Well Rush,

It's rather obvious where your brain is. You seem rather radical to me.

Whether you choose to accept the fact that things are getting hotter, or not, is up to you.

"Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world"

Out of how many "scientists" from around the world?

Do you have ANY IDEA how many "scientists" or peers of these 59 people there are?

NO!

Is that .0005% of the "scientists" from around the world?

Get a grip!

While it is certainly true that many man-made GW proponents act purely out of a sincere fear of the future, and only that, it is also true that the global environmental movement has become the modern-day refuge for old-time international communists and socialists, whose original cause fell into disrepute after the fall of the old Soviet Union.

It is also true that this latter group are inimical to all free and capitalist societies, of which the USA is, for the nonce, the first among equals. Hence, a target.

It is further true that the Kyoto treaty, which the US did not sign, was a direct attack on the US economy. Not necessarily by rabidly anti-American parties, but by other countries/economies, out of sheer self-interest.

As I pointed out in another thread, the 1990 target for reducing CO2 emissions followed directly from the reunification of Germany at that time, and the acquisition by West Germany of the dirty and inefficient plants of the former German Democratic Republic - East Germany. The Germans knew that they would never again emit the pollutants they were emitting in 1990, because those old plants would be shuttered or updated. Hence setting 1990 as the date was no impact to their economy, but a major hurdle for fully developed countries with industry already at the state-of-the-art with respect to pollution control.

And of course developing countries, such as communist China, were completely exempted from Kyoto.

So you have several trends going on here, all of which are undeniable, the sum of which form an attack on the US economy. We can agree that for the most part it isn't a direct attack out of ill-will for the US in particular, but the end result doesn't differ much from if it indeed were.

In closing, it is also undeniable that there is indeed an attack of sorts coming right from within our own country, against our way of life. It is largely a cultural attack on the life of middle America by the elites on either coast. By "elite" I don't mean a better class of people, I mean a group who consider themselves better. These are the people who live in highly congested areas, where automobiles do not work as well as mass transportation, and who indeed have mass transportation, and who in their superiority cannot understand why the rest of the country cannot also implement lifestyles like those on the coasts, and in Europe, as well. (The population of France, at 60 million, one fifth that of the USA, lives in a landmass half the size of Texas). Hence they promote gasoline taxes to make individual transportation less economical, with an idea of using the added revenue to build mass transportation, ignoring the economics of high vs. low population density.

Many of these elites who live in the Northeast and the west coast, especially California, regard the interior of the country as "fly-over country" and cannot imagine living there. They would feel more at home in Europe. While one cannot state that it is their goal to make over the country in their own image, it is certainly not an unpleasant fringe benefit, from their point-of-view.

While it would be highly desirable to separate the pure science of climatology from the messiness of politics and cultural and economic competition, it is impossible to do that when the GW movement is used to further certain nonscientific goals.

Now I realize that for many readers, the above factual account will not be persuasive, because they have already made up their minds. So try this, applicable only to the USA.

Let's compare action on two upcoming crises. The first is Social Security, whose demise can be predicted with mathematical certainty based on population trends. Nothing substantive has been done about this for decades. Then you have GW, which is a prediction based on simplified models of incredibly complex global climate trends, about which there is huge controversy, and you have actual international treaties and billions and billions of dollars spent to combat it.

If you compare the stimuli and the respective responses, they are totally out of whack. The only rational conclusion is that certain parties see the GW movement as advantageous to their long-term goals, whereas a true-blue crisis such as Social Security is just a nuisance with no easy quick fix.

For all of these reasons, there are many who view man-made GW with a jaundiced eye. You may disagree with the substance of what I have written here, but you cannot disagree that many people share these concerns, and they must be addressed if you want to ram the proposed fixes for man-made GW down our collective throats.

I don't care for the tone of this person's responses, and when he is just venting, I tend to ignore him (as much as possible). In the alternate thread he mentioned, it is indeed he and others who are quite angry and aggressive, as opposed to simply responding in a "just the fact's ma'am" approach.

