But hold on just a minute jyoshu, every left wing Global Warming alarmist knows that these 650 world renowned climatologists are nothing more than Right wing plants whose sole purpose for existing is to hijack the responsible warnings of GW proponents. What's their motivation? To receive the corporate payoff money that is much less costly to pay them than to pay the costs jer being responsible corporate citizens. Can you feel my sarcasm?

It should also be noted that we GW deniers are just to ignorant to see the writing on the wall so we prefer to bury our heads in the er, uh, ice, rather than face the facts that higher atmospheric Co2 levels must translate into higher temps. Even though we aren't really seeing a change in weather which can be connected to it.

But just wait till next summer when it gets warm again. Especially in August when it's really hot outside. That will prove the GW alarmists right once again. Fear not jyoshu, they will have their day again. in fact for approximately 4 months each year they'll have their day.

Very good post by the way. It's clear, concise, covers all angles of this algore promoted fraud, and might even prevent us from having to pay the long hoped for carbon tax which these imbeciles think will allow us to tax our way out of this non existent mess.

PS I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to post your article on another thread where I have been repeatedly insulted as ignorant for pointing out these same facts.

Who are these 650 world renowned climatologists? As far as I can see even the one quoted, Dr. David Gee, isn't a climatologist, he's a geologist.

Yes, the highest temperature on record is in 1998, but nobody expected 2008 to be warm because of the La Nina effect, long term forecasts SAID that 2008 was not going to be particularly warm year. That doesn't undermine the long term trend, which is that the earth is warming. If you look at this graph:
File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You will note that while the temperature in 2007 (2008 isn't on there yet) is indeed lower than that in 1998, it is closer to 1998 than it is to, say, 1999 or 2000. 1998 was aberrantly hot, even with the current warming, due to the el nino effect. Even if you look at the 5 year average trend, there is significant fluctuation in the long term trend.

EDIT: a bit of digging reveals that these 650 include pretty much anyone with a science PhD, regardless of suitability to comment on the topic at hand (Chemical and materials engineering? Obviously well qualified to talk about climate change). They also did not stand up and say anything, they were quoted in a "minority report" from the US senate, which has long had a republican conference determined to deny climate change. They scoured (seemingly) every academic institution on the planet and still only turned up 650.
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=235077
The only places referencing it are conspiracy nut gathering places and right wing blogs

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

Who are these 650 world renowned climatologists? As far as I can see even the one quoted, Dr. David Gee, isn't a climatologist, he's a geologist.

Yes, the highest temperature on record is in 1998, but nobody expected 2008 to be warm because of the La Nina effect, long term forecasts SAID that 2008 was not going to be particularly warm year. That doesn't undermine the long term trend, which is that the earth is warming. If you look at this graph:
File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You will note that while the temperature in 2007 (2008 isn't on there yet) is indeed lower than that in 1998, it is closer to 1998 than it is to, say, 1999 or 2000. 1998 was aberrantly hot, even with the current warming, due to the el nino effect. Even if you look at the 5 year average trend, there is significant fluctuation in the long term trend.

EDIT: a bit of digging reveals that these 650 include pretty much anyone with a science PhD, regardless of suitability to comment on the topic at hand (Chemical and materials engineering? Obviously well qualified to talk about climate change). They also did not stand up and say anything, they were quoted in a "minority report" from the US senate, which has long had a republican conference determined to deny climate change. They scoured (seemingly) every academic institution on the planet and still only turned up 650.
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie' 650 to dissent at U.N. climate change confere - Forums of Pravda.Ru
The only places referencing it are conspiracy nut gathering places and right wing blogs

Let's see, here's what it say's:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

So I guess the UN invited a bunch of nut cases who know nothing about climate at all to the UN GW Conference, right? Or is it more likely that these people specialize in various sciences which all contribute to forwarding a deeper understanding of the science of climatology. Could that be a more likely scenario than your plan to just dismiss them out of hand as quacks because they have the ability to actually face reality?

-

It is no use, Jo: these anti-science, global-warming deniers are impervious to reason.

Since a sizable fraction of the human race consists of creatures equally determined to be irrational, it is just as well that most humans will be wiped out by the ecological disasters that lie before us.

It is lucky for them that there is no afterlife. If their religious fantasies were actually true, what would they say at the gate of heaven when their part in the destruction of the human race was revealed?

