind to the possibility that "global warming" is nothing more than a feel-good facade of a scam designed to impose even more governmental regulation, taxation and control upon us, never mind that "carbon taxes" will have zero effect upon the planet's natural cycles.

One effect "global warming" definitely will have is enrich the bank accounts of guys like Al Gore.

Keep up the propaganda, PopSci. You haven't yet been able to brainwash everyone, so there's obviously work to do.

Terrible attempt of trying to balance the views of this magazine, popsci. I concur with James above, and would like to add that the tone of this article is overwhelmingly negative. Several of the claims of this article are simply not true. Perhaps President Obama will send you a "scientific" grant to spread more propaganda assisting him in his goal to dominate everything.

Since the history of science demonstrates that scientific consensuses could be wrong, appealing to scientific consensus is not going to work against what for many is a highly undesirable claim.

Since the public is wary of the celebrity chicken littles who keep pronouncing ecological doom that never comes, the battle to win the public needs an overhaul.

There is only one argument that I consider valid which is virtually unanswerable. Pronouncing certainty of ecological disaster won't work for perfectly reasonable reasons. However, the fact that the scientific consensus suggests we are heading towards disaster definitely indicates this: There is a risk, and to continue our greenhouse emissions is not worth the risk. Our food supplies from fairly steady weather patterns, our foodsupply from the oceans and our water supply, dependent upon weather patterns is not worth the risk. It doesn't matter if we have certainty about climate change or not, if we think we just might be doing something that jeopardizes our food, ecology, trillians of dollars of coastal properties, wisdom says that we really shouldn't do it. And clearly, if our most highly trained experts think we probably are engaging in such a high risk activity, then we very well are taking such a risk regardless of the absence of absolute certainty.

Ok, so you say that 2 are scientists. So that would still validate the phrase "most are not scientists", which most were not.

I find it interesting that people think they are smarter and know more about subject then such a vast consensus of experts which have been studying the topic for 30+ years.

Despite all the skeptics claims they have been unable to show that global warming is not happening.

If you do the research you'll find all the arguments you state have been addressed. Just go look it up for yourself, since you wouldn't believe me if I gave you links.

So where is your proof that Gore and Obama are out to dominate everything? Just drop the X-Files consipracy theories. I don't like Gore much myself, but that doesn't invalidate everything he says. Obama wants to pull out of Iraq and actually work with other countries, conceding to some of their needs, I would say there is evidence that he does not want to dominate everything.

You can post away, I won't post any more comments since pretty much everyone has made up their minds on this topic.

Though jward is not going to respond, I must point out the errors in his response. Saying that 2 are scientists neither validates nor nullifies the claim that most were scientists. Also, I have not denied the fact that global warming is happening (though I believe we are approaching a cooling trend). I simply disagree with the theory that climate change is anthropogenic. Also, I have been unable to locate the "vast consensus" of scientists that agree that climate change. Finally, my proof that President Obama's goal is to dominate everything is his recent direct illegal manipulation of GM (Government Motors), Chrysler, and the banks.

Surfmb70, I imagine the vast consensus jward is referring to is the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors. If he is not thinking of this group maybe he is talking about the fact that over 50 national society's of science including that of every industrialized nation on the planet agree that "global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." They all explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion. I think that may be what he is referring to.

I am a little curious of who organizes and appoints the "intergovernmental" panel members. Also I would like to know what qualifications "authors" have. The mere description of the "consensus" tells me nothing about the appointment or qualification of the "experts". The reason that every industrialized nation on the planet agree that global warming is anthropogenic is because they see an excellent opportunity to trick people into feeling guilty and to swindle them into paying indulgences to the religion of climate change.
"What goes unmentioned is the fact that the IPCC is a political body. Skeptics are critical of the IPCC because alarmists — even though they masquerade their political motivations in sanctimonious moral language — tout this nonexistent consensus in their patently political quest for massive government interventions into the economy and private life."
- http://www.examiner.com/a-1264237~Mark_Newgent__What_consensus_on_climate_change_.html
How do you like them apples?

I am a little curious of who organizes and appoints the "intergovernmental" panel members. Also I would like to know what qualifications "authors" have. The mere description of the "consensus" tells me nothing about the appointment or qualification of the "experts". The reason that every industrialized nation on the planet agree that global warming is anthropogenic is because they see an excellent opportunity to trick people into feeling guilty and to swindle them into paying indulgences to the religion of climate change.
"What goes unmentioned is the fact that the IPCC is a political body. Skeptics are critical of the IPCC because alarmists — even though they masquerade their political motivations in sanctimonious moral language — tout this nonexistent consensus in their patently political quest for massive government interventions into the economy and private life."
-http://www.examiner.com/a-1264237~Mark_Newgent__What_consensus_on_climate_change_.html
How do you like them apples?

It seems people on both sides of the issue are suspect of each others motivations. It appears to me that most people that refuse to admit climate change has any relationship to human activity would maintain their stance until the system as we know it comes apart, nothing short of total failure would satisfy them. Much like those backing unregulated markets supported them until the very end when the machine broke down and the bill for their blindness came due. Many of them are already popping back up to argue that it was regulation rather than the lack of regulation that caused our recent financial collapse, or coincidentally that it was all just cyclical and bound to happen.