And for the record, I do not respond to these kinds of posts in order to argue with them and change their minds. My time is much better spent elsewhere. What is of value, however, is to respond such that the unbiased reader can read the various posts and make up their own minds. That is indeed worth the time.

In this case, Mr. Garth makes the following assertion: "I agree we should follow the money, who's agenda are you going to back Exxon or universities & governments? Which agenda is more likely to be in your best interests?"

That is a good question, and there is a clear implication that Mr. Garth feels the universities and gov't (same thing nowadays in most cases, given the funding mechanisms) are "on the side of the people," whereas private industry, as represented by Exxon, are against the people.

I couldn't disagree more. But this isn't about me, and it isn't about Mr. Garth. Instead, I give you Adam Smith, from the classic "The Wealth of Nations" published in 1776. Here is arguably the most famous quote, at least among layman, from the seminal three volume classic on free market economics:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

The point is that while there can be individual variances, when you look at a whole profession, you can divine that their intent is their own self-interest. It is not as if only benighted souls go to work in private industries, while the Albert Schweitzers of the world cloister themselves in the immaculate halls of academe, or the parliaments of government.

Quite to the contrary, the academics and the gov't types are looking to further their careers at public expense, which means lobbying the public to convince them to continue funding, whereas private industry must cater to the actual wants and needs of people who get to freely choose how to spend their own money. Exxon doesn't have to convince me to put gas in my car; all they have to do is provide it at a cost that works for me.

Now clearly advertising plays a part in creating many of these private sector "wants" and "needs." But there is this crucial difference.

If my neighbor, and even a majority of my fellow citizens decide that drinking Pepsi is the best way of joining a New Generation, that has no impact on me whatsoever. But if a majority of my neighbors believe the global warming sky is falling, and elect representatives who enact punitive economic legislation, that does indeed have a direct impact on me.

From my point-of-view, and by proxy, the view of Adam Smith and other free marketeers, the market imposes a "forced honesty" on businesses, similar to what used to be provided by the peer review process in the realm of science. I say used to, because today it is commonplace to have contradictory studies coming out on an annual basis telling us what to eat, or what not to eat, or how to exercise, or how not to exercise, what causes cancer, what doesn't cause cancer, etc. ad infinitum.

Thirty some years ago the "science community" decided that cholesterol was BAD, and eggs had a lot of cholesterol, hence eggs equaled BAD. More recently, the "science community" discovered that there are two types of cholesterol, one good and one bad, and that eggs had a lot of the good cholesterol. So now eggs are good, or at least not BAD. How much economic distress was wreaked in the egg industry? Was there ever an apology on the part of science towards this segment of agriculture? Who does agriculture sue to regain the lost revenue? Yeah, right!

Of course there is no money to be pursued that way, but if there were, the defense would be, "But we meant well - we work in the public interest, not like the money-grubbing farmers and distributors; if we erred, we erred on the side of caution, you can't blame us for wanting to warn people about a potential hazard."

And then of course you have the gov't campaign against tobacco. Now no one is going to argue that smoking is good for you, but the various state governments sued for billions and won on the dubious basis that smoking makes people sick, and these people end up dying in hospitals on the gov't dole (Medicare). Two important points. These people may have died early, but they were going to die sometime. One can maybe make a case if someone died early, left a young family behind, maybe the maker of "Old Coffin Nails" ought to kick in and put the kids through college, something like that. But for the gov't to say that the gov't has been harmed is another issue altogether. People are going to die of something, and at least one study showed that people die of smoking-related diseases faster than if they die of old age or other natural causes, so that the argument was made that smokers may have been saving the gov't money by dying faster.

And the pièce de résistance. The state governments, in suing for damages, stated that they needed the money to educate people to stop smoking, or never start. To date, a very small percentage of the billions transferred from the cigarette industry to the governments was used for the stated purpose. Instead, the vast majority was used for all sorts of other purposes, whose one and only common denominator was to buy votes by spreading largesse looted from the tobacco industry.

