When it comes to GW.......... I'm am sick of seeing data.

Maybe they really do see peepee and it's in their cheerios?

GW.......

^{this is my favorite.}

The International Panel on Climate Change is not credible?

Says who?

You may have missed this...

I took the time to read quite a few of the leaked exchanges, and the intent was quite clear.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

So you have a problem with one of the scientists contributing research. This invalidates the findings of the International Panel how?

C'mon....

It was more than one, and the leaked emails, were of them discussing various ways to skew or eliminate data that didn't fit with the agenda.

Not only should they be kicked out of the scientific community; they should be in prison.

I think I'm done here.

I just wanted to make sure you guys caught the last paragraph of Kramarat's linked article.

"The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival. But those of us who seek to explain its implications and call for action must demand the highest possible standards from the people whose work we promote, and condemn any failures to release data or admit and rectify mistakes. We do no one any favours - least of all ourselves - by wasting our time promoting false claims."

Seems to me like they're saying that most of the data supports the IPCC report, in spite of the shenanigans going on in with the scientific community. Am I understanding it correctly?

yes, sounds like they experienced or witness some problems.......

He goes on to link one of his own articles, where he claims that deniers are also fabricating data, but he offers no proof of that assertion.

I'll believe it when I see the leaked emails from the opposite side.

He does refer to a study funded by Exxon, and I would say, that any study that is funded by people that stand to profit from the results, should be taken with a grain of salt. Monsanto comes to mind.

What convinced me, is the ice core data. It doesn't know how to lie, goes back 800,000 years, and shows wild swings in both global CO2 levels, and global temperatures...no humans involved in any of it.

Yes......NOT credible.....a bunch of paid off politicians and pseudo-scientists....

I went to take another look at the ice core data, and got this...

Due to the Federal government shutdown,
NOAA.gov and most associated web sites
are unavailable.

Only web sites necessary to protect lives
and property will be maintained.

See Weather.gov for critical weather
information or contact USA.gov for more
information about the shutdown.

NOAA Federal Employees: For access to the
Notice to Federal Employees About Unemployment
Insurance (SF-8), please Click Here.

It's ridiculous.

Although, I must say...this is the most efficient that I've seen government work.

They had the "shut down" signs and barricades ready to go, before the shutdown ever happened.

Just think...a few short weeks ago, we had millions available for Michelle Obama's "Drink Water" tour.

Most likely paid them ot to get it all together.

Don't forget the V-22 Osprey Presidential Dog Delivery System.

....

I had to google it........

Excuse me Mr. President.... is that Rome I smell burning....

Absolutely. This is all carefully calculated to extract the maximum emotional response from a generally clueless public. Maybe they should start running that commercial again where they push grandma in the wheelchair off a cliff.

Yikes!!!

Time for me to go work on something productive.

All it will take is one good burp from Mother Earth to put our 'influence' in proper perspective. But for all our sakes, I'd much rather have a little global warming than an ice age.

Excellent point, noting that the IPCC (I P Crooked Coolaid) has cited part of the largest warming to be in the 19th Century (right after the end of the Little Ice Age).

These posers never seem to give up. One thing about mathematical models. The trick is to make the model simple enough to correlate with something while leaving enough variables unaccounted for to "allow" a closed minded (I meant closed form) solution that allows one to explain away any discrepancies to the complexity of a real world system. See what you want to see, and propagandize the youth into believing it, and you have the beginnings of a world government revolution (that we are now in the midst of). In these times the nefarious, and ill-motivated seem to have the upper hand (for now). Just remember that truth will set you free.

Yeah, what's wrong with global warming anyway? We have milder winters and crops are growing great. What's wrong with that?

Besides, we didn't cause it. The earth has been warming since 1850--the end of the little ice age--long before coal-burning power plants, smog and CO2 emissions.

Global warming is a trillion-dollar hoax, perpertrated by scientists who want to keep their politically correct grant monies coming in.

Another wishfull post.

Just picking on the last point I want to see the math behind 30% of antropogene produced CO2 to do a proper dent in the PH value of the oceans!

Where is this PH taken from anyway? Is it from the mixing zone of the acidic deep ocean water and some upper ocean water layers?

Can we please stop these political posts? This as far as I know is still an Engineering forum.

WALOB!

From the report http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

Page 42:

"... Ocean observations are insufficient to assess whether there has been a change in the rate of total (anthropogenic plus natural) carbon uptake by the global ocean. ..."

