After winning Game 5, who wouldn't be happy? But seriously...

Where is this "surefire proof" that global warming "will kill us all" that the concerned reader alludes to? I was really hoping that a wild doomsday claim like this would be discounted, but of course, this is the Green Flashlight. No such luck.

I'd like to point out that the "unusually frigid" winter and overall decreasing atmospheric temperatures don't indicate catastrophic global warming. They are indices of the exact opposite. Furthermore, I never see any of these articles mention the warm cycle of the AMO which affects the distribution of heat all the way into the Arctic. Many meteorologists point to the current water temperature profile as an indication that we are near or at the end of this warm AMO, and it will likely reverse over the next decade.

"Some of these events might be due to causes that aren't necessarily related to human activity; it's been well-established, for example, that the Antarctic is heavily affected by naturally occurring El Niño/La Niña cycles in ways that scientists have yet to fully comprehend. But the Lantern remains convinced that our species' carbon output is changing things for the worse down in the land of penguins."

Pay attention to this. Translation: Although it is likely that naturally occurring phenomena are at work in Antarctica, we believe it is all because of your SUV anyway. So, we shouldn't bother you with facts and logical alternative explanations. OK, then, why bother talking about this? Shut down every power grid in the world if that's what you really think. You stop driving to work and you stop using energy. Oh, but that won't happen, of course. It's the rest of us that are supposed to grind our lives to a halt in order to "save the planet."

If these guys are serious about climate issues and they really want the facts, why ignore 31,000 scientists that disagree with the human-induced climate change theory? Why dismiss their claims? I'm not one to shout "conspiracy theory," but come on. Why don't we have real debate from both sides of the aisle between people who know a lot more about this than any of us do, other than the fact that it would take forever to even scratch the surface of the debate? This looks a lot like "science with an agenda" when you examine the lack of attention to a specific set of details.

why ignore 31,000 scientists that disagree with the human-induced climate change theory?

Because no such thing is the case.

You are of course referring to the laughable petition that's been circulating on the Internet by the deniers. It counts anyone with a remotely technical degree of any sort as a scientist. Veterinarians. Metallurgists. IT specialists. Middle school teachers. These people know as much about global warming as my cleaning lady.

Best I can compute, there are roughly 50 million college graduates in the U.S. Probably 20 million of them would qualify as "scientists" under that moronic petition.

The intellectual dishonesty in calling these people scientists is stunning, and since you cited it I can only conclude that you are intellectually dishonest, or remarkably gullible.

FordTruck5Speed:

After winning Game 5, who wouldn't be happy? But seriously...

Where is this "surefire proof" that global warming "will kill us all" that the concerned reader alludes to? I was really hoping that a wild doomsday claim like this would be discounted, but of course, this is the Green Flashlight. No such luck.

I'd like to point out that the "unusually frigid" winter and overall decreasing atmospheric temperatures don't indicate catastrophic global warming. They are indices of the exact opposite. Furthermore, I never see any of these articles mention the warm cycle of the AMO which affects the distribution of heat all the way into the Arctic. Many meteorologists point to the current water temperature profile as an indication that we are near or at the end of this warm AMO, and it will likely reverse over the next decade.

"Some of these events might be due to causes that aren't necessarily related to human activity; it's been well-established, for example, that the Antarctic is heavily affected by naturally occurring El Niño/La Niña cycles in ways that scientists have yet to fully comprehend. But the Lantern remains convinced that our species' carbon output is changing things for the worse down in the land of penguins."

Pay attention to this. Translation: Although it is likely that naturally occurring phenomena are at work in Antarctica, we believe it is all because of your SUV anyway. So, we shouldn't bother you with facts and logical alternative explanations. OK, then, why bother talking about this? Shut down every power grid in the world if that's what you really think. You stop driving to work and you stop using energy. Oh, but that won't happen, of course. It's the rest of us that are supposed to grind our lives to a halt in order to "save the planet."

If these guys are serious about climate issues and they really want the facts, why ignore 31,000 scientists that disagree with the human-induced climate change theory? Why dismiss their claims? I'm not one to shout "conspiracy theory," but come on. Why don't we have real debate from both sides of the aisle between people who know a lot more about this than any of us do, other than the fact that it would take forever to even scratch the surface of the debate? This looks a lot like "science with an agenda" when you examine the lack of attention to a specific set of details.

" why ignore 31,000 scientists that disagree with the human-induced climate change theory? Why dismiss their claims?"

I dunno; maybe because they are not scientists? The invitation to the petition says anyone with a bachelors is invited to sign. Signatories include dead people and corporations. Here's a few at random:

W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia.

Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."

Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

Linda Fiore, Student, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Sarah Elizabeth Fiore, Student, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Jonathan David Fiore, Student, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Robert S. Glitch, BA (Accounting, Ohio University), MBA (Ohio State University), Treasury Manager, The Ohio Valley Coal Company, Powhatan Point, Ohio, U.S.A.

