Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Dan26]

While the outcome of the current warming is unsure, what is certain is what is causing it.

It's not certain at all what is causing it. If it was certian what was causing it, we wouldn't have 32,000 scientists disagreeing with the alarmism. The issue is the feedbacks. That's what the debate is about.

Big names in the alarmist world like Santer, Sherwood, and Schmidt admit that the models predict more warming 10 km above the equator than what the weather balloons could find. Each time they announce that they’ve resolved the differences, they have to start by admitting there are differences to resolve.

So to state the obvious, from the mouths of AGW alarmists Sherwood himself . Even he agrees the hot-spot was definitely missing.

"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend."​

​

​

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2.​

​

To suggest that there is empirical evidence (i.e NOT made on assumptions from models etc) that proves that human emisssions and human emissions ONLY are the main driver of any warming is wrong. To suggest that all those other thousands of feedbacks are irrelevant or have been "settled" is wrong.​

​

Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response. If a system instead reacts by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.​

​

The reason why the sceptics are winning this debate, and why alarmists refuse to debate them is because the lack of actual empirical evidence to support thier catastrophis, alarmism, which has been exposed in recent years. ​

 

[fishardansin]

Obviously in Dan26 land, bore holes, ocean bouys and sattelite data isn't emperical enough for him. Neither is comparing the growth in C02 in our atmosphere compared to human emmissions.

Oh that is right he claims that all the bore holes, ocean bouys and sattelite data point to something different to those who measure them!! That the climatic mean temp continues to climb ... yet somehow doesn't show warming!!

I wonder when he will show the claims of those who change their minds. In other words show them writing/saying something that shows how they accept the theory and then later on say they don't.

He's shown one so far.

I love how his insults are starting to come to the fore now. Not that I care because I have a few for him!! Of course mine are born of a worry about the future and how idiots like him are jeapodising it. His are born of a desperation that the new IPCC report will finally show him and his ilk up for the fools that they are ... I'm guessing the guilt of what they've done will be a weight too.

 

[Dan26]

fishardansin,

Listen closely.

There is not one peer reviewed paper in existence that has empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming. Not one. This is well known. All those thousands of papers are either not empirical, not related to the cause of the warming, or do not show carbon has a major role. This is not disputed. Every alarmist scientists knows they have no empirical evidence to support the catastrophic alarmism. If they did, the world would be in a state of panic
For example, the big slab of text you used form Upton's post have the following papers:

Tett 2000
used an "optimal detection methodology" with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere,

Nope that's a fail.

Meehl:
used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations

Another fail

Stone 2007
Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007. The first paper examined a set of 62 climate model simulations

Another fail

Stott 2012
used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models.

Another fail
Huber and Knutti
took the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings

Another fail

Gillette
Similar to S10, Gillett et al. applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model

Another fail

I asked you to supply that one peer-reviewed paper (you know, the one that doesn't exist) that has actual real life empirical evidence that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming or that human C02 emisisons are dangerous. Not only have you not provided this, you quoted a slab of text (thinking you provided it) that has peer-reviewed paper that use models, which is what are are NOT looking for, when you are trying to find actual empirical evidence. This shows that you didn't even read that slab of text.

It shows you don't care about the science, and you don't understand the debate. If you understood what you were talking about, you wouldn't have quoted a slab of text that used models and assumptions as proof of empirical evidence, when you thought they showed empirical evidence that humans were the MAIN driver of warming. Not only is that a major fail from you, but it shows you treat this as a religion and will just gravitate to whoever posts something that suits your greenist activist political views.

 

[Dan26]

I wonder when he will show the claims of those who change their minds. In other words show them writing/saying something that shows how they accept the theory and then later on say they don't.

He's shown one so far.

Here are a few more.

Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now

Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv,one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

 

[Dan26]

Fishardansin,

Now how about you apologise for hoping sceptics would die. You said it. You have to live with having said it. The least you can do, is apologise.

Professor Parncutt apologised for making a similalrly abhorrent and disgusting comment.

Is there any reason why you won't? Surely you must realise, that irrepsectivce of the scientific debate, that wishing death on sceptics is simply abhorrent.

You hoped I would die. I await your apology.