Saying basically we are nowhere near to draw any conclusion or even giving any recommendations!??? I know this is just one sentence. But it seems to be not unimportant to notice. Further it says a bit more about various assumptions for this. Gotta love it!

yes, but they are preparing you for the conclusion.

I quite like this one here:

http://reagecon.com/pdf/technicalpapers/Effects_of_Temperature_on_pH_v4-_TSP-01-2.pdf

Even more interesting is this here:

If the pH falls as temperature increases, does this mean that water becomes more acidic at higher temperatures?

NO! A solution is acidic if there is an excess of hydrogen ions over hydroxide ions. In the case of pure water, there are always the same concentration of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions and hence, the water is still neutral - even if its pH changes.

The problem is that we are all familiar with 7 being the pH of pure water, that anything else feels really strange. Remember that you calculate the neutral value of pH from K_w. If that changes, then the neutral value for pH changes as well.

• At 100°C, the pH of pure water is 6.14. That is "neutral" on the pH scale at this higher temperature. A solution with a pH of 7 at this temperature is slightly alkaline because its pH is a bit higher than the neutral value of 6.14.
• Similarly, you can argue that a solution with a pH of 7 at 0°C is slightly acidic, because its pH is a bit lower than the neutral value of 7.47 at this temperature.

Taken from here: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale/Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water

Ah perhaps it was the 'Stockholm' image that made you think this was wonderful news. Well I shall burst your bubble. Sweden has the highest Radon emissions. Normal is 400 ppm in Sweden, your accepted normal is 50ppm. So why believe what comes out of here? They live in a dream, eat health foods, walk, run, cycle and they are all radioactive and dying from Radon posioning. They even do continuous surveys of their homes, have special radon venting systems installed in their homes and offices. A compulsory check before any home is built. Have you done a radon check on your home?

The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Really! By how much? Last year they claimed the sea level at Perth, Au was 2mm higher. Big news, big doom and gloom. Did anyone actually check to see if Continental drift had caused Au to sink 2mm on the west coast. Nope, Just GLOBAL WARMING.

nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 year.

Of course this must be true.The aliens have sent us information pertaining to this 800 000 year old fact. Ask God and Darwin. You will dismiss God, aliens, UFOs at a flip of a thumb, yet believe all the global rubbish without lifting an eye brow. Is it not time to have the FACTS as we have them now, presented to the WORLD, from each country who has done a PROPER study, for the people of the world to understand, digest, and make corrective actions, as a unified world rather than the 'A Holes' who are manipulating data.

Bring on global warming, the sooner the better, then we will not be here, and the world will take thousands of years to correct itself without people having to mess up the corrective actions. God can start again or the aliens can have it all to themselves.

More lip service from the brain dead and those who make huge profits from it all. ICPP: International Companies Plan Profitability.

Stop fracing, stop oil extractions, stop making plastic bags, stop being in a big rush and slow down business, and stop being so damned greedy and raping the planet of its minerals. That might just be a better option. (Fat chance it would happen!). This rubbish gets up my nose, just like pollution and this is pollution of everyone's mind.

I feel so much better now, thanks.

Well, one might just as well blame the current levels of free oxygen in this planet's atmosphere on those pesky phototynthesising organisms. What is there to be done about that?

Allocating blame doesn't actually achieve anything apart from pouring money into the pockets of the legal profession.

However, there are still pockets of resistance to the abolition of fossil fuels. So long as money is the measuring device, that resistance will remain.

This thread is at risk of wandering into politics. <unsubscrbes>

Settle down guys...

Larry works for a consulting firm, and no single topic has generated more views and clicks on this site, than global warming.

If I wanted maximum exposure for GEA consulting, I would do the same. We swarm like angry hornets, at the very mention of climate change.

Exactly why he should have consulted the PR department before posting!

I don't think these threads should be eliminated.

These IPCC reports are agenda driven, they drive US energy policy, and they will affect every single one of us. They really shouldn't be ignored...particularly by people in manufacturing and engineering.

I'm accused of being political, but there is a breathtaking array of new laws and mandates coming out of Washington. I think people should at least have a passing familiarity with a few of them...like phasing coal and nuclear out of our energy mix. It's not a big enough story to be reported in the news, but the ramifications of these decisions are going to be profound.

People are flying into a panic over the implementation of the ACA...insurance rates are skyrocketing, jobs are being eliminated or cut to part time, companies are dropping their plans, the system isn't ready....

Why not talk about these things as they are announced, rather than waiting until we are being crushed by them? Isn't mitigating damage, part of engineering?