Generally speaking, the folks I have seen refuting issues like these are fanatically against government of almost any kind and universally blame the ills of the world on a myriad of global conspiracy theories and selective pseudo fact soundbites cooked up by corporate backed sham groups of scientists who are willing to sacrifice their principles for profit.

Its all very reminiscent of the groups of scientists brought together to refute the "theory" that smoking was bad for you. The same tactics were used. For 20 years after general scientific opinion said smoking was bad for the health, doubters and those scientists employed to seed doubt about whether cigarette smoking was related to health issues managed to prolong claims that there was no connection. "Kools keep the head clear and give extra protection against colds."

It wasn't until 1999 that Philip Morris acknowledged scientific consensus on smoking, finally admitting just 10 years ago that "There is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers". I imagine there are still those of you on this very thread that would still refute that connection.

Its all very reminiscent of the groups of scientists brought together to refute the "theory" that smoking was bad for you. The same tactics were used. For 20 years after general scientific opinion said smoking was bad for the health, doubters and those scientists employed to seed doubt about whether cigarette smoking was related to health issues managed to prolong claims that there was no connection. "Kools keep the head clear and give extra protection against colds." [snip]

Yes but the shoe is on the other foot in this case. The AGW alarmists are the ones who get research grants from politicians seeking to impose all sorts of new taxes be they cap and trade or a simple carbon tax. Plus, there's Al Gore and all the money he's got invested in "green" energy that is only viable if oil and coal are made more expensive. It's ironic given that the alarmists used to tag skeptics as being "bought" by Exxon when folks like Hansen have taken millions from places like the Heinz foundation.

But, consensus or not, the real issue is the accuracy of the predictions that determine if a theory is valid. The 2005 IPCC report predicted temps would continue to rise to record highs. In 2007 and 2008, temps fell at record rates. Computer models predicted that the Antarctic would warm when in fact it has cooled. Snow has come back to Kilimanjaro. Atlantic hurricanes are fewer and much milder than in 2005. The glacial melt in Greenland has slowed. The Arctic was no ice-free last year. It's raining in Australia again. All predictions attributed to global warming (the opposite that is). All predictions that turned out wrong.

As for the "few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature", if you're going to criticize an argument, get it right. Satellite temps show only a .12 C warming in the last 30 years. The only abnormally warm year was 1998's El Nino. Since then, temps have been on the decline. Point to Hansen's GISS numbers all you want but they use surface station monitors and there's plenty of evidence that monitors are misplaced near artificial heat sources.

Geez, at least bring back the Green Grok for this. He at least can characterize the skeptics argument better than this amateur attempt at objectivity.

The Antarctica cooling controversy exemplifies how weak the argument of the doubt seeders is. It has already been completely and thoroughly refuted. The "controversy" relates to questions posed in popular media regarding whether or not current temperature trends in Antarctica cast doubt on global warming. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. Trends elsewhere on the continent show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed; but more recent results from Steig et al. show warming over the entire continent. Climate models predict that temperature trends due to global warming will be much smaller in Antarctica than in the Arctic, mainly because heat uptake by the Southern Ocean acts to moderate the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.

There is no similar controversy within the scientific community, as the small observed changes in Antarctica are consistent with the small changes predicted by climate models. Various global warming skeptics, most notably novelist Michael Crichton, have asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming. The few scientists who have commented on the supposed controversy state that there is no contradiction, while the author of the paper whose work inspired Crichton's remarks has said that Crichton "misused" his results.

In a more recent study released in 2009, historical weather station data was combined with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors, Eric J. Steig of the University of Washington, stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."

The global warming hysteria is caused by two main factors:

1. Politicans looking for votes under the guise of being "green".
2. Scientists looking for research funding by above politicians and left leaning government and university organizations.

There are no votes to be had or money to be won, by proving that man is not the primary contributer to global warming.

The only undisputable fact about global warming, is that it is in constant flux.

This whole idea of a "consensus" in science is a red herring - that's not how real science is done. We don't do science by taking votes of what 'experts' think about it (whether the experts are scientists or not). We call something a scientific theory when it makes accurate predictions of future events that are observable/verifiable. Newton, Einstein, and many, many other scientists have been laughed at by their 'expert' peers who didn't bother to actually attempt to investigate a hypothesis fairly and objectively. "The truth doesn't care whose mouth it comes out of."

So what is the "hypothesis" of global warming? That it's human-caused? That's a pretty vague hypothesis. How much is human-caused, and how much is natural? Describe the experiment to prove this. Part of the problem is (as has often been said) the earth is an experiment without a control.

Here's the answer I want the global climate change faction to answer: If nothing is changed, how much would the average global temperature rise in the next year, 2 years, and 5 years? (to reasonable precision, i.e. a fraction of a degree) If we really have a good climatology model, this is a simple question, and easily checked by just waiting a little. And sorry, but I'm not interested in estimates about the year 2100, anybody can make claims that far out, none of us will be around to check it.

Hell, there is no global climate change! It's a left wing, godless, ultra liberal, socialist conspiracy.

Let's give it every nasty name we can think of, but make sure that we don't for an instant consider that this awesome climate upheaval is a very real possibility.

