Man Based Global Warming....

[Fibb222]

Antarctic ice shelf crumbling into icebergs

[ufourya]

A little something for the AGW zealots of the Climate Change Church:

Paul SheehanSydney Morning Herald
April 13, 2009

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see.
The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.”

The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia’s most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.”

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as “primitive”. Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computer models were wrong.)

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia’s water debate - but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. “It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age.”

If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth’s climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. “But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis.”

Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.

Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

{bold areas are made so by this humble servant of CO2}

[F8L]

Have you read this book? Do you understand the fundamentals behind global warming (the molecules and energy flows) and how to detect AGW factors and how to spot CO2 derived from human activities? Can you tell me how to account for all the the extra CO2 humans emit if it is not going into the atmoshpere and what instead is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to rise? I'd also like you to explain why the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down just as would be predicted by global warming.

I'm only asking because if you plan to enter this kind of arguement I hope you have the basics down otherwise it will look like you are simply for your favorite political party and their agendas.

Originally Posted by ufourya

A little something for the AGW zealots of the Climate Change Church:

Paul SheehanSydney Morning Herald
April 13, 2009

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see.
The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.”

The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia’s most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.”

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as “primitive”. Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computer models were wrong.)

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia’s water debate - but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. “It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age.”

If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth’s climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. “But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis.”

Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.

Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

{bold areas are made so by this humble servant of CO2}

[Fibb222]

Humans Halfway to Causing Dangerous Climate Change | Wired Science

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by F8L

Have you read this book? Do you understand the fundamentals behind global warming (the molecules and energy flows) and how to detect AGW factors and how to spot CO2 derived from human activities? Can you tell me how to account for all the the extra CO2 humans emit if it is not going into the atmoshpere and what instead is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to rise? I'd also like you to explain why the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down just as would be predicted by global warming.

I'm only asking because if you plan to enter this kind of arguement I hope you have the basics down otherwise it will look like you are simply for your favorite political party and their agendas.

This book has not yet been released and is not available until May for the average reader. I have not read it. What I have done is post a review from someone who has been a believer in AGW and some of the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. Have you read the entirety of this review before questioning me?

He at least has the intellecual integrity to question his views when confronted with thought-provoking objections to AGW from a most well-qualified critic of the scientifically unsupportable conclusions drawn by the IPCC and its uncritical adherents.

There are certainly plenty of folks here who have entered this argument without the least bit of critical thinking or knowlege of the basic facts. Why do you assume that I am unaware of the basics of the argument? Simply because I disagree with your views?

Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001? Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

[markderail]

Originally Posted by ufourya

Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001? Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

You can't deny cars create bad pollution - and I don't think of CO2 as bad. I dare you to breathe in close to any tailpipe of any running car.

Even the Prius stinks when the ICE is running and I'm near the muffler outside in back of the car. However, it's LESS stinging that my other car, a Toyota Yaris.

I just could not afford two Prius, and I want to change the Yaris to a Mitsubishi iMIEV in three years.
So my daily commute will be electric - thus zero airborne pollution contribution - and longer weekend trips I will use the Prius.

Also it's a simple fact that PZEV exhaust systems - available for ALL NEW CARS since the year 2000 (but never offered - extra 500$ cost - peanuts for luxury or SUV cars) reduce not only CO2 but the other nasties.

So the CO2 measure is a good one, because the other trace gasses, like CO and particulates, follows the CO2 output curve.

Had the California clean air act not been overruled by the auto industry (Toyota included sued against it) - which just wanted a better pollution control system from the manufacturers - perhaps in summer 2009, the smog in LA would be half as bad.

Since many people change their cars after five years, and are the heavy usage drivers, if five years ago or more, PZEV exhaust systems would have been a LAW in California, just imagine the difference in airborne pollution it would have made.

So a V6 Honda Accord that pollutes six times worse than a Prius in CO2, CO & other nasty trace gasses and particulates, would only pollute 50% more than a Prius with a PZEV exhaust system.
(V6 versus V4)

Now also factor the less gas usage of the Prius, or of any hybrid when that owner chooses a V4 + HSD over a V6. Just getting crude, making gasoline and trucking it to gas stations has an impact on the environment in raw pollution.

Even a large hybrid SUV that might only save 10% in gallons consumed - that 10% is huge when multiplied across all hybrid owners, versus had those owners bought regular non-hybrids.

The problem is that the switch over to hybrid - or at least PZEV exhaust systems - is taking too long to happen. Subaru has just started for their 2010 models.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by ufourya

This book has not yet been released and is not available until May for the average reader. I have not read it. What I have done is post a review from someone who has been a believer in AGW and some of the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. Have you read the entirety of this review before questioning me?