Don't get me wrong. The thematic keeps me engaged if only the view could change to the exact points you raise here. Before you said this is PR and kind of a teaser to get everyones attention. Well, the negative attention he has with this post is something for actors but not for consultants that want to be taken serious.

As for the ramifications that the political world has on the circumstances under which we engineers have to work you are correct that we need to know and discuss. Phasing out nuclear will need heavy involvement of engineers in all aspects starting with decomissioning and developing alternative energy sources.

One thing for sure the world will not stand still and politics will not prevent it from turning (even so it must feel like this in US right now). But politics driven by pseudo science is just scary.

But it also can be different. Look here. This Mr. Tony Abbot to my knowledge is now Prime Minister in Australia and at work with what he proposed.

Sorry this is politics I'd rather stick to the science discussion.

Looks to me like he's putting his country on a common sense track. Trust me, there are a lot of people that would like to hang him.

Ultimately, this will improve Australia's economy; but I think he would be a fool to stop all investment in alternative energy sources. The time to be working on alternative energy is now...but not by force, and not by destroying economies.

Politics has (almost) always been driven by pseudoscience. That is a fact. Consider the Nazi purges of the Jewish people. Consider the Spanish Inquisition. Consider the way Galileo was treated by his "so-called peers". Consider the way the same country that issued a Nobel peace prize to our president (I refuse to capitalize or mention his name), is also way in the tank for this invisible global warming.

I wish to propose something even more urgent: Global Warning! Something here does not compute. Methinks the king hath no clothes! And as far as the government shut down goes, heck we are good here in Texas, bring it on. And don't try barring any Texan from visiting a shrine of freedom. I would like to see them keep one Texan from visiting the San Jacinto battleground, Goliad, Gonzalez, or the Alamo, or the Battleship Texas. I heard someone say a while back that our president was one dude, and the Senate majority leader another one. Well, gents, a dude is defined as a carbunkle on the backside of a cowboy (to put this genteely as possible). That is all I have to say for now.

Don't worry about them shutting down coal and nuclear. If you spend 10 minutes on Youtube you will clearly see overunity was cracked years ago (Anyone can do it!) so it will be there to save us all!

Really! Just look for yourself.

I see no justification for shutting down Nuclear as long as they use the Candu reactors- no pollution, spills or fracking needed- more poeple have bee killed and injured by wood than nuclear- and probably with deforestation done more damage

Clever, then this should have been posting in Commercial.........

Sponsors have been posting blogs for a long time. It helps keep it free for us.

Just pointing it out that its clever....

I think so. Plus, if we want to rant about the global warming agenda, now's the time to do it...so here I go.

Global warming is the basis of a global political agenda; one that is designed to give certain governments, (including the US), complete, centralized control over all energy production, manufacturing output, and eventually, entire populations of people; with cap and trade designed to skim trillions out of the global economy.

Recently, our president had the audacity to tell the entire continent of Africa, not to make any plans to improve their lives with the use of fossil fuels.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-young-africans-are-allowed-cars-air-conditioning-big

If the US completely drops fossil fuels, (which we can't), what will happen?

Well, it will drop the price of oil, and other countries will rush to buy it and use it...particularly, developing countries.

Any attempt by the US, the UN, or any of our allies to prevent the use of fossil fuels in nations that choose to use them, will have to be done by force. This means war, and especially in Africa, an uptick in hatred for America, and yet another recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.

We can talk about global warming all day long. The reality is, that as long as it's around, it will be used...by someone. The more the US and Europe try to get away from it, the lower the price will go, and the more developing countries will be able to afford it and grow their economies. Hmm.....redistribution of energy?

Anyway...whether we are destroying the planet or not, is moot. In a global perspective, every drop of easily accessible oil will be burned. Barring some kind of technological miracle, nothing will change that.

Recently, our president had the audacity to tell the entire continent of Africa, not to make any plans to improve their lives with the use of fossil fuels.

Yes, the "Do as I say, and not as I do mentality......."

They should give these clowns a Nobel peace prize or something........ oops,.... too late.

Nobel Peace Prize, that's becoming a joke.

We need to keep working on clean, more efficient methods...

The way to do it, with government involvement, is to fund promising research, and award cash prizes, (like the X-prize), for major advances that come from private industry.

Not mandates.

If I was living in a sheetmetal shack in Africa, and the US president told me something like that, I'd be looking for the closest guy that was passing out AK 47s and grenade launchers, and telling me that life was going to get better.