 

[fishardansin]

fishardansin,

Listen closely.

There is not one peer reviewed paper in existence that has empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming. Not one. This is well known. All those thousands of papers are either not empirical, not related to the cause of the warming, or do not show carbon has a major role. This is not disputed. Every alarmist scientists knows they have no empirical evidence to support the catastrophic alarmism. If they did, the world would be in a state of panic
For example, the big slab of text you used form Upton's post have the following papers:

Tett 2000
used an "optimal detection methodology" with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere,

Nope that's a fail.

Meehl:
used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations

Another fail

Stone 2007
Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007. The first paper examined a set of 62 climate model simulations

Another fail

Stott 2012
used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models.

Another fail
Huber and Knutti
took the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings

Another fail

Gillette
Similar to S10, Gillett et al. applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model

Another fail

I asked you to supply that one peer-reviewed paper (you know, the one that doesn't exist) that has actual real life empirical evidence that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming or that human C02 emisisons are dangerous. Not only have you not provided this, you quoted a slab of text (thinking you provided it) that has peer-reviewed paper that use models, which is what are are NOT looking for, when you are trying to find actual empirical evidence. This shows that you didn't even read that slab of text.

It shows you don't care about the science, and you don't understand the debate. If you understood what you were talking about, you wouldn't have quoted a slab of text that used models and assumptions as proof of empirical evidence, when you thought they showed empirical evidence that humans were the MAIN driver of warming. Not only is that a major fail from you, but it shows you treat this as a religion and will just gravitate to whoever posts something that suits your greenist activist political views.

Some say you're

But you're just making shite up!!

Stop repeating refuted claims or go away.

 

[fishardansin]

Fishardansin,

Now how about you apologise for hoping sceptics would die. You said it. You have to live with having said it. The least you can do, is apologise.

Professor Parncutt apologised for making a similalrly abhorrent and disgusting comment.

Is there any reason why you won't? Surely you must realise, that irrepsectivce of the scientific debate, that wishing death on sceptics is simply abhorrent.

You hoped I would die. I await your apology.

No. Please stop putting the lives of my children at risk.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

There is NO empirical evidence to support the alarmist theory. None. Why do you keep lying saying that there is? You're a complete and utter liar.

And you are in the throes of a very, very deep denial. The very living definition of a Useful idiot

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Can one tell me what is to be gained "discussing" or "debating" him?

Absolutely nothing. Better to just hold him to account for his dishonesty

Dan's List updated:

1. Provide evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
2. Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
3. Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
4. That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
5. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that Co2 is somehow a "nutrient" and would supposedly be such regardless of the proportion of it in the atmosphere.
6. Present peer-reviewed reports which support your claim that the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
7. Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
8. Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
9. Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4 (of the Carbon Debate thread).
10. Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
11. Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
12. Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
13. Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
14. Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
15. Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon price won't affect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
16. Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
17. Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
18. Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
19. Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
20. Acknowledge that you have plagiarised text from Joanne Codling's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
21. Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
22. Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.
23. Acknowledge the fact that the sources you've cited as being 'empirical' and somehow more reliable than models are themselves based entirely on models
24. Define what you mean by "empirical" and then explain why you believe models are not empirical evidence.
25. Explain what exact empirical evidence is required to substantiate a 100+ year exponential projection in the first quartile of said projection - while allowing for acknowledged natural variation.
26. Acknowledge that your cited 2009 source for a negative feedback from water vapour was refuted by Partridge et. al. in 2012 - i.e exactly the kind of "new science" you constantly claim supports your so-called "sceptical" worldview.
27. Acknowledge that you either lied or were misled when you claimed a survey showed scientifically literate people were more likely to deny climate science when really it showed people were more swayed by arguments that accorded to their cultural beliefs.
28. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the bloggers Evans and Tisdale's assertions that there has been no meaningful increase in the ocean heat content
29. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the blogger Evans' claims that Hansen's modelling is somehow "unreliable".
30. Cite the independent "scrutiny" of the Oregon Petition list
31. Provide all the "recent research" that you claim overwhelmingly supports a "skeptical" position and demonstrate that the research cited to the contrary is "biased"
32. Acknowledge that 14 years (ie. from 1998 to the present), or 20 years, or 8 years for that matter, are by definition statistically insignificant time periods to discern a climate trend, warming or cooling, thereby rendering your "it hasn't warmed since x" argument irrelevant in a single stroke.
33. Cite the peer-reviewed research which somehow supports your claim that the Mann graph is "fraudulent".
34. Cite the peer-reviewed research which supports Joanne Codling's atmospheric hotspot claim
35. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Pat Muller was somehow not in the "skeptic camp" previously.
36. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Steve Schneider was somehow not either.
37. Present the peer-reviewed research which backs your assertion that Greenland's recent warmth is somehow "not unusual", and that it was warmer there in the 1920s.
38. Provide credible substantiation for your assertions about the "Climategate" malarky, including evidence as to why all inquiries which exonerated the scientists involved were wrong, and why you know better than those who led such investigations.
39. Provide credible evidence - i.e. not memes circulated on denier blogs - which backs your assertion that SkepticalScience has somehow "manipulated graphs and data".
40. Provide evidence to support your personal smears about John Cook, who runs SkepticalScience, and is a ClimateCommunication Fellow at the University of Queensland.
41. Present peer-reviewed research which supports your claim about Arctic sea ice levels supposedly having nothing to do with global warming.
42. Prove, by way of peer-reviewed research, that HadCrut data is "inadequate".
43. Cite the peer-reviewed reports which support the assertion that Hansen's predictions were "wildly wrong and exaggerated".
44. Cite evidence which supports your claim that the questions asked in a survey of climate scientists about global warming were "loaded".
45. Present reportage which backs your assertion that those seeking to muddy the waters about global warming are the ones being threatened, supposedly by climate scientists, and somehow disproves the substantial reportage out there about climate scientists being subjected to continuous harrassment, threats and character assassination.
46. Provide evidence for your claim that climate scientists who don't agree with the consensus about global warming are supposedly disadvantaged when it comes to funding. If you can even identify any, that is. And Lindzen doesn't count. Even he agrees that global warming isoccurring.
47. Acknowledge that David Evans, who appears to be one of your primary sources, is not a climate scientist at all, has been fundamentally dishonest about various parts of his own life, and is notorious for his connections with fossil fuel industry and mining industry front groups. (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans)
48. Acknowledge that Joanne "Nova" Codling is not a scientist of any kind, is an IPA member, and is funded by the IPA, who are themselves heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry, tobacco companies etc. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova)
49. Acknowledge that Anthony Watts is a non-scientist and paid AGW denier who does not have a university qualification, has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer, and is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, itself a well-known front group for the fossil fuel industry. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts)
50. Acknowledge that Marc Morano is also not a climate scientist, but rather a Republican Party political operative (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano)
51. Acknowledge that Robert Ferguson and his SPPI organisation are funded, directly and indirectly, by oil companies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute))and that SPPI relies heavily on serial fabricator, Christopher Monckton - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)
52. Acknowledge that Fred Singer is not a climate scientist, but a place man and paid operative for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer)
53. Acknowledge that Patrick Michaels is also not a climate scientist, and is a PR flack for the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels)
54. Acknowledge that Roy Spencer is not a climate scientist, and is regarded as a clown by real climate scientists. That he has a track record of distortion, fabrication and dishonesty a mile long, is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, and works for notorious fossil fuel industry front groups the "Heartland Institute" and the "George C Marshall Institute", amongst others. (http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer)
55. Present peer-reviewed reports which prove that "3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons" support your claim about global warming not occurring. In other words, highlight any peer-reviewed report which has formed a conclusion at odds with the consensus position about AGW.
56. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that "all the major predictions have been exaggerated".
57. Provide details about the "hundreds" of climate scientists who have gone from [insert denier buzzword here] to "sceptic". Including their qualifications in the field.
58. Provide details of the supposed studies which you claim show that people who accept the scientific consensus about global warming are somehow "dumber" than those who deny the science.
59. Provide peer-reviewed research to support your claim that the statement about extreme weather events now being 20 times more likely to occur is somehow "nonsense".
60. Acknowledge that you are grossly misrepresenting Joanne Simpson, who does not at all support global warming denialism, but rather agrees with the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is a major threat to life on Earth. And I quote:
    we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will, in this century become unsustainable.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/24/julie-bishop-misrepresents-joa/
61. Acknowledge that Ivor Giaever is not a climate scientist, but rather a retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's department of physics, has not published any work in the area of climate science, yet is affiliated with oil and tobacco industry front group the "Heartland Institute" as a "Global Warming Expert", and appeared as an endorser of a full-page ad funded by the CATO Institute (funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris), which featured in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune in 2009. (http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever)
62. Acknowledge that Kiminori Itoh is also not a climate scientist, has never published any work in the field, but is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute front group as an "Expert". And also appeared as an endorser of the CATO Institute ad as mentioned before.
63. Acknowledge that Arun Ahluwalia is not a climate scientist and never published any work in the field at all, but is a petroleum geologist, and affiliated with the "Liberty Institute", which is itself an Indian affiliate of the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/arun-ahluwalia)
64. Acknowledge that Jarl Ahlbeck is a chemical engineer, not a climate scientist and again, has never published any work to do with climate science.
65. Acknowledge that William Briggs is a statistical consultant, not a climate scientist, and also has never published any work connected with climate science. But is also, once again, affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" political front organisation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_M._Briggs)
66. Acknowledge that Geoffrey Duffy (http://www.desmogblog.com/geoffrey-duffy) is an emeritus professor of chemical engineering, not a climate scientist, and like the others, has never published any work to do with climate science, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" (falsely presented by them as a "Climate Expert"), as well as another front organisation called the "International Climate Science Coalition", which upon investigation, has been discovered to be hosted at the same IP address - in Arizona - as similarly-named front groups the "Australian Climate Science Coalition", and "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition". All three being offshoots of the "Heartland Institute", drawing their funding from it (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
67. Acknowledge that Victor Herrera is a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist, has never published any related work, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1331), (http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera)
68. Acknowledge that Stanley Goldenberg is not a climate scientist, rather a meteorologist and hurricane researcher, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts", as well as the bogus "International Climate Science Coalition" (http://www.desmogblog.com/stanley-goldenberg), (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Goldenberg)
69. Acknowledge that Andrei Kapitsa was, again, not a climate scientist and has published no work about climate science, but was a professor of geography at Moscow State University. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Kapitsa)
70. Acknowledge that Miklós Zágoni is a physicist and past science historian, not a climate scientist, and again, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts". (http://www.desmogblog.com/miklos-zagoni)
71. Acknowledge that Richard Keen has never worked as a climatologist nor ever published any work in the field of climate science, and like so many of the others above, is closely affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-keen)
72. Acknowledge that David Gee is a geologist, not a climate scientist, and has never published any relevant work to do with climate science.
73. Acknowledge that Hajo Smit is an amateur blogger and has also never published any work in the field (http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/650-scientists-challenge-global-warming.html)
74. Acknowledge that Philip Lloyd is a nuclear physicist and chemical engineer, not a climate scientist. And is managing director of "Industrial & Chemical Consultants", "EMS Minerals", and "Bateman Engineering" - all companies closely connected to mining and the fossil fuel industry (http://za.linkedin.com/pub/philip-lloyd/21/431/28).
75. Acknowledge that James Peden was a graduate researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, not an "Atmospheric Physicist" as he claims to have been. The Space Research and Coordination Center was in fact just a centre for students studying numerous disciplines related to the aerospace field at the University of Pittsburgh. Also that he is linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" front organisation, has never published any work to do with climate science, and is currently an amateur blogger, directly linked to Marc Morano, the political operative who compiled the list you are dishonestly using here. (http://www.desmogblog.com/james-peden)
76. Acknowledge that Pål Brekke, Phil Chapman, Delgado Domingos, Takeda Kunihiko, Eduardo Tonni, Art Douglas, Patrick Frank and Jack Schmitt are also not climate scientists, and have never published any work in the field. But are all linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" - the offshoot of the "Heartland Institute" referred to previously (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
77. Acknowledge that you copied and pasted this latest list of supposed "experts" directly, as stated above, from the following list compiled by Republican Party operative Marc Morano, with the help of the fossil fuel industry and tobacco front group, the "Heartland Institute", presented at the time by Republican Senator and notorious fossil fuel lobbyist, Senator Inhofe - (http://heartland.org/press-releases...-more-650-scientists-dissent-over-warming-cla)
78. Acknowledge that the list of "900+ skeptic papers" you and PopTart throw around is entirely fraudulent in nature, that most of the "papers" are by the same small number of people, that this small group are all involved in and affiliated with various fossil fuel industry front organisations, virtually none of them are climate scientists, and 9 out of the 10 most prolific in that regard are funded, either directly or indirectly, by Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies.
79. Acknowledge that even the small number of genuine climate scientists whose papers were included in this list have been grievously misrepresented, libellously so, given that you and PopTart are pretending they somehow deny the scientific consensus about global warming when they don't at all. And that they are demanding to have their names and their work removed from this list.
    A significant chunk of the list is authored by a small group of writers with extensive links to each other and to the oil industry. The most cited source for the 'peer reviewed papers' featured is a minor journal which appears to have a blatant political agenda.
    