-

Originally Posted by Archangel

Let's see, here's what it say's:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

So I guess the UN invited a bunch of nut cases who know nothing about climate at all to the UN GW Conference, right? .....

Wrong. They didn't. The "bunch of nutcases who know nothing about climate" were on Senile Inhofe's debunked list, and not at the conference to "Stand up" and say anything at all!
The original 400-name list has had 250 more added, though many of the original list are not climatologists, and some of the few who are, are still on it despite publicly demanding their name be removed. None of the original list were asked to contribute, they were added by Inhofe's staff, on the basis of their poor understanding of papers which the scientists had written.

More "evidence" refuted.

Originally Posted by Penfold

Wrong. They didn't. The "bunch of nutcases who know nothing about climate" were on Senile Inhofe's debunked list, and not at the conference to "Stand up" and say anything at all!
The original 400-name list has had 250 more added, though many of the original list are not climatologists, and some of the few who are, are still on it despite publicly demanding their name be removed. None of the original list were asked to contribute, they were added by Inhofe's staff, on the basis of their poor understanding of papers which the scientists had written.

Prove it if you can.

AS ever, it is you and jyoshu who claim they stood up at the conference. You prove it.

Originally Posted by Penfold

AS ever, it is you and jyoshu who claim they stood up at the conference. You prove it.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Let's see, here's what it say's:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

So I guess the UN invited a bunch of nut cases who know nothing about climate at all to the UN GW Conference, right? Or is it more likely that these people specialize in various sciences which all contribute to forwarding a deeper understanding of the science of climatology. Could that be a more likely scenario than your plan to just dismiss them out of hand as quacks because they have the ability to actually face reality?

Originally Posted by Penfold

Wrong. They didn't. The "bunch of nutcases who know nothing about climate" were on Senile Inhofe's debunked list, and not at the conference to "Stand up" and say anything at all!
The original 400-name list has had 250 more added, though many of the original list are not climatologists, and some of the few who are, are still on it despite publicly demanding their name be removed. None of the original list were asked to contribute, they were added by Inhofe's staff, on the basis of their poor understanding of papers which the scientists had written.

More "evidence" refuted.

Hey genius, jyoshu posted the link that clearly states that they were there and agreed with the contents of the article. Then you make some ridiculous unsupported claim which requires that YOU PROVE YOUR ALLEGATIONS. It isn't my job to disprove your allegations. But as usual, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims which you never back up with facts. EVER!!!

Your source is a rightwing blog associated with the discredited Inhofe 400 list. Once again you rebroadcast a lie because it suits your agenda, without the most rudimentary check on its accuracy. The onus remains with you to substantiate the untruths you promote. Give a list of attendees to compare with your world-famous nonentities, for example.

Your problem, Archangel, is that you're entirely too credulous when it comes to random people on the internet. Penfold, it turns out, is entirely correct. For example, the 'tard author of the piece writes that:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

Now, the obvious import of this is that at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan from December 1st to 12th 2008, David Gee at some point uttered the words above. But this is clearly a lie. These words were instead spoken on August 8th, 2008 at an entirely difference conference, the International Geological Conference in Oslo, during a panel discussion. As a matter of fact, the whole affair was video taped, and you're welcome to view it here (Gee appears 47 minutes in). Oopsie!

But these words do appear on Inhofe's silly list of supposed 650 dissenters. What do you make of that, big guy?

Let's look at some of the supposed science too.

The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

In the other thread, we explained how internal variability can swamp long term trends from CO2 in the short term, so "dramatic drops" in single years are no problem. What about the linear trend since 1998? Well, that's upwards.

Fawcett & Jones (2008) plot the data from the GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT3 in figure 2 of their paper. Oops.

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Because internal variability from the likes of ENSO, which can cause short term swings of a full degree C, easily swamp the smaller increase we'd expect from CO2 forcing. Easy.

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

In tens of thousands of years. Chapter 6 of the AR4 details the calculations and associated papers.

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.

Because in the case of glacial/interglacial variation, CO2 functions as a feedback from orbital forcing. Again, this is all very simple, basic stuff outlined in chapter 6 of the AR4.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

Your problem, Archangel, is that you're entirely too credulous when it comes to random people on the internet. Penfold, it turns out, is entirely correct. For example, the 'tard author of the piece writes that:



Now, the obvious import of this is that at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan from December 1st to 12th 2008, David Gee at some point uttered the words above. But this is clearly a lie. These words were instead spoken on August 8th, 2008 at an entirely difference conference, the International Geological Conference in Oslo, during a panel discussion. As a matter of fact, the whole affair was video taped, and you're welcome to view it here (Gee appears 47 minutes in). Oopsie!