Not mandates.

And No Self interests, such as carbon credits..... That is what corrupted GW legitimacy, that and the SIPFF (Self Interests Politicians Fanatic Followers.)

That's correct.

Once global warming was exposed as a political and financial tool, even the legitimate science was thrown into question.

There is no question that we are impacting the climate, but people that only sought to increase their power and wealth, ruined any serious discussion about it.

Anyway...whether we are destroying the planet or not, is moot. In a global perspective, every drop of easily accessible oil will be burned. Barring some kind of technological miracle, nothing will change that.

This is the bottom line.

Common sense tells me that we are impacting the terrarium we live in/on. Is it significant? Even a child born today may not live to have that question answered, unequivocally. No matter if climate change becomes more intense and more catastrophic the truest statement about it all will be "It IS all part of a natural cycle." (i.e., "Oh, look at this bump in the data here..." as the life-form "man" comes and goes. The next cycle, (if there is one that includes our species again) after our possible extinction, may include rumors of our existence and demise, much like Plato's Atlantis. We may just be a philosophical speculation; sophisticated outlier of sorts. I think of the end of the movie, A.I., where the current life forms discover the "boy." at the bottom of the sea.)

Our impact is definitely insignificant from the Earth's perspective. We build boats and poke holes in some of them, many of which, sink into oblivion. The Earth observes it all and provides corrective action via physical laws and phenomena without judgment. We will have judged ourselves by our actions and consequent reactions to these laws.

As far as species go, we seem to be the most self-destructive produced yet. As George Carlin said, "Like a bad case of fleas."

Oddly enough, while I think that global warming is the basis for a, (very dangerous), political agenda, I still think we should be working on ways to sip our available resources, rather than gulping them.

The way to American energy independence, is to allow for INDIVIDUAL energy independence. A president who's #1 priority is global warming, would not impose tariffs on cheap solar panels. We buy everything from China, and yet, it was solar panels that got hit with tariffs up to 70%.

Since, (due to our crushing debt), we are no longer able to dictate how the rest of the world behaves, I'd suggest that we start welcoming affordable, alternative energy sources. Things that the unwashed masses can afford. Maybe the president should consider placing a tariff on doggie chew toys, and not products that can actually alleviate the global warming that he is so passionate about.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/opinions/41330381_1_u-s-tariffs-polysilicon-chinese-trade-practices

What I find most interesting about this thread is that, of the 29 replies so far, nobody agrees with the report. I guess that's because this is an engineering forum, and we like proof, not speculation from political scientists who stand to gain financially by continuiing the global warming farce.

I don't know a single engineer who believes any of this baloney--it's just the tree-huggers, liberal arts majors and scientists applying for politically correct grants who continue to bleat that we done all this. You can find plenty of dissenting opinions by Googling, but none of those scientists get government research grants.

What would be the point?

We know from the wiki-leaked emails, that they have been cooking the data to conform to a political agenda.

I'm sure not going to waste any more time looking around for things that counter their claims.

Insurance companies take the risk seriously.

The Depts of Defense and Homeland Security are taking steps to mitigate.

There's a global community of mayors who've taken action.

Which conspiracy is easier to believe? One confined to the US, involving entrenched economic interests using the political system and media to forestall risk mitigation that is costly to them, OR a conspiracy of scientists around the world (excepting something like - count 'em - FOUR countries), all backed by different governments, different sets of agendas, different funding mechanisms, trying to... what? Presumably they're trying to do something besides change the energy production/conversion technoligies to something that will impact all of us less. Because if that's what they're trying to do, it doesn't amount to much of a conspiracy.

It's just Occam's Razor.

The conspiracy is all about funding.

For scientists, it's getting grant money to study politically correct theories.

For Third World countries, it's crippling the U.S. and Europe, so they will be more competitive and attract more companies to their unregulated shores (Third Worlders have no intention of doing anything proposed, except maybe as window dressing).

For mayors and other politicians, it's a way of getting into federal programs and getting funding.

For insurance companies, they are just protecting themselves against who-knows-what lawsuits.

Federal agencies like military and energy do what's politically expedient.

Foreign scientists are not (necessarily) funded by government grants, US or otherwise.

Which Third World country/ies would you ascribe to the motives you speak of?

Outside the US, mayors live in countries that are fully engaged (at least motivationally if not physically) against climate change. There are few/no conspiricists in their funding chain to persuade to shake loose funding.