Now to be sure my heart doesn't bleed for the tobacco industry, and I hope one day that smoking will no longer be the bane it is. But the eeevil tobacco companies are not the ones footing this bill. It is their customers who are being punished for their sinful habits and who are funding all these public projects. It is as if society has branded every smoker with a scarlet "S" on their foreheads, and now, thanks to the caring omni-benevolent state, the smokers not only get to die young, but they get to pay for the privilege as well.

If the question is which sector, public or private, provides the most benefit to society, my money is on the private sector, all the way.

Again, this isn't about my opinion, or that of Mr. Garth. What do you think? That's what is really important!

In terms of consensus I have the following comments:

A small number of scientists (and engineers) disagree in some way with the idea of man made global warming as a threat. Some disagree with the idea of man made global warming.

However, all of the national academies of science who have commented do agree that man made global warming exists and is a problem to be dealt with and almost every engineering and scientific institute or society has also agreed. I am a member of two engineering and scientific Institutes/Societies in the UK and both agree strongly that global warming is occurring at an increasing rate and is very significantly driven by human inputs. The views of these and other Institutes represent the overwhelming views of their members and any member can influence them or attempt to convince others they are wrong. Broadly based sampling also confirms the view that a very large majority accept man made global warming as existing.

I am aware of one poll, for example, by Doran and Kendall that approached 10,257 earth scientists. They had a reasonable return rate of about 30%. Most of the sample were from the US and Canada so might be expected to mirror the views of the folk taking part in this topic - see this link http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

96% of those active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Petroleum geologists were low with 47 percent and meteorologists a bit lower at 64 percent in believing in human involvement. Maybe the 3% of the climate researchers can be equated with the 900 'anti' views quoted at the start of this thread, but that produces and incredibly low number of scientists in the world! I think these results justify a quote from Doran and Zimmerman :

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

I note that believing in something does not make it true and not believing in it does not make it untrue. But where those with knowledge reach an overwhelming consensus then another quote is perhaps called for

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong ... but that's the way to bet" Damon Runyon - probably modifying an earlier saying by Keough

In terms of measurements and modelling the evidence is very strong. In my field of oceanography and marine biology there has been very solid recording of change that is well predicted and defined by models. That is, the models have good explanatory power. I am not aware of any competent model that does not produce global warming given best estimate and measured inputs.

In summary it seems unlikely - to put it as gently as possible - that the present world-wide overwhelming scientific and engineering consensus is really an attempt to attack the USA economy or alter its political balance. For myself, the US economy and the politics of the US are not major influences on my thinking. I have, however, personally observed long and medium term changes in sea temperatures, marine life movements associated with temperature, corrosion rates associated with sea temperature and a host of other effects that lead me to believe that the oceans are warming.

That is, the models have good explanatory power. I am not aware of any competent model that does not produce global warming given best estimate and measured inputs.

None of the models satisfactorily accounts for the medieval warm period.

It is a matter of history that during this period grain was grown in Greenland, grapes in England. The phenomenon was also present in present day Newfoundland and the Takla Makan desert. I haven't yet looked to see if it also extended to China and India.

Is this possible now on a commercial scale?

Obviously not.

This means the climate was warmer then than now, without significant anthropogenic forcing inputs.

Climate models which show a warm period at this time all show it cooler than now.

Are the historical records wrong or are our climate models limited?

If the warm period was warmer than now, why do we get in such a panic about it?

Judging from the cyclic nature of climate, our present warming is about on course.

Climate models are also incapable of satisfactorily accounting for the temperature/CO2 levels of geological ages. Geologically, we are in a cold period not seen since the carboniferous. Our CO2 levels are about 1/10th that of most geological ages.

I could multiply the catalogue of anomalies in the anthropogenic warming scheme enormously. I wonder that "mainstream" science can't also see it. Perhaps the scientists involved want to keep their jobs?

Certainly anyone who dares to disagree is vilified, while most dissidents seem to refrain from unduly vilifying their opponents.

Governments and bureaucrats gain increased power from "Global Warming". They won't willingly yield it because of mere facts.

Although I'm still a guest - I'm not sure yet whether I want to register - I'd like to reply to Sceptic's comments on my previous post.