He at least has the intellecual integrity to question his views when confronted with thought-provoking objections to AGW from a most well-qualified critic of the scientifically unsupportable conclusions drawn by the IPCC and its uncritical adherents.

There are certainly plenty of folks here who have entered this argument without the least bit of critical thinking or knowlege of the basic facts. Why do you assume that I am unaware of the basics of the argument? Simply because I disagree with your views?

I simply asked a question. Due to your location and choice of avatar I can make assumptions but I chose to ask your directly instead of assuming.

Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001?

Could you please cite your sources? I've not seen any records that state a zero loss or zero gain over the last decade and how this will affect the overall positive temperature trend. I can provide a GIS data graph that shows the opposite though and this is based on a longer time period as climate should be (least you enter the realm of weather). These longer time frames help us in determining the overall trend and with enough resolution, we can see how variable the temperatures can be from year to year yet they do not affect the overall trend.

[img]http://www.realclimate.org/images/we...vs_climate.jpg[/img]
Link HERE

"The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines - one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative - depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations." quoted from Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf

It seems a lot of climate skeptics are jumping on information presented by the UK Met Office and claiming that since 2000 global average temperatures have stopped climbing and this information is proof that global warming is a hoax but even that is not the whole story. Here is a quote from the Met Office head of climate change Dr. Vicky Pope Link HERE.

“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of summer sea ice much later this century.
“This is just one example where scientific evidence has been selectively chosen to support a cause. In the 1990s, global temperatures increased more quickly than in earlier decades, leading to claims that global warming had accelerated. In the past 10 years the temperature rise has slowed, leading to opposing claims. Again, neither claim is true, since natural variations always occur on this timescale. For example, 1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record.
“The most recent example of this sequence of claim and counter-claim focused on the Greenland ice sheet. The melting of ice around south-east Greenland accelerated in the early part of this decade, leading to reports that scientists had underestimated the speed of warming in this region. Recent measurements, reported in Science magazine last week, show that the speed-up has stopped across the region. This has been picked up on the climate sceptics’ websites. Again, natural variability has been ignored in order to support a particular point of view, with climate change advocates leaping on the acceleration to further their cause and the climate change sceptics now using the slowing down to their own benefit. Neither group is right and all that is achieved is greater confusion among the public. What is true is that there will always be natural variability in the amount of ice around Greenland and that as our climate continues to warm, the long-term reduction in the ice sheet is inevitable.
“For climate scientists, having to continually rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme is all due to climate change is, at best, hugely frustrating and, at worst, enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.
“When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.”

Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

Again cite your source so I can review their opinion directly and try and figure out how they came up with this opinion and what assumptions they made regading the carbon cycle and its ability to sequester the extra 7Gt of carbon we human emit (from fossil fuel use) without upsetting some of these sequestering processes which could lead to a net release instead of sequestration. I'm also curious how they came up with these predictions. If the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were approx. 280ppmv pre-industrial era (1750) and we now sit at approx. 388ppmv then the likely gain of anthropogenic CO2 would be approx .42ppmv/yr increase. Now that is assuming that all of the gain above 280ppmv is anthropogenic which has not been verified. By the same token how can one postulate that it would only increase by 1ppmv/5yrs without such crucial information? Ahh but we can determine anthropogentic carbon from natural by looking as carbon isotopes, in particular the reduction of carbon 14, carbon 13, and carbon 12 ratios. So if CO2 levels are rising, fossil fuel use is increasing, carbon sequestration sources are declining (forests, coral reefs, soils, etc.) and carbon 14 ratios are dropping then how can we pretend we are not having an impact? I'd be interested to see the paper or source where you got that information from. It might help clear up my possibly incorrect math.

[ufourya]

Quote:
Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001?

Could you please cite your sources? I've not seen any records that state a zero loss or zero gain over the last decade and how this will affect the overall positive temperature trend. I can provide a GIS data graph that shows the opposite though and this is based on a longer time period as climate should be (least you enter the realm of weather). These longer time frames help us in determining the overall trend and with enough resolution, we can see how variable the temperatures can be from year to year yet they do not affect the overall trend.

From the University of Alabama at Huntsville: using the most reliable datasets (satellite):

Latest Global Temperatures Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

Again cite your source so I can review their opinion directly and try and figure out how they came up with this opinion...