Insurance companies have the best math, or they lose money. The math seems to be telling them to change their policies about natural disasters.

The DOD spends lots of money looking forward to future threats (for all the good it often does us). The DOD was planning mitigations and strategies for dealing with climate change during the Bush administration, not exactly a climate-change-friendly ... climate.

My point is that all these people and agencies have ulterior motives that have nothing whatever to do with whether or not WE caused global warming.They are all just feeding on the money available to those that support the politically correct point of view.

If you don't support that view, you don't get NO money. And, from Cabaret, "Money makes the word go round."

Mathematics is no more scientific than is music. Both obey a structure and may through creative energies of the writer bring forth an understanding, or useful entertainment. Mathematics as created may or may not explain nature. What I object to is the bending of the observations by using a statistical basis that is either incorrect by error, or is intentionally skewed to fit the "paradigm" of the so-called observer. In the long run, this degrades society, degrades science, and is no real friend to fruitful engineering.

All I ask is that for every dollar spent on EPA, the government also spend a dollar on the DOE. Equilibrium is important. Our present "world view" is out of equilibrium with the truth, but nature with right the ship in passage of time.

You nailed it with:

What I object to is the bending of the observations by using a statistical basis that is either incorrect by error, or is intentionally skewed to fit the "paradigm" of the so-called observer.

The problem you have is which observations is bend........ on a scientific process, if one observation is skewed, you have to question all until proving otherwise. And with the amount of data on hand....that is quite a task in itself to verify.

And your comparing math and music...... there is a lot of similarities there.

....you should write an essay..."How the West was lost", and then get back to us...
Hint: start with identifying what makes the USA a global player, and then remove them, one by one...eg Money...what money? What the US now has is debt and printing presses. Manufacturing capacity ? Resources ? Technology ? Etc..etc.

One would imagine that global warming has been a huge boon to consulting firms.

I may be classified as a bit of a tree hugger but I hate the so called scientists who distort facts to make their point- Yes we can do better with good environmental practices but at least be honest when some do not work or may take much longer- classic example- sea levels will rise with ice melt- how come then much of the ice is in the seas and has a 4% volume increase and if the temperature rises to make the land ice melt then in tropical and mid temperate regions there is a corresponding evapouration rate that will largely compensate. this is why I like CR4- at least we get truth in most of the discussions- and I am most pleased to see that the potential for Vinifera Wine Grapes can now extend further north or south in the growing regions and enable us to toast the stupidity

Amazingly, years ago, witches were burned, drowned, outlawed. Now they write papers and the world listens to them! Did I miss something along the Yellow Brick Road to the Ginger Bread House?

Where did you get such a cynical outlook? Witches...? Most of the IPCC are scientists with PhDs and solid professional and societal credentials. Not exactly the background of an anarchist. I've had the pleasure of meeting with and working with a good number of these scientists over the years and they are among the least politicized people I know. I am curious why there seems to be such negativism toward these people who are trying to do their best with a very complex issue. Is it jealousy? Or what?

Solid research has been compromised by political agendas. Nobody is immune.

I'd like to take a time out to thank you for participating in this blog. It's appreciated.

By joining the conversation, you have probably given more credence to your company than you realize.

Thanks.

Edit: The scientists that you are talking to, are not bad people; it's just that they are approaching their work from an emotional, (financial?), frame of mind, rather than true objectivity...which we must maintain if we are to reach the facts.

I disagree with your comment on "emotional", and to the best of my knowledge, "financial" motives. Yes, our world is plagued by these influences but I will repeat that those in the scientific community that I have worked with are among the least affected by these factors. I'm not planning to nominate any of them for sainthood but I find them far more influenced by the search for the truth than the search for $$$.

Oh, come on! Those professors know damn good and well that if they don't toe the line and come to the conclusions wanted, they will be booted out. That means they won't be able to attend the various meetings, and enjoy all the camaraderie, wine, food, and trips to exotic locales. They all know what side of the butter the bread is on.

So their "search for truth" is for anything that fits the assigned parameters; that is, prove that global warming is caused by humans. We don't want to hear anything about Bert Rutan, global warming on Mars, CO2 being the result of global warming 600 years ago, bad test results, and so on. Ignore all that dissenting data!

They aren't doing anything different than commissions, peer reviewers* and study groups have done for decades--that is, give the powers-that-be what they want to hear.

*Peer reviewer rule--you don't mess with my paper and I won't mess with yours.

Then please explain how bogus data keeps turning up, while data that doesn't support AGW disappears.