In in final analysis: are you willing to take the horrendous responsibility in the denying that the climate is likely affected by humans, and that we are at a possible brink of tilting the balance to the point that the climate shift will take on its own momentum, and become in the short term (earth billions of years perspective) irreversible. Are we willing to take that chance, and do nothing to alter our cultural behavior even in the remote chance that this climate alteration is our fault and is in fact happening?

"Punk, make my day mentality?" Is this the kind of gamble that you are willing to leave your children?

I guess I am a chicken, and do worry that we are facing a very serious moment in human history. I am not willing to take this insane gamble with my children's future, and I am ashamed that the climate change deniers would be so callous as to be willing to take this horrific risk.

Finally for those of you with a religious bent--consider what your God commanded you to do: Go forth and prosper, and be a good steward of the land. Does that give you a hint of how you should be acting?

The Antarctica cooling controversy exemplifies how weak the argument of the doubt seeders is.[snip]

Mking's got it exactly backwards. the global warming theory predicted more warming at the poles...until the poles showed cooling. Then the theory got reworked.

The interesting thing about Steig is that he relied on bad data selectively mixing data from the "Harry" and "Gill" stations. Steig also has the same problem using surface station data that Hansen has except instead of having the sensors near artificial heat sources, the Antarctic ones got covered in snow insulating them from sub-zero temps.

Satellite data shows the Antarctic cooling. The waters around the Antarctic peninsula has warmed but that's more likely caused by ENSO/MDO and/or underwater volcanic activity.

I agree with the above comment. I am a Christian and as such, we do have a responsibility to take care of our planet. However, I do not think climate change is a legitimate threat. I think everyone is blowing the whole thing way out of proportion. I'm not saying that we should start burning down forests and pulling out our aerosol cans. Our acts definitely do damage to the environment (all the things we flush down the drains and into the streams and rivers).

Not to beat a dead horse here, but the "theory" of evolution and the "fact" that god doesn't exist is also widely accepted by a vast majority of scientists. Personally, I am 10 billion percent confident that the opposite is true.

Also, I don't see global warming at all when here in Washington state we've had massive amounts of snowfall this year, including some last Wednesday.

I do not think anyone here has a scientific background including the author to make a educated defence on either side of the issue here. All we can do is quote what others have wrote i.e "scientist", or not "scientist". Certainly it is apparent the author is writing for some earth magazine and there is definitely bias in his argument. It is also apparent that the issue by many seems by and large to be influenced by ones political view/s.

Fact:
On a side note I find it interesting that Icemen, Mammoths and Saber tooth tigers are found buried in the ice and it is just a guess we will find more as the ice melts. I am wondering if global warming was happening back then before they were buried under tons of ice.

common sense:

I think we should do our part to keep our rivers clean and our foods free of pesticides. There should be controls on industrial chemical use. We can do better then we are doing.
I think we will kill off the human race that way before global warming is a issue, but hey its just my opinion and I'm not a scientist.

A quick history lesson:

Joseph Fourier in 1827 figured out that there were some gases in the atmosphere keeping the Earth warm.

John Tyndall in the 1860s identified water vapor and Carbon Dioxide as greenhouse gases.

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280 --> 560) would lead to about 5-6 degrees of warming, and would take 3000 years at estimated rates of emissions.

110 years ago and we already knew most of the basics.

Obviously, we have seen that a doubling of CO2 would not take anywhere near 3000 years at current rates of emissions, but it is looking like Arrhenius is not too far off. Most models estimate that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about 3 degrees of warming, but have some results which show a doubling could lead to a maximum of 6-12 degrees of warming.

The disturbing part of this is that the IPCC models predict 500-1000 ppm CO2 by 2100(emphasis on by). Scepticists claim the models either claim too much CO2 in the atmosphere or that the CO2 won't do as much as predicted by the corrupted IPCC scientists. When we look at the Eocene (55-36m years ago), we are looking at the last time the Earth saw 500-1000 ppm of CO2. That period had palm trees in Wyoming, pine forests in Antarctica, crocodiles in the Arctic, and sea levels 300 ft above today's levels. Feed the information of the Eocene into the models that predict 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2, and the Eocene appears TOO COLD to account for the fossil evidence. Give it models that predict 6-12 degrees, and you get conditions which are JUST RIGHT.

So, the corrupt IPCC models are wrong, but they might be predicting that the future is colder than it actually will be? Now that doesn't fit in with the scepticist requirement that the IPCC be a force for the "pseudo-green" industry and the socialists and fascists trying to enforce state domination of global industry, while these same states repeatedly refuse to agree to any internationally binding CO2 regulatory agreement.

I do understand that using fossil evidence from millions of years ago as an analogue to future climate is difficult, but the implications are clear. Magical sunspots or other solar phenomena do not account for millions of years of profound warming; CO2 does.

My info here comes from David Battisti at the University of Washington (which I guess is a bastion of liberal bias and corrupt scientific reporting, as some here would argue)

Now to answer a few specific claims.

jchristenson07: Yes, global warming is a dominant force in funding decisions for current science, but wouldn't you agree that the scientist who could prove beyond a doubt that global warming was fake would get tenure and plenty of dough through books and speaking events? It seems that if scientists really just wanted money, then disproving the whole shebang, in a way convincing to the public and to other scientists, would be a much better claim to fame and dough.