    Not only do many of the other papers on the list either support the scientific consensus on climate change, or not discuss human influence on the climate, there are many cases where scientists featured on the list describe the inclusion of their work as misleading.
    
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-–-“journal-of-choice-for-climate-skeptics”-part-iii-of-the-analysis-of-the-900plus-climate-skeptic-papers
80. Present evidence which proves that the word "denier" is somehow used by anyone to link "scepitcs" to holocaust denial.
81. Present reportage which supports your claim that Patrick Michaels has somehow been threatened with violence.
82. Name any climate scientist who doesn't agree that man-made global warming is occurring. Then name one who has somehow been prevented from getting their papers peer-reviewed.
83. Produce evidence for your claim that "the number of scientists who signed the most important chapter of the IPCC report was reduced to a mere 25 after climategate".
84. Acknowledge that the Lavoisier Group is a shelf organisation and political front for the mining and fossil fuel industries, run by mining executives and fossil fuel industry 'consultants', together with the HR Nicholls Society, the IPA and ex-Liberal pollies, and its membership is a "dad's army" of retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries, none of whom come even close to any sort of legitimate expertise or qualification in climate science.
85. Provide evidence for your apparent claim that Ben Santer sent an email to Patrick Michaels, somehow making threats of violence towards Michaels.
86. Acknowledge that you don't understand what peer review is or what is involved in the peer review process.
87. Provide a list of 10 scientists with relavent qualifications who have actually changed their minds on the issue

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Empirical:

Definition Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

• Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
• Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
• Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
• Function: adjective
• Date: 1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

3.1.1 What is a climate model ?

In general terms, a climate model could be defined as a mathematical representation of the climate system based on physical, biological and chemical principles (Fig. 3.1). The equations derived from these laws are so complex that they must be solved numerically. As a consequence, climate models provide a solution which is discrete in space and time, meaning that the results obtained represent averages over regions, whose size depends on model resolution, and for specific times. For instance, some models provide only globally or zonally averaged values while others have a numerical grid whose spatial resolution could be less than 100 km. The time step could be between minutes and several years, depending on the process studied.


Figure 3.1: Schematic representation of the development and use of a climate model.

Even for models with the highest resolution, the numerical grid is still much too coarse to represent small scale processes such as turbulence in the atmospheric and oceanic boundary layers, the interactions of the circulation with small scale topography features, thunderstorms, cloud microphysics processes, etc. Furthermore, many processes are still not sufficiently well-known to include their detailed behaviour in models. As a consequence, parameterisations have to be designed, based on empirical evidence and/or on theoretical arguments, to account for the large-scale influence of those processes not included explicitly. Because these parameterizations reproduce only the first order effects and are usually not valid for all possible conditions, they are often a large source of considerable uncertainty in models.

In addition to the physical, biological and chemical knowledge included in the model equations, climate models require some inputs derived from observations or other model studies. For a climate model describing nearly all the components of the system, only a relatively small amount of data is required: the solar irradiance, the Earth's radius and period of rotation, the land topography and bathymetry of the ocean, some properties of rocks and soils, etc. On the other hand, for a model that only represents explicitly the physics of the atmosphere, the ocean and the sea ice, information in the form of boundary conditions should be provided for all sub-systems of the climate system not explicitly included in the model: the distribution of vegetation, the topography of the ice sheets, etc.