It's pretty difficult to search for truth, when the "truth" has already been provided by those that hold the purse strings.

What exactly does your company do?

Do you advise clients on how not to contribute to global warming, or do you advise clients on how to adhere to the regulations that are stemming from the global warming scare?

The latter sounds much more profitable.

Your scientist buddies went way too far out on a limb with their alarmist predictions, and the excuses for the current 15 year stall in warming, sound feeble...even to the layman.

Lets not forget...they were positive that they were correct, and Algore managed to parlay it into millions.

That's not how science works; nor does consensus equal truth. Consensus equals a bunch of people with an opinion.

The best thing those scientists could do at this point, is to say that they were wrong...but they can't.

Why?

Because too much money and power is at stake, GW has become a world religion, and the ignorant followers would go insane if they found out that there weren't thousands of polar bears trapped on little chunks of ice.

My company helps small, medium and large companies that manufacture air conditioning products improve the cost, reliability, performance (efficiency, noise, etc) of their products. We serve the global HVAC industry. www.gea-consulting.com

I have missed this "positive" part of their predictions. As you can see in this most recent report the IPCC has gone out of its way to define probability percentages (numbers) rather than rely on vague terms like "very likely", etc. I do not however recall seeing anything from the IPCC claiming global warming is a certainty. (Yes, there are extremists saying such nonsense but this is a forum in the engineering community)

I don't see this as right or wrong situation. More a question of "how much?" and "is action appropriate?".

Yes, there is too much money and power at stake, but let's try to provide a little balance here with some environmental consideration.

More a question of "how much?" and "is action appropriate?".

It's a bit late for that. Those questions should have been asked when we were all getting slapped in the face with a hockey stick.

I do not however recall seeing anything from the IPCC claiming global warming is a certainty.

You haven't been paying attention.

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-human-climate-ipcc-leaked.html

It's incredible, that the IPCC guy says that they may change the report after input from various governments.

More computer simulated "proof".

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html

The research team conducted a two stage study. The first involved creating computer models that simulated climate evolution over the past several decades under three different scenarios: a world without human influence, a world with only human influence and a world without human emissions or naturally occurring incidents such as volcanic eruptions. The second stage involved gathering data from satellites and comparing it with what the team had found in creating their simulations. They say patterns emerged that prove that human influence is the cause behind global warming. One example they cite is data that shows that the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to us) has seen a steady rise in temperature over the past several decades, even as the layer just above it, the stratosphere, has cooled slightly.

How can they lump human emissions together with natural occurences/cycles, and say that it proves that humans alone are responsible for global warming?

Why do we need simulations, when the ice core data provides us with very clear global cycles?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1621199/research_claims_earth_facing_ice_age/

Computers will only work with the data that is fed in; ice core samples cannot be influenced by the will of the people observing them.

This is obviously a conclusion based in mass flatulence, as a ratio of increased population density. Naturally, the solution to such emissions must lie in dietary discrimination.

Beans reduce the ice-caps to beens ?

then why don't YOU go look at the Bert Rutan presentation, and open your Yankee Squinty eyes, and try looking at the dam truth for a change. You are just another dog in the manger.

I am telling you for a fact: The king has no clothes. This horse won't go back in the barn. The fat lady had sung.

This whole thing smells just like everything else that has leftist roots: Just like Obamacare. I feel sorry for the industry you work for.

While many Scientists do try to keep it honest you may take note that here in Canada many whistle blowers have been muzzled or fired for telling the truth- and that from Government agencies- Our Government does many things right but bending the truth to support big business (eg Monsanto and others) is not right or acceptable- and while I am not fully privy to what happens in many other countries I bet this policy is truly worldwide.

Hugh,

You have your feet planted in the real world. Politics and money will alter many well intentioned people in all walks of life.

As flawed as our institutions are in North America they are far worse in the rest of the world (with perhaps the exception Western Europe). It is easy to criticize and attack. It takes courage and leadership to put a hypothesis on the table for such an open discussion.

..'they are far worse in the rest of the world...' Now I have to admit that was a brash general statement to make. Having worked and lived in the 'rest of the world' the people living there have there feet on the ground. And frankly, the western world does suck. Europe, Canada and especially America, need to be telling everyone how to live. What to do and when to do it?

If you were not so damned greedy for the minerals, oil, gold, platinum, uranium, and selling your products into new emerging markets,and trying to rule the world, the world would not have reached the state it is supposed to be in.