Daverich: All these climate models are already verifiable in a convincing way. They can predict with a high degree of accuracy what has happened over the past century or so, of which we have good records of. Just plug in the conditions of 1900, and see what the model shows through 2000. All the good models do this, and do this well when given all the relevant variables. Waiting to see the trend over the next 4-5 years isn't necessary.

Also, to answer your question about the vagueness of anthropogenic global warming, the way I think about it is like a bathroom sink. Now, if you turn on the faucet slowly, the drain allows all of the water out. As you increase the flow, the drain eventually reaches capacity. If you stop there, you have a good analogue to the pre-industrial carbon cycle. Plants die and volcanoes explode, releasing CO2 (water from the faucet), and rocks and the oceans and plants consume the CO2 (water down the drain), keeping the CO2 level stable.
Now, if you increase the flow, water begins to build up in the sink. At pre-industrial levels, "water" (CO2) had built up to a level of 280 parts per million in our atmospheric "sink". Since then, the level of "water" in our "sink" has been going up, meaning that something has increased the flow or restricted the drain. Even if that increase was minuscule compared to the overall flow beforehand, that increase is responsible to the buildup of "water" in the "sink". The reason why we call it "anthropogenic" climate change, is because we can say without a doubt that the increase of CO2 we see in the atmosphere is due to humans both increasing the flow (burning fossil fuels) and restricting the drain (massive deforestation).

Laughingboy: Your reliance on satellite data showing very minor warming is not backed up by other observable but less precise methods. Seasonal changes in bird habitat and plant growth argues against minor warming. Your arguments that "snow is returning to Kilimanjaro" and that "glacial melt in Greenland has slowed" just begs the question about why snow returning or glacial melt has to be mentioned in the first place.

Burgerga123: First, I am from Puyallup (don't live there now) so you win in that regard. But, I'll have to explain a bit about atheism and evolution, just to defend them a bit. I believe atheism is a personal choice many choose to believe after examining the casual effects religion has upon society or after accepting certain arguments from logic about the existence (or not) of God. I do not believe a vast majority believe this as any sort of "fact", though some do.
Evolution is another case entirely. I must first recite that old adage that gravity is also a "theory". Understanding of this theory seems to have got us pretty well around the solar system (even if you believe we never went to the moon). Evolution is abundantly clear in fossil evidence throughout Earth's history. Ignoring fossil evidence is very difficult, and you must give some account for why it is there. Claims that God put it there as a test do not motivate anyone who thinks for themselves, and should not motivate you.

I do not really know whether that article is 100%percent right.we knew that people talk on their own side.As a normal student in China,a developing country.what i see,or what i feel is badly damaged environment,which makes us too sad to see.Even the government is making great efforts to save it,but ,obviously,it cannot match the one it once was...i feel so grieved.Maybe people in developed countries could not feel that way,cos as i know,the air there is so clean that even u hold a not so good camera can take very bright photos,unlike us,unlike here...What i said is all true.If this issue is too much for someone,or even it is ,so what's wrong with hypercorrection?As long as it works,and bring all of us good.

I created an account just so I could comment here because I couldn't take any more ignorant nonsense. I think before you make any claims or comments on a topic like this you should be able to cite at least two sources of SCIENTIFIC data and research that backs your opinion, not just the conspiracy theorist rants of an ultra conservative journalist. Or are all of the scientists of the world who are capable of doing real research on the climate in on the same evil plot to save the environment?

Seriously though, how many scientific sources can you cite that show evidence that global warming isn't happening? How many can you find that support the fact that it is warming and that it is mostly caused by human pollution? Here are just a few:

www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q4

We know for a fact that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a habitable temperature. We also know for a fact that the average global temperature is warming. Why is it so hard to believe that since we put out BILLIONS of tons of carbon dioxide a year that it might be a major cause to the warming? You can't say warming is "in a downward trend" either. You have to look at the big picture. Yes the global temperature does fluctuate some due to natural cycles and it isn't warming as fast right now as it was over the past twenty years, but it is still warming.

The point I really want to make is, don't just believe something because you read some biased article about. Think for yourself, research both sides of the argument, consider how reliable and qualified the author of each source is, and then you can make an educated opinion about the topic and be able to back it up with real evidence.

Laughingboy: Your reliance on satellite data showing very minor warming is not backed up by other observable but less precise methods. Seasonal changes in bird habitat and plant growth argues against minor warming. Your arguments that "snow is returning to Kilimanjaro" and that "glacial melt in Greenland has slowed" just begs the question about why snow returning or glacial melt has to be mentioned in the first place. [snip]

agtk, If you're going to knock my argument, at least characterize it correctly. I contend that the planet's been cooling since 1998. The "less precise methods" you refer to are by nature problematic because they can't be replicated, use improper measuring procedures or use corrupted data.

As for "begging your question" about certain events, these events were pointed out as evidence of global warming. Now that the events have reversed themselves, one should put them in the proper context of normal, natural events as opposed to evidence that human activity (more precisely, CO2) is causing them.

At least djf8 has the decency to cite sources to back up his or her arguments. Too bad they're out of date.

I don't know where you got the impression that these sources were out of date. You can easily find on the websites that the last time they were updated was within the past year. However, I still don't see anyone else citing where they are getting their information that argues against global warming. Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information? I think it would help everyone see this from an objective and scientific approach if we could see how up-to-date your information is and how qualified your sources are.