Those model inputs are often separated into boundary conditions (which are generally fixed during the course of the simulation) and external forcings (such as the changes in solar irradiance) which drives the changes in climate. However, those definitions could sometimes be misleading. The forcing of one model could be a key state variable of another. For instance, the changes in CO2 concentration could be prescribed in some models while it is directly computed in models including a representation of the carbon cycle. Furthermore, a fixed boundary in some models, like the ice sheet topography, can evolve interactively in a model designed to study climate variations on a longer time scale.

In this framework, some data are required as input during the simulation. However, the importance of data is probably even greater during the development phase of the model, as they provide essential information on the properties of the system that is being modelled (see Fig. 3.1). In addition, large numbers of observations are needed to test the validity of the models in order to gain confidence in the conclusions derived from their results (see section 3.5.2).

Many climate models have been developed to perform climate projections, i.e. to simulate and understand climate changes in response to the emission of greenhouse gases and aerosols. In addition, models can be formidable tools to improve our knowledge of the most important characteristics of the climate system and of the causes of climate variations. Obviously, climatologists cannot perform experiments on the real climate system to identify the role of a particular process clearly or to test a hypothesis. However, this can be done in the virtual world of climate models. For highly non-linear systems, the design of such tests, often called sensitivity experiments, has to be very carefully planned. However, in simple experiments, neglecting a process or an element of the modelled system (for instance the influence of the increase in CO2 concentration on the radiative properties of the atmosphere) can often provide a first estimate of the role of this process or this element in the system.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
he skeptic argument...

There's no empirical evidence​

"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)​

​

What the science says...
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken fromDomingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.

Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

 

[Dan26]

Empirical:

Definition Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

• Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
• Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
• Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
• Function: adjective
• Date: 1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

I asked you to provide just one peer reviewd paper that shows empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming or that human C02 emissions are dangerous. You havn't provided that and what you have provided here once again fails.

All you have done is quote a big slab of text from skeptical science with the headline, "empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming"

Then you have just assumed that whatever is under that headline fits the bill.

First of all, I didn't ask you to provide empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming. I asked you to provide E.E that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming. The fact that humans are putting C02 into the atmosphere is not in dispute. The fact that humans therefore must be causing "some" warming is not in dispute.

What "IS" in dispute is how much warming and is it dangerous? Might this small amount of warming even be good? Nowhere in the history of human civilisation have we wanted the temperature to go colder. We hate the cold. The equator is poplated, the poles aren't. We can't grow things or farm in the cold. As a species we hate the cold. There is categorically not one peer reviewed paper in existence that shows empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming.

The fact that you would jsut post a slab of text from a discredited webiste that doesn't supply the empirical evidence I ask for, shows once again that you don't really know what the debate is about.

You just gravitate to whatever alarmist rubbish suits you, whilst ignoring the reality. Havn't you wondered why all the opinion changers are going in one direction?

Havn't you wondered why the most important chapter in the IPCC report was signed originally by a mere 50-odd scientists and after the climategate debacle this was reduced to only 25. Meanwhile I can show you and name 32,000 scientists that disagree with the alarmism.

Doesn't that set off alarm bells with you? Havn't you thought recently, why the alarmists are losing, and pondered why, with 3000 times the funding you still can't win the debate? It's because the empirical evidence doesn't match the alarmist catastophic predictions. Scientists are quietly trying to back away without their ego and status being affected.

 

[Dan26]

No. Please stop putting the lives of my children at risk.

The stupidity on display is astounding.

I didn't ask you to justify your "hopes of death for sceptics" by claiming they are putting your childrens lives at risk, therefore it must be okay to want them to die. It's not okay. I learnt that basic human decency when I was 2.

I asked you to apologise for hoping sceptics die. You said you wanted them to die off. Other humans beings. Yes, other actual human beings, including the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition project you said you wanted to die.

That's what you said.

And when asked to apologise you can't bring yourself to do it? What kind of awful, abhorent individual wishes death on people and then doesn't apologise?

I can only assume you meant it.

Unbelievable. Astonishing. And so, very sad.