Sceptic says "None of the models satisfactorily accounts for the medieval warm period"

I'd like to consider this 'medieval period' a bit. Much depends on how we define this period and where in the world we are talking about. Sceptic goes some way to avoiding the 'eurocentric' trap of only seeing things from a northern European perspective by acknowledging the need to look at evidence from all over the world at the same time if we are going to talk about 'global warming'.

The material discussed, however, does fall into the temporal trap of not comparing the same time periods. The 'high medieval' period from A.D. 1100 to 1200 was warm in northern europe but not in Greenland - two areas that are mentioned in that post. The warm period in Greenland seems to have run from A.D. 400 to about A.D. 1000 spanning the period when the first settlers arrived (let's say about A.D. 900, but possible earlier) but with ice cap expansion starting again in the early A.D 1000's. Grapes were grown in England in the Roman period (say A.D. 100 to 400) and in the high medieval period A.D. 1100 to the mid to late 1200's and they have been commercially grown in England at odd times and places over quite a long period up till now with a major growth in production (no pun intended) since the 1970's. It is interesting, but not perhaps relevant, to note that the present day vineyards are not in the same areas as the medieval vineyards - although roughly on the same latitude. English wine, by the way - and only in my opinion - is over priced and all wine everywhere comes in bottles that are too small ... but that's a different discussion.

Cherry picking a few examples that show temporal problems - and cheating because I'm not giving the references - temperature of current near the Grand Bahama Bank peaked about A.D 900 then fell; a warmer period prevailed in the NE Caribbean (south of Peuerto Rico) from AD ~700-950. Neither of these were peak warmth periods in northern europe.

A good reference that reviews a lot of data is:

Climate in Medieval Time
Bradley, Hughes & Diaz. Science October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
These authors "review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe"

Another is :

On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming
D'Arrigo, Wilson & Jacoby. J. Geophysical Res. 2006
These authors use inputs that span across the north of america, europe and asia. They find that the 'medieval warm period (MWP)' occurs at different times whereas the 'current warm period (CWP)' is occurring everywhere at the same time. They conclude the CWP exceeds the peak MWP.

In any event it is not a matter of contention that we have local, temporal and global variations in a number of parameters that indicate or determine climate - temperature, wetness etc.. The question is whether what we are seeing now is different? Sceptic puts it another way saying "This means the climate was warmer then than now, without significant anthropogenic forcing inputs." Well, so what? The earth does get warmer and colder in complex patterns and has done so for a very long time before humans appeared (and before anybody picks me up on that - let's not go there!). The question is, whether what we are recording now is determined by different processes?

Before going into that, Sceptic also questions whether 'climate models' get it right about these periods saying "Climate models which show a warm period at this time all show it cooler than now." Not true. One example that should be agreeable comes from this paper:

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.

Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, Karlén & Lauritzen. Nature. 2005 Feb 10;433(7026):587-8
These authors say: "According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue."

So the models do show the variability in climate over the centuries - and so they should as they have a lot of the data built into them through various development processes. So, by the way, do finite element models that we use to build planes, CFD models that we use in the offshore industry and weather hindcast models that predict backwards to estimate waves where no wave heights were measured. Nothing new in that - it's whether when we give them a new problem with only raw input they match previously known independent output. The climate models mostly do - although some are c**p :)

I should note, since it was brought up that none of these models that I am referring to are intended or claim to deal with "temperature/CO2 levels of geological ages". Those conditions are different beasts entirely and are not represented or dicussed in terms of 'climate'. In any event really big swings didn't matter then because our present 'human' world did not exist. I'm not saying it matters that greatly now cos I don't really see what's so special about humans, but ... there we go.

So - the big question ... is present warming different? To be clear, we need quite a few decades of records to separate the anthropgenic (forced) response from naturally occurring variability. We also have to work over fairly large spatial scales of the order of thousands of km to avoid 'local' effects of the type discussed above. I love the phrase used in a previous IPCC Report where they query whether "...(an) anthropogenic signal was still emerging from the background of natural climate variability."

The answer now is, yes, the anthropogenic signature can be separated from the background variability - and it's got nothing to do with politics. What folk choose to do about it is politics.