Have any of you idiots stopped to think that WE BREATHE OUT CO2? So no matter what we do, if CO2 is a/the cause, we can stop it. Unless you want to ban people from having children? Also, studies have show that you expend less CO2 be driving to work than walking to work. Another thing, don't give me this crap that there is no money behind it. Step back and use just a tiny bit of common sense. We were at one time in an ice age, so have we not been warming from that?

You want links, you got'em:
www.climate-skeptic.com/

But you say all scientist agree, really?

www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

www.inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/

"We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims."

But there is a general consensus, or is there?

Even the Japanese don't agree, oh, but their so right wing.

www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

How about we abolish all CO2, but wait that will kill all plant life. Say it isn't so?

www.climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientists_update_senators_on_global_warming

Would you like me to keep going?

I do have about half of 2.1 million pages on goggle that tend to agree.

looks like the "skeptics" had a lot more to say than what the article stated. and very simply put christensen. good job.

Seriously: Do you seriously believe that breathing CO2 contributes to global warming? CO2 goes into plants, used to create the carbon base of the food we eat. This CO2 returns to the atmosphere via decomposition of plants or animals, or is used by animals throughout their life. The reason nobody cares about emissions from walking is because our bodies are part of this natural CO2 cycle. Burning fossil fuels is not part of this cycle, and builds up more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the problem.
I never made the claim that there is no money in it, but that street runs both ways. Does Exxon/Mobil mean anything to you?
Also, you are severely mistaken if you think that 3 scientists writing for the Japanese Society of Energy and Resources means that JAPAN disagrees with the rest of the world about climate change. You are also mistaken if you think Japan doesn't have its own fair share of neo-con ideologues.

Laughingboy: How else do you explain the major long-term retreat of glaciers across the globe? Glaciers melt when they get hot. The question is why they are now hot enough to start melting. Climate change makes the claim that glaciers are melting because increased CO2 concentrations have heated the atmosphere. If this is not the cause of the melt, then what is? Some other mysterious natural cause? I don't buy into the argument that a few colder years has suddenly reversed the trend. If there is a major rainstorm, and the rain begins to let up, that doesn't mean the storm will be over soon! The worst might still be yet to come. Glaciers and snowpacks have been melting over the last century - data from the few most recent years do not refute that kind of track record.

I may also remind you that most of the models predict that the Earth today is .5-1.0 degrees warmer on average across the entire globe. All that means is that every day is .5-1.0 degrees warmer than it would have been otherwise. That is a minuscule amount for day-to-day trends, and unusually cold years still take place. Recent cold weather certainly does not mean a majority of the models are junk.

And if you want more information about the Eocene, and using it as an analogue for our near future, this would not be a bad starting point. Obviously there is much more that has been written on the topic, and there would be much more information in the 2003 book Causes and Consequences of Globally Warm Climates in the Early Paleogene by Wing, Gingerich, and Schmitz.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/nature07671.html#B10

AGTK, did you miss the link where 30,000 scientist are against this?
Also, animals breathe out CO2 just like us, plants take in CO2 and "breathe" out, or release if you will, oxygen. It is the cycle of life. So excuse me if I don't want to get rid of that essential life gas.

"Burning fossil fuels is not part of this cycle, and builds up more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the problem."

Do you not take a shower, cook food, work, get on the internet,or use your AC/heat? All of these things use fossil fuels, do you want to go back to the primitive ways of living? Personally, I hate cold weather, and don't like being told what I can and can't do with my thermostat. Were we, or were we not given the freedom from government with our constitution? That includes the cap and trade "tax" that we will all be hit with.

And I find it funny how just just automatically dismiss the Japanese scientist as "neo cons". You act like they have a agenda, but Al Gore doesn't have one? Quit kidding yourself. All this is, is politics. But I guess you think I am just a "neo con" too, right? If you want to conserve, be my guest. But don't expect or force me to do the same. If there was true unbiased science out there to prove your point, I might be able to believe you. But it is all backed by government grant money, so sorry if I don't consider it unbiased.(oh and the pesky cold @$$ weather and record snowfall we have had this winter.) I know in charlotte we have broke quite a few records this year, so I really think I have the right to be skeptical.

BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but haven't we cooled this last decade?

Also I believe if you click the first article that I linked to, that will answer your question to laughingboy.

"Science is not about majority rule. It either is or it is not." - Mark R. Levin

This article should be removed from popular science as it is completely unscientific.

agtk How else do you explain the major long-term retreat of glaciers across the globe? Glaciers melt when they get hot. The question is why they are now hot enough to start melting. Climate change makes the claim that glaciers are melting because increased CO2 concentrations have heated the atmosphere. If this is not the cause of the melt, then what is? Some other mysterious natural cause? [snip]

Actually, there is no long term retreat of glaciers across the globe unless your long term is from the last ice age. Take, for example, the Antarctic. There is glacial melt in the Antarctic peninsula but in the eastern half of the continent, the ice mass is getting bigger and offsetting the losses on the peninsula. the most likely explanation for the glacial loss on the peninsula is the MDO of the ocean currents i.e. El Nino/La Nina plus underwater volcanic activity near the peninsula.