How hard is it to apologise.? I'm sure you didn't really mean it. It would be inhumane. You can prove it was only a slip of the tongue by apologising, so we can get back to the debate.

So go ahead. Prove you're not a coward. Prove you've got the balls. Apologise.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

All you have done is quote a big slab of text from skeptical science with the headline, "empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming"

You clearly don't understand empiricism. That's probably because your idea of "science" is reading blog posts from reactionaries.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

So go ahead. Prove you're not a coward. Prove you've got the balls.

Put your money where your mouth is, Dan

Dan26's List updated:​

1. Provide evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
2. Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
3. Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
4. That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
5. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that Co2 is somehow a "nutrient" and would supposedly be such regardless of the proportion of it in the atmosphere.
6. Present peer-reviewed reports which support your claim that the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
7. Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
8. Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
9. Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4 (of the Carbon Debate thread).
10. Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
11. Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
12. Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
13. Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
14. Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
15. Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon price won't affect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
16. Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
17. Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
18. Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
19. Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
20. Acknowledge that you have plagiarised text from Joanne Codling's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
21. Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
22. Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.
23. Acknowledge the fact that the sources you've cited as being 'empirical' and somehow more reliable than models are themselves based entirely on models
24. Define what you mean by "empirical" and then explain why you believe models are not empirical evidence.
25. Explain what exact empirical evidence is required to substantiate a 100+ year exponential projection in the first quartile of said projection - while allowing for acknowledged natural variation.
26. Acknowledge that your cited 2009 source for a negative feedback from water vapour was refuted by Partridge et. al. in 2012 - i.e exactly the kind of "new science" you constantly claim supports your so-called "sceptical" worldview.
27. Acknowledge that you either lied or were misled when you claimed a survey showed scientifically literate people were more likely to deny climate science when really it showed people were more swayed by arguments that accorded to their cultural beliefs.
28. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the bloggers Evans and Tisdale's assertions that there has been no meaningful increase in the ocean heat content
29. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the blogger Evans' claims that Hansen's modelling is somehow "unreliable".
30. Cite the independent "scrutiny" of the Oregon Petition list
31. Provide all the "recent research" that you claim overwhelmingly supports a "skeptical" position and demonstrate that the research cited to the contrary is "biased"
32. Acknowledge that 14 years (ie. from 1998 to the present), or 20 years, or 8 years for that matter, are by definition statistically insignificant time periods to discern a climate trend, warming or cooling, thereby rendering your "it hasn't warmed since x" argument irrelevant in a single stroke.
33. Cite the peer-reviewed research which somehow supports your claim that the Mann graph is "fraudulent".
34. Cite the peer-reviewed research which supports Joanne Codling's atmospheric hotspot claim
35. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Pat Muller was somehow not in the "skeptic camp" previously.
36. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Steve Schneider was somehow not either.
37. Present the peer-reviewed research which backs your assertion that Greenland's recent warmth is somehow "not unusual", and that it was warmer there in the 1920s.
38. Provide credible substantiation for your assertions about the "Climategate" malarky, including evidence as to why all inquiries which exonerated the scientists involved were wrong, and why you know better than those who led such investigations.
39. Provide credible evidence - i.e. not memes circulated on denier blogs - which backs your assertion that SkepticalScience has somehow "manipulated graphs and data".
40. Provide evidence to support your personal smears about John Cook, who runs SkepticalScience, and is a ClimateCommunication Fellow at the University of Queensland.
41. Present peer-reviewed research which supports your claim about Arctic sea ice levels supposedly having nothing to do with global warming.
42. Prove, by way of peer-reviewed research, that HadCrut data is "inadequate".
43. Cite the peer-reviewed reports which support the assertion that Hansen's predictions were "wildly wrong and exaggerated".
44. Cite evidence which supports your claim that the questions asked in a survey of climate scientists about global warming were "loaded".
45. Present reportage which backs your assertion that those seeking to muddy the waters about global warming are the ones being threatened, supposedly by climate scientists, and somehow disproves the substantial reportage out there about climate scientists being subjected to continuous harrassment, threats and character assassination.
46. Provide evidence for your claim that climate scientists who don't agree with the consensus about global warming are supposedly disadvantaged when it comes to funding. If you can even identify any, that is. And Lindzen doesn't count. Even he agrees that global warming isoccurring.