In Africa, the silly US dollar affects everyone's life on a daily basis. So who made it worse for people in other countries? The local folks. I think not. The USA has polluted the world and now pollutes minds with garbage of global warming. They are so hell bent on their make believe that they are closing down their coal fired power stations. Your grid is so old and dilapidated, no power stations, what on earth are you going to do for power? Obamacare? Get a life please and get real.

I can safely assure you of this FACT. South Africa is miles ahead in technology and the latest materials and equipment, at least 20 years ahead of Britain and having been in Canada, they are ahead of them too.

Who decided the USA was a super power anyway? Is the USA not closed? Does that not tell you something? Of course it is easy to criticise and attack, (I have lived in these places and your country, so I can compare). But I can safely state, when your BS and lousy money and ideals affects millions of lives on a daily basis, in other countries, where they are no threat to you or your children or way of life, sometimes the attacks are warranted and the criticism just perfect. And you should sit up and actually take note.

Don't poop on another's doorstep until you clean up the poop on your own doorstep.

Don't hypothesize with peoples lives as it does not feed the hungry, only the rich get fat on hypotheses.

Very nice AH!

At the risk of swelling your big American head, I had to give you a GA on that one.

As I was drinking my coffee this morning, I was thinking about all of this hatred that is based in jealousy, and I thought to myself...

What would happen to the world, if various countries, (particularly the ones that are suffering from internal strife), simply adopted the original US constitution and bill of rights, and stuck to them?

I suspect that if even one such country attempted this, that they would find themselves drawing hard working talent from the rest of the world. It would be interesting to see.

BTW- I was thinking about this in regard to, "Where would I move, if it reached the point that I just had to?"

I couldn't come up with anywhere; not that there aren't great places on the planet, but because the US is still the freest nation on earth. I really hope we can keep it that way. The AGW agenda isn't helping matters.

Not necessarily.

Russia just could not get the freedom idea down. They were under iron thumbs for so long that democracy just could not take strong root. Putin has been the stabilizing element by taking a very strong lead, but I would not call Russia a democracy.

The other factor is natural resources. Some nations just have nothing to offer and must import everything just to survive. Without at least some raw resources there is little such nations can do to thrive.

North America is almost unique in that it has an abundance of natural resources, ports, and waterways to deliver both exports and imports.

Democracy in itself is not enough to find purchase without the fertile soil of natural resources to nuture it.

True. There are places that have been so bad, for so long, that spontaneous freedom would be a disaster.

North Korea for example. There was a documentary a couple of years ago, where a western team was allowed to go in and talk to the people, and go into their homes. The adults had the mentality of small children, and everyone's walls were adorned with pictures of dear leader. It was very sad, but also a wake up call to what an oppressive government is capable of doing to people. It goes beyond lots of rules and laws; the population becomes completely subservient.

Thank you, I think you understand my point now. So much monetary valued to have people say what you want to hear. Do you think the committees on global warming did not manipulate data to state/prove/back up what was initially required?So much money under the aristocratic heading 'aide', when the worldly term is bribery and corruption. The funding manipulates all end results, and here, in the global warming debate, it is no different. I dare to state the funding manipulated the end result? I dare to say what others fear to say? I dare to shake your tree as other have shaken mine? If I, as a private person funded the committee, do you think I would not be wanting to have results prove my theory, or future or to enhance my way of life? Some one always benefits from the funding in a rewarding way and it is always the giver, not the receiver. Naivety is not a excuse in today's world.If I recall, the Bill of Rights has been over written in many places and is no longer applicable in many points. And originally, democracy was; by the people, for the people, of the people.

You/we/I have been allowed an illusion of democracy. But, I accept your view point and stance as valid. We are all entitled to our opinions and they need to be tested for correctness and truth.

AS for WW I & II, well the 'bad guys' would have been a damned sight closer to the USA than they are now, and you have no way of knowing what would have been! And, the UK debt for that help, was fully paid off a few years back. (Credit union or loan sharking?). So there are always three sides to everything.

Enjoyed the debate, thanks.

Money, pride, group think... There are many roads to bias, some less noble than others.

Hold on just a second; something just dawned on me.

This was contained in your response:

I do not however recall seeing anything from the IPCC claiming global warming is a certainty.

And this is the title of your blog.

New ICPP Report: Human Influence on the Climate is Clear

Where in the heck are you coming from?

No offense sir, but we have been in epic battles here on CR4, over this subject.

You have chosen to pick at an old scab, so I think an explanation is in order.