As for Greenland, the ice mass in the interior of the continent is getting thicker. Plus, as various other glaciers retreat in Greenland, archeologists have discovered Viking settlements where glaciers used to be suggesting that Greenland was green prior to all that CO2 being released and that the retreat of glaciers there is a normal event.

[snip]I may also remind you that most of the models predict that the Earth today is .5-1.0 degrees warmer on average across the entire globe. All that means is that every day is .5-1.0 degrees warmer than it would have been otherwise.[snip]

As for the models, the recent cold years show that the predictive ability of the models is questionable. Also, .5-1.0 degrees warmer than what? The 1930's was the warmest decade in recorded history, not the 1990's. the warmest year on record is 1934, not 1998.

[snip]That is a minuscule amount for day-to-day trends, and unusually cold years still take place. Recent cold weather certainly does not mean a majority of the models are junk.[snip}

Ah, but we've only had ~20 years of warming from 1978-2000. Prior to that, we had ~30 years of cooling from 1945-78 and most climate scientists then feared a new ice age. So, are you willing to make a conclusion from 20 years of data when longer term trends show oscillations of 20-30 years? Or, how about the fact that we're still nowhere near the high temps of the Medieval Warming Period?

Of course, alarmists have tried really, really hard to get around the Medieval Warm Period by claiming it was only local to Europe or they manufacture data (I believe Dr. Mann uses the term "interpolate") to show that it wasn't as warm as temps today or they try some really lame excuse that Native Americans clearing trees started it or something. Same with the Little Ice Age that we're coming out of.

First of all we have enough trouble predicting next week's weather.... but more seriously now:

The earth is always changing. Its come a long way in the last 100 million years (yes i know the earth is older than that just throwing a number out there). The fossil fuels we are burning come from plants that died a long time ago. We are releasing CO2 from something that was capturing existing CO2. So we arent really creating something thats new. The earth is a self regulating system and i really doubt that we are putting this system in jeopordy. We really do take ourselfves too seriously sometimes.

Quick reply to derlange for now: Most are not arguing that either the Earth has never been this hot, or that it won't survive. What is of great concern is that the changes we are seeing are coming hundreds or thousands of times faster than large-scale natural changes in the system. Plants can shift their range over a period of 1,000 years, but over a period of 30-100? Animals are more mobile, but trying to shift an entire biosphere to follow suitable climates over such a short time span is incredibly difficult. Time magazine has a great piece about extinctions across the globe in association with global warming.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1888728_1888736,00.html

The Earth will go on, with us or without us, but I would personally prefer it to go on with us. To ensure that, we will need to limit global warming to a manageable magnitude and adapt globally.

There is no proof that they(the plants or us) will have to "shift". Just more propaganda to make some politicians money. Next time link to something that is not as blatantly left as the Time magazine. Like I said show me some true unbiased research and I will give it a shot. And you do realize that there were animals, that are now currently extinct, the scientist(palaentologist if I am not mistaken) found, that lived in temperatures 6-8 degrees hotter then we currently live in. Now explain that?

"And a raft of recent peer-reviewed studies -- many which take advantage of new satellite data -- back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment."

The above paragraph from the article should tell you a great deal about the motivations of author. The very things being demonized are the "arch enemy", if you will, of the environmentalist, union and animal rights lobbies. These are the people writing the article above, and these are the people the American electorate put in charge for the next couple of years.

While the origins of these groups are largely noble and well-intended, they have become politicized and taken over by an angry, anti-human and agenda-driven cabal. As political animals, they are dependent on funding and power to remain viable. Fear is their primary weapon, and by telling you that you're killing your children, they appeal to your deepest emotions.

Which makes it all the more ironic that they will gladly *print* trillions of dollars to place the the United States in so much debt that those same children and grandchildren will pay for the rest of their lives. By imposing their beliefs and policies on others, they are no different than the far right fundies that would tell you how to live your life. They're not interested in personal freedom or liberty; they're interested in their own feel good policies, and your bottom line is of no interest to them. In fact, if they can stick it to you and make a buck in the process, they'll gladly do it.

For the past 15 years I was convinced global warming was caused by CO2. Now I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon. My interest in global warming and energy policy is so great I launched energyplanusa.com and have spent months trying to find the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. But the evidence is just not there. Instead I've discovered that man-made global warming theory relies on unproven computer models (similar, I'm afraid, to the ones the predicted the American economy was a perpetual motion machine) and ignores contrary evidence from hundreds of reliable sources. For instance, it's widely understood that the globe was warmer 1,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were normal, then it is today. The Vikings even grew grapes in New Foundland and named it Vinland.

I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the national press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence. Please, help me get at the truth. If anyone can provide the C02 smoking gun, I'd be greatly indebted.

Rmoen, very good read. The only thing I may suggest is you stop looking to that, or any for that matter, political party as "thinkers". Politics are all just about money, nothing more, nothing less. There are no "thinkers" in Washington, and haven't been for years. But, I think you're on a path to find this out, you seem smart enough, I mean you did read through the BS.

agtk:
There have been numerous catastrophic changes in climate in the earths history. Plants and animals are very resilient and im not sure am 8 degree temperature change would cause any need for a shifting in range. As a matter of fact its proven that higher CO2 levels of up to 1000ppm make plants even more resilient.