Okay:

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

If you would like to follow discussions and links that take issue with YOUR source - realclimate, the following site regularly takes Gavin Schmidt and his boss Hansen to task for the often shoddy work they do:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Steve McIntyre is the fellow who proved Mann's original 'hockey stick' graph was fatally flawed and continues to point out huge problems with the AGW powers that be and their disingenuous assertions. He regularly forces them to admit mistakes even though they often refuse to provide him with the data from which they claim to draw their conclusions. You can search to your heart's content for information that interests you. Unlike sites such as RealClimate, his site accepts questions and allows discussion with critics - even you, I'm sure. Why don't you address your questions there? I am a mere layman with common sense and an open mind.

Despite your discalimer, the assumptions are obvious. As to my location, how on earth could that have significance?

I changed my avatar to the present one to satisfy Fibb222 - He didn't like the previous one. Now, others find this one somehow discomforting. CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by ufourya

Quote:

Despite your discalimer, the assumptions are obvious. As to my location, how on earth could that have significance?

I changed my avatar to the present one to satisfy Fibb222 - He didn't like the previous one. Now, others find this one somehow discomforting. CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out but know that anything Spencer says is to be taken with a grain of salt. His funding sources and organizational ties speak for him. I'll look at McIntyre's stuff too. Thanks again.

CO2 can affect plant growth and ecosystems in a negative way as well by promoting invasive species populations and distribution. Furthermore, the other emissions associated with burning fossil fuels (the main source for anthropogenic CO2) most definately cause harm to human health, the economy, and ecosystems. So to say you love CO2 is a rather sad joke. Since my job works specifically with land management and invasive species I don't see how anyone can find such a quotes as "CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants." amusing. When was the last time you took a botany class or worked with your state's Native Plant Society or similar organization? You should check them out if you really do love plants. Those kinds of organizations are a wealth of knowledge and generally hold many workshops where one could learn a great deal without having to take upper division classes.

As for my assumptions. 90% of the time when someone comes into this forum to discredit global warming or just about any other science-based issue concerning the environment they hail from Texas or Florida (southern states), have antoagonistic quotes, signatures, avatars or usernames, usually don't even own a Prius, and they LOVE to post links to "data" presented by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy or just about anyone else funded by christian groups, large resource extraction corporations, and conservative think tanks like The Heartland Institute, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Competetive Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and of course the Wise Use Group.

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by F8L

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out but know that anything Spencer says is to be taken with a grain of salt. His funding sources and organizational ties speak for him. I'll look at McIntyre's stuff too. Thanks again.

CO2 can affect plant growth and ecosystems in a negative way as well by promoting invasive species populations and distribution. Furthermore, the other emissions associated with burning fossil fuels (the main source for anthropogenic CO2) most definately cause harm to human health, the economy, and ecosystems. So to say you love CO2 is a rather sad joke. Since my job works specifically with land management and invasive species I don't see how anyone can find such a quotes as "CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants." amusing. When was the last time you took a botany class or worked with your state's Native Plant Society or similar organization? You should check them out if you really do love plants. Those kinds of organizations are a wealth of knowledge and generally hold many workshops where one could learn a great deal without having to take upper division classes.

As for my assumptions. 90% of the time when someone comes into this forum to discredit global warming or just about any other science-based issue concerning the environment they hail from Texas or Florida (southern states), have antoagonistic quotes, signatures, avatars or usernames, usually don't even own a Prius, and they LOVE to post links to "data" presented by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy or just about anyone else funded by christian groups, large resource extraction corporations, and conservative think tanks like The Heartland Institute, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Competetive Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and of course the Wise Use Group.

So, if a scientist has ties to conservative groups, that automatically invalidates his scientific accomplishments and views? This tactic to discredit scientific conclusions can cut both ways - and does. It is a slippery slope.

The mixing of science and politics is problematic and defiles the concept of pure science. It is what we live with, however, when scientific conclusions are driven by politics, the interests of ideologues, and self-serving grant-seekers. The results can threaten not just the science involved but whole economies and, indeed, liberty itself.

One of the more reasonable voices I've encountered exploring this area is that of Roger Pielke:

Prometheus Blog Archive Climate Science Infallibility Syndrome

And he basically accepts AGW, so his views shouldn't be discredited on the basis of being a skeptic, but of course they are by the ideologues whose only interst in the science is to use it to control others and will not accept even the most clear-headed criticism.

My basic objection to AGW is the way it is presented. The climate hysterics who use this single environmental issue to raise irrational fears for political purposes are dangerous. They have convinced the media who uncritically echo the disaster scenarios of non-scientists such as Al Gore.

Everywhere one turns the inevitability of awaiting doom and disaster is shouted unless we DO SOMETHING NOW! And the solutions are politically motivated. Huge mental leaps are required to go from a degree of warming in a century to the extinction of the earth as we know it, and yet they are taken by folks such as our friend Fibb222 who constantly posts these links to each new cataclysm that awaits us. He thinks I'm the crazy one.