Thank You for your comments. Intelligent discussion is always welcome.

Naïve? Ouch! Maybe you are right but still hurts anyway.

This panel did not create the controversy. They were called together in an unheralded call for help when the threat of climate change was becoming known. They had plenty of other things to do than get into a very complex topic that was politically and emotionally charged. This is not what technical people look for.

I will politely disagree with your opinion of groupthink. Being scientists and engineers they tend to be more the opposite, driven by "getting the facts" and "getting it right". This can drive some people nuts but is a trait that I can admire because they rarely get caught up in emotion or unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I'm glad to hear your openness to the possibility that humans may have an impact on the planet's climate. I too do not know that it is a fact, however I do believe in the "cautionary principal" that Europeans subscribe to. Although it is not 100% certain action is appropriate before that level is reached. This is how we went through the phaseout of chlorine containing refrigerants over the past 3 decades since Rowland and Molina discovered the "possibility" that ozone was being destroyed (who cares?) in the stratosphere. The HVAC industry (and others) incurred large costs phasing out CFCs and HCFCs in our industry. As painful as it was (bottom line suffered for a decade) it was the right thing to do (not a certainty) given what the scientists were hypothesizing. Look back and tell me how much Rowland and Molina have profited from their "call to action".

And finally, I wholeheartedly agree with your "politics is the issue" comment. The power of "politics" far, far outweighs the impact of science here. It is hard for me to continually accept the fact that politics is more powerful than science but it is what it is..

In the spirit of trying to keep this as an intelligent discussion..

I question the comparison of CFC to typical AGW claims. CFC's (and other halogenated products) are essentially manmade molecules that are not found in nature, at least on any scale apart from minute traces for some. That means they are POLLUTION, and they and their effects can be directly ascribed to human activity. But I'm sure you already knew that in your industry. AGW claims on the other hand seem mostly to be blaming human activity for changes in levels of naturally occurring substances, and also making exorbitant claims about their effects.

A panel such as the IPCC may have started with personnel that had the best intentions. Unfortunately, they seem to have found out what tenure means...

I find it interesting, that all of the scientists on the IPCC, along with Algore, received a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

Fast forward a bit, and a US president received a Nobel Peace Prize, for nothing more than accepting AGW theory.

The depth of this is mind boggling, and would require several books to explain it all.

The crux of it, (believe it or not) is that....

1) AGW is real.

2) AGW requires government intervention on an international level, with global cap and trade being the best way.

3) Global cap and trade will require a global governing body, and in the name of fairness, a global currency would be the best way to implement it.

Believe me, I know it sounds crazy, but ultimately, a cabal of globalists, based at the UN, would gain complete control of the entire planet. That's what they want, and the entire global population would be at their mercy.

I'll take the hits for being a nut, but everything is hidden in plain sight, within the UN archives; tens of thousands of pages, and the references to the plan are buried in a few obscure lectures, letters, meeting minutes, proposed treaties, etc., but they are there.

PS- This isn't party specific either. Bush Sr. could barely contain his excitement as he described the "New World Order". The people at the helm will have unimaginable power.

PSS-

I'm not even saying that all of these people are bad.

Think of the possibilities....

Dissolve all international borders.

End wars.

Put all money into redistributing wealth and ending world hunger.

No more guns in private hands; only the enforcers would be armed.

No more need for defense budgets; we would all be one big happy family.

True equality...no more rich and poor people. Sameness in economic outcome, regardless of skill or education.

I don't kow about you guys, but until our world leaders grow angel wings, and prove that they were sent by God to save us...I ain't trusting them.

How's this for a crazy theory?

Get America to agree that this is the way to go, (regardless of cost), and use her military might to bring the rest of the world in line.

Under UN command, of course.

I know...

I'm out of my mind...that could never happen.

Also "hidden in plain sight," as you say, is the simple fact that the UN fundamentally has no power or authority.

Keep telling yourself that. Last time I checked, the blue helmets were armed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Temporary_Executive_Authority

I think someone needs to tell them that they have no authority; they don't seem to think that's the case.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Any treaty signed by nations under the UN is generally a binding contract. It can even trump the sovereignty of signed nations, although that tends to be a little mirky.

The Security Council can authorize military action by member states. It can also impose membership "dues". Again, it gets mirky when countries withhold funds, but generally external political pressure prevents that.

While the organization really doesn't hold power, it does bind nations into treaties and contracts and it can even be a little bit of coercion.

They are also the most corrupt and wasteful organization the world has ever known.