Wayne Greer, Managing Director, Staedtler Ltd, New Zealand

Philip Hackett, MSTA (Member of the Society of Technical Analysts), CFTe (Certified Financial Technician), Technical Analysis, Bramley, Surrey, United Kingdom

Scott D. Haney, A. (Equine Sciences, Black Hawk East Community College), Director, Conveyors, Murray Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, Galatia, Illinois, U.S.A.

It stands to reason that quality control is not a big feature of the argument against AGW. So you go ahead and believe all those accountants and equine scientists, I'll stick with just James Hansen against the lot.

(Oh, re the Antarctic ice; in the summer, my kitchen heats up but you know what? frost forms around the door of my freezer, because it's the coldest thing in the room which is now hot and humid. I don't go around pointing it out to people as evidence that the kitchen is really not that hot, though).

Well, since you've stooped to name calling, let's look at the facts. The AMO is late in its warm phase. Temperatures have been steady or declining over the past decade. The strength of the La Nina was impressive to say the least. The Sun is about 2 years late for its next inactive phase. The computer models are inaccurate on a good day. Why shouldn't we have this debate again? Done deal, eh?

Ford, don't take this the wrong way, but you often seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I can see why based on past threads. However, when you come out swinging against the chicken littles on a piece thats pretty data driven and very modest in its claims it invites a certain reaction.

Anyway, what exactly is AMO? Link would be great, but a full name to google is fine.

Thanks,

Blueshift

I was hoping you'd have something to say about the 31,000 "scientist" petition you referred to. Other posters have pointed out that it's a farce; have you no response to that information?

Agenda driven science indeed.

AMO=Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Long term measure of Atlantic oceanic temperatures, a known influence on climate and weather patterns. Its warm cycle late stages historically show warm water clustered near the African and North American coastlines. Source: Accuweather.com.

Thanks, I'll go educate myself.

deaddrift:

I was hoping you'd have something to say about the 31,000 "scientist" petition you referred to. Other posters have pointed out that it's a farce; have you no response to that information?

Agenda driven science indeed.

again: no quality control. no factoid is too unlikely to be thrown against the dread spectre of AGW in the hopes that it might stick; having the integrity to actually look into all this stuff and evaluate it is NOT a priority, as long as it is antiAGW. so we get references to the north atlantic oscillation on the one hand, and the bizarre petition on the other.

oh i forgot, i'm not supposed to say quality control, last time i did that it was "stooping to name calling"

FordTruck5Speed:

AMO=Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Long term measure of Atlantic oceanic temperatures, a known influence on climate and weather patterns. Its warm cycle late stages historically show warm water clustered near the African and North American coastlines. Source: Accuweather.com.

Of course, this has NOTHING to do with the mythical medieval warm period so beloved of the antiAGW folks, despite it being a construct of European history, and being nonsynchronous in various locales. Instead, it's used to explain currently synchronous global warming.

FordTruck5Speed:

Temperatures have been steady or declining over the past decade. The strength of the La Nina was impressive to say the least.

see, i would say those have a cause effect relationship, but apparently in the opposite direction than you see it. la nina currently opposing the upward trend of AGW affecting the temp readings. but la nina is cyclical. i'm not sure how this information bolsters your position in the slightest.

but, again, i'm not sure how my previous post translates into name calling. but, you want "real debate", OK with me; as I said, I'll back James Hansen alone vs. your 31,000 accountants, students, and MDs any day.

I just did and it was educational. BTW I wish the naval ocean temperature data (it is classified as it affects submarine warfare) was integrated to show the net energy content as a function of time.

Do you know something about him that makes his judgment superior to the 3,697 actual climate scientists who signed the petition?

Is there something specific you know about the 904 computer scientists that would somehow make Dr. Hansen's computer models so superior that any criticism by actual computer scientists would be heresy?

When it comes to statistical modeling, and computation fluid dynamics, I would personally trust a PHD mathmatician with nothing to gain before I'd believe a lifelong governement bureaucrat heavily vested in government grants, and funding.

I'd rather trust 31,000 degree holders in science than I'd trust Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University's Divinity School. Even though his daddy was a US Senator.

Exactly how much money has Al made selling his carbon "indulgences"?

And I would guess, you'd trust the United Nations 600 "scientists" and 2000 politicians who wrote the latest IPCC report so widely quoted by Mr.(not Dr.) Gore.

If the question is about scientific consensus on AGW, this page is very helpful. Notice the list of scientific organizations concurring with the IPCC assessment. It's absurd to take one man's word over that of many other scientists, but it's also a clear sign of confirmation bias if you take the result of an online poll over that of basically every major scientific organization on the planet with relevant expertise.

I just quickly scanned the list, but it seems that most of them state something about there being a consensus of all climate scientists, and confirming their approval of the IPCC.

The Oregon Petition isn't an online poll, but a petition, limited to those holding a Bachelor of Science degree and higher, with over 3,600 having a degree in Atmospheric Science. Go to their web site. Unlike the IPCC, you can pull a list of every name sorted alphabetically, or by state if you want. It's really very open, unlike the way the IPCC was run.

And you tend to use weasel words like "basically every major ..." Why don't you be specific, tell me how many scientific organizations there are, and how many all state there is a consensus. How many are state political organs for dictatorships hoping to get rich country money?