I think realistically the money being spent on the "Co2 problem" would be exponentially be more beneficial to us and the environment if it would go towards more practical things such as promoting recycling and technology for more energy efficient devices to improve air quality in our busy cities. But thats talk of utopia which will never happen in the real world...

PS how many people here throw their energy efficient CFL lightbulbs in the trash? Since they contain mercury they should be disposed of properly. I would guess its less than 5% that are. :)

I kind of got stuck on those 22,000 scientists, It disturbed me, so I took a closer look,
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269) those don't exactly pertain to the climate, and that's about half of the signatures...

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

um...

BTW only 39 are trained in climatology, you might think "but what about those 341 meteorologists?" the fact of the matter is that the deal in very short term weather...

Point being? Two, at one point in time there was only 39 "climatologists" that agreed that global warming exists. Three, at another point in time there was only 39 "climatologists" that agreed that global cooling no longer exists. Four, just a tiny bit earlier in time there was only 39 "climatologists" that agreed that global cooling exists. Get where I am going with this? But yeah, lets just dismiss those 39, great plan.

Oh, and the "meteorologist" comment, you are telling me they didn't study climate over time in school? Really? Give me a break. Maybe they are not quite as specialized, but they are still qualified no matter which way you try to spin it. And that list isn't everybody that disagrees with GW, that is just a list of people who knew about and signed a petition.

wsugaimd
As a former scientist(enzymologist)and now a physician, I would like to pose a simple question. Aren't reputable scientist supposed to be skeptical? Thats the way we do it in medicine. When someone publishes an "earth shattering" paper, my colleagues and I go through the data with a fine tooth comb and then set up double blind cross over studies to test the new "finding".

Right now, concerning AGW, if you are a skeptic, you're labled as being unintelligent, "neocon", a moron, and other uncomplimentary(personal attack)descriptions.

The great scientists have always questioned their own findings and actually, have been the greatest skeptics of their own data and conclusions. Einstein himself repeatedly tested himself..had he had gotten the "Theory of Relativity" correct?

First off, I find it funny that the first response says Popular SCIENCE has a bias towards...SCIENTISTS. What next, Popular Woodworking having a pro-woodworker bias?

Second, realize that the point of all this global warming hoopla is simple: we should stop burning fossil fuels. Yet there's hundreds of other good reasons not to burn the stuff, ranging from mercury in our fisheries, to ground level ozone in our cities, to money going to Al Qaeda, to dead coal miners in West Virginia, to the fact that most of our fertilizers come from natural gas, and many of our lifesaving medicines and plastics come from petroleum. Yet there's only one reason to keep burning the stuff; it's cheap (for now).

The majority of Americans have had enough, and realize that putting up solar panels, insulating their homes, and purchasing energy-efficient appliances are good ideas all around, and so that's what we're going to do. Whether we're 100% sure that it will save us from rising sea levels and killer hurricanes is not really the point anymore.

to money going to Al Qaeda
-----------------------------------------

Dude, are you really this dumb? You do realize that we get the biggest portion of our oil from Mexico and Canada? Something like 70-80%. Then the rest come from Hugo, and a couple of other small players.

Mad Rocket Scientist

"Scientific opinion"

We have several problems

1- There are too many people (some 5 Billion) now occupying this planet.

2 - Most of them are burning some sort of fossil fuel.

3 - Some idiots are trying to get rich by feeding on our fears.

Solution(s)

Learn to burn something else (quickly). OR radically reduce the number of people. (Reducing the number of people burning fossil fuel would be an acceptable alternative).

We are still in the middle of a Ice Age. Currently we are on the edge of either warming up or rapidly cooling down. Consult the global temperature charts for the past 10,000 -40,000 years if you are in doubt.

@ Seriously:
Dude, check out:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Saudi Arabia is number 2, and climbing, since most of the worlds proven reserves are there. Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and got most of their financing from Saudi Arabian Oil sales. We're sending billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, and you'd have to be naive to think none of it finds its way into the hands of terrorists.

wsugaimd is funny, you expect us to beleive that scientists are only out for the truth? They're people, and people need paychecks and those paychecks come from people who profit from bending the truth.

Ask Michael Crichton's widow if he thought that his years of smoking caused his emphysema? If he got his information from the 'biomedical researchers' aka biostitutes... at the American Tobacco Institute, he would probably think he didn't. Interestingly, the American Petroleum Institute does not believe that global warming is occurring or that it's anthropogenic in nature... there's a shocker! Err on the side of caution, don't treat the atmosphere and your water bodies like a toilet/county dump... save money in reduced health care costs for polluted air alone...

www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

The World Health Organization states that 2.4 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 1.5 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution.[8] "Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution. . ."[9] A study by the University of Birmingham has shown a strong correlation between pneumonia related deaths and air pollution from motor vehicles.[10] Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents.[citation needed] Published in 2005 suggests that 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually.[citation needed] Direct causes of air pollution related deaths include aggravated asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.[citation needed] The US EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.

Derlange, you are partially right. Most scientists are very ethical and try hard to stay on course, but a few will stray and head for the quick big bucks. But it also comes back with a vengence if data is altered although it may take time. The nice thing about science and medicine, the truth always comes out in the end. The author of this article has already assumed that AGW is "real" and skeptics are to be labled...