But these words do appear on Inhofe's silly list of supposed 650 dissenters. What do you make of that, big guy?

I'm curious if anyone else could view your video because it didn't work for me.

And I'm wondering why you so easily write off these 650 climatologists who believe that we are approaching a mini ice age.

And I'm wondering why you are attributing the rise in Co2 levels to massive and dangerous GW when all the evidence say's it doesn't affect the rise in temperatures that the alarmists predict.

And I'm wondering why you will just ignore evidence like this from reputable sources, in favor of your paranoid perspective.

I'm also wondering, which scenario you would prefer if given the choice, Global Warming or a mini Ice Age which lasts between 10 and 12,000 years?

Here's an excerpt:

Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.

The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.

The lack of periodicity and the present failure to isolate a stable forcing mechanism À la Milankovitch, has prompted much scientific debate about the cause of the Younger Dryas and other millennial scale events. Indeed, the Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state.

Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age?' : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Originally Posted by Archangel

I'm curious if anyone else could view your video because it didn't work for me.

There are other, secondary accounts in various places on the web as well. Feel free to do a little research.

Or update Windows Media Player.

And I'm wondering why you so easily write off these 650 climatologists who believe that we are approaching a mini ice age.

1) As Penfold accurately stated, these are not 650 climatologists. These are 650 people--television weathermen, economists, scientists in unrelated fields with no experience in climate science--who Inhofe's staff believe are critical of consensus (see here for a breakdown of the earlier list of 400, of which this one is an expansion). Of those that are actual working climate scientists, quite a few have been quote-mined to appear as if they disagree, when in fact, they do not.

For example, Inhofe's people quote-mine Prins and Rayner's (2007) criticism of Kyoto and present it as if this means they deny the reality of anthropogenic warming. I don't think Kyoto is particularly good policy either, but I hardly think that means I doubt the reality of human-induced warming over these past several decades.

2) These 650 supposed dissenters are not saying "we are approaching a mini ice age." Some of them perhaps, but the list is not presented by Inhofe's people as one devoted to those who exclusively subscribe to such a view.

3) Every sensible climate scientist understands, as i said before, that glacial/interglacial variation is driven primarily by orbital forcing and its feedback. Orbital physics being what it is, these variations also happen to be relatively easy to calculate. When you run the numbers, it turns out we are headed for another ice age, but this is many thousands of years in the future.

4) The issue is ultimately one of evidence. Even if the list contained 650 climatologists who disagreed with the consensus position, they'd be 650 confused climatologists.

And I'm wondering why you are attributing the rise in Co2 levels to massive and dangerous GW when all the evidence say's it doesn't affect the rise in temperatures that the alarmists predict.

I'm going to assume, first of all, that "attributing the rise in Co2 levels to massive and dangerous GW" is just sloppy grammar, and not a confusion about causality.

Second, I have no idea what "evidence" you could possibly be talking about that suggests CO2 doesn't affect temperatures as much as "alarmists" predict. Which "alarmists" are these, and what is their prediction? What evidence is inconsistant with that prediction?

And I'm wondering why you will just ignore evidence like this from reputable sources, in favor of your paranoid perspective.

Ignore what evidence, Archangel? In addition to the outright fabrications about the UN meeting and the supposed 650, the piece contains nothing more than the same recycled denier confusions that have been debunked a million times before. I even took the time to do it again.

Could you maybe, you know, address what I said? How about addressing the other outstanding issues in the other thread?

I'm also wondering, which scenario you would prefer if given the choice, Global Warming or a mini Ice Age which lasts between 10 and 12,000 years?

Huh? I have no idea which i'd prefer, Archangel. What I do know, however, is that the carbon humans are pumping into the atmosphere is causing the average temperature of the planet to rise, and that this carries with it significant costs. By internalizing this externality, we'd all be better off.

ETA: Let me also ask this. What do you believe is responsible for the trend in global mean temperature since the 1970s, Archangel? What specifically is behind it, and what evidence is there to support it?

I've already linked to a site which describes some of these 650, did you not bother to read it Archangel? I know it's much easier to deny evidence when you don't look at it but even so...