"So-called "global warming skeptics" are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities."

As far as I'm concerned, there is no "scientific" consensus only POLITICAL ONES.

"Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is "very likely" (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century."

The IPCC (and I stress "INTERGOVERNMENTAL" Panel on Climate Change) is a politically motivated group. Note that no dissenting scientist was allowed on the panel. So I wonder about the 90% consensus rate?!?

As a anthropogenic GW skeptic who lives on the slopes of Mauna Loa, I have one comment to add. Kilauea, an active volcano (Volcano National Park) located a few miles south of the NOAA lab where the famous Keeling graph was measured. Kilauea is at an elevation of 4190 ft and most of the eruptions which has been continuous from 1983 spews high levels of CO2 as well as other gases. The NOAA lab is at an elevation of 9000 ft and inversion layers continuously brings large amounts to it, skewing its measurements.

And on the other hand, we put out 27 billion tons of CO2/yr but we have at any time 3600 billion tons of C02 in our atmosphere. So our man made C02 is only 0.75% of "natural" C02. It seems difficult to understand how such a small addition will lead to "catastrophic" consequences. And as we get out of the last ice age, receding for the last 10,000 years, it may be....getting warmer as part of a natural cycle? And as we get warmer, the overall biomass will increase especially in the northern hemisphere (where the majority of the land mass is) leading to greater biomass metabolism, leading to greater C02 output.

And as to solar activity, God help us if we move to a Dalton Minimum (last seen in 1790). The sun has shown no significant sunspots for a long time now.

To make money off of the global warming thing, the powers that be must convince us of two things. Number one, global warming is caused by man. Number two, we can stop it and save the planet. Sound Familiar?
Right now General Electric is dying to blanket the country with windmills and solar panels they build. The problem is windmills take decades to pay for themselves if they EVER do and it would take a windmill farm the size of Nebraska to power the country. Now I ask you...what impact would THAT have on the environment. Not only do you have eyesores blanketing the countryside, they have to be BUILT and towed all over the country in tractor trailers. Any rational human being should know that tens of thousands of windmills would be a bigger impact on the environment than a conventional power plant.
Al Gore is just a lobbyist, pure and simple. He is getting paid for this. Windmills don't pay for themselves for a long, long, time. So here is what happens folks: You get to pay for your electric twice. That's right, Your electric bill and then the taxes you are going to have to fork out to get these things built. Cool huh? And you wondered why they keep ramming it down your throat, That's right, they need your money to get it done.
Here is the litmus test folks....If something makes money, the private sector does it on their own. That's why your power company is using coal and not windmills.

Below is an excerpt from the "Tulsa Beacon".

It’s about time that liberals like Al Gore come up with a new crisis. Global warming (climate change) is running out of steam.

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

Global warming assumes that human production of greenhouse gases is destroying the Earth’s climate.

According to the petition, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Heres another tidbit...The biggest contributor to green house effect is water vapor and clouds. Its estimated that it accounts for as much as 90% of green house gas effects. The other 10% comes from CO2, Methane(CH4), Ozone(03), CFCs, NOx, and sulfur hexafluoride. Of the 10%, CO2 claims 1-2.6%, Methane claims up to 1%, ozone 1% but the range is quite broad. And man's effect of the total CO2 is only 0.75% of the 3,600 billion tons...is it really that bad?
Don't get me wrong, I am a greenie and have installed the 1st of 3 units of PV(each is $22k), a solar water heater, solar lighting, and rain catchment system on my new home.

I just want the truth. Thats all...

Can't we even get the simplest facts right? The editors claim that:

"...few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature..."

Sorry, but surface temperatures are falling, and so are ocean temperatures. I do not know of a single skeptic who is clueless enough to think that "warming itself is occurring." We know that warming WAS occuring, from the little ice age until 1998, with a clear cooling trend since 2003.

It really is bizarre to claim that skeptics all acknowledge that warming is occuring when a look at any one of the major temperature records would tell you that it is NOT occurring. Sheesh.

Alec Rawls
www.errortheory.blogspot.com

I have for approximately 30 years been a student of climatology. I have 30 years worth of scientific observation to fall back on. I can say with no doubt at all that human kinds carbon emissions do have an effect. I must also point out that the effect is minimal andwhat we are seeing is a natural progression of seasons and climatolgical chamge brought on by the slow shif of the earths poles. Yes weather will change, climates will change but such change will be peicemeal at worst. You must also remember that other factors will effect the environment I.E. slow pole shift coupled with a weaker solar maximum +higher carbon emissions may = a warmer wetter climate for the entire world. This new climate scenario will provide the impetous for a new ice age which is creeping up on us.
Yes the earth does what it wants and our effect is negligable

There are simply too many arguments for moving to a renewable energy society. Less air pollution and lower CO2 levels are the best argument for converting to a renewable energy society. When all coal, oil, natural gas, wood, U-235, U-238 have been consumed in a 1,000 years or so, what will power our society? Renewable energy. So the human race has nothing to lose by investing in renewable energy sources and nothing to lose by stopping investment in non-renewable energy sources.

I was reading that given the rising demand for energy, some where in the world, a new coal power plant comes on line every 2 weeks. The world will be a better place when news starts reporting that two new solar power plants came on line this week permitting the closing of a coal power plant.