47. Acknowledge that David Evans, who appears to be one of your primary sources, is not a climate scientist at all, has been fundamentally dishonest about various parts of his own life, and is notorious for his connections with fossil fuel industry and mining industry front groups. (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans)
48. Acknowledge that Joanne "Nova" Codling is not a scientist of any kind, is an IPA member, and is funded by the IPA, who are themselves heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry, tobacco companies etc. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova)
49. Acknowledge that Anthony Watts is a non-scientist and paid AGW denier who does not have a university qualification, has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer, and is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, itself a well-known front group for the fossil fuel industry. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts)
50. Acknowledge that Marc Morano is also not a climate scientist, but rather a Republican Party political operative (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano)
51. Acknowledge that Robert Ferguson and his SPPI organisation are funded, directly and indirectly, by oil companies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute))and that SPPI relies heavily on serial fabricator, Christopher Monckton - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)
52. Acknowledge that Fred Singer is not a climate scientist, but a place man and paid operative for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer)
53. Acknowledge that Patrick Michaels is also not a climate scientist, and is a PR flack for the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels)
54. Acknowledge that Roy Spencer is not a climate scientist, and is regarded as a clown by real climate scientists. That he has a track record of distortion, fabrication and dishonesty a mile long, is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, and works for notorious fossil fuel industry front groups the "Heartland Institute" and the "George C Marshall Institute", amongst others. (http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer)
55. Present peer-reviewed reports which prove that "3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons" support your claim about global warming not occurring. In other words, highlight any peer-reviewed report which has formed a conclusion at odds with the consensus position about AGW.
56. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that "all the major predictions have been exaggerated".
57. Provide details about the "hundreds" of climate scientists who have gone from [insert denier buzzword here] to "sceptic". Including their qualifications in the field.
58. Provide details of the supposed studies which you claim show that people who accept the scientific consensus about global warming are somehow "dumber" than those who deny the science.
59. Provide peer-reviewed research to support your claim that the statement about extreme weather events now being 20 times more likely to occur is somehow "nonsense".
60. Acknowledge that you are grossly misrepresenting Joanne Simpson, who does not at all support global warming denialism, but rather agrees with the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is a major threat to life on Earth. And I quote:
    we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will, in this century become unsustainable.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/24/julie-bishop-misrepresents-joa/
61. Acknowledge that Ivor Giaever is not a climate scientist, but rather a retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's department of physics, has not published any work in the area of climate science, yet is affiliated with oil and tobacco industry front group the "Heartland Institute" as a "Global Warming Expert", and appeared as an endorser of a full-page ad funded by the CATO Institute (funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris), which featured in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune in 2009. (http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever)
62. Acknowledge that Kiminori Itoh is also not a climate scientist, has never published any work in the field, but is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute front group as an "Expert". And also appeared as an endorser of the CATO Institute ad as mentioned before.
63. Acknowledge that Arun Ahluwalia is not a climate scientist and never published any work in the field at all, but is a petroleum geologist, and affiliated with the "Liberty Institute", which is itself an Indian affiliate of the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/arun-ahluwalia)
64. Acknowledge that Jarl Ahlbeck is a chemical engineer, not a climate scientist and again, has never published any work to do with climate science.
65. Acknowledge that William Briggs is a statistical consultant, not a climate scientist, and also has never published any work connected with climate science. But is also, once again, affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" political front organisation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_M._Briggs)
66. Acknowledge that Geoffrey Duffy (http://www.desmogblog.com/geoffrey-duffy) is an emeritus professor of chemical engineering, not a climate scientist, and like the others, has never published any work to do with climate science, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" (falsely presented by them as a "Climate Expert"), as well as another front organisation called the "International Climate Science Coalition", which upon investigation, has been discovered to be hosted at the same IP address - in Arizona - as similarly-named front groups the "Australian Climate Science Coalition", and "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition". All three being offshoots of the "Heartland Institute", drawing their funding from it (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
67. Acknowledge that Victor Herrera is a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist, has never published any related work, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1331), (http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera)
68. Acknowledge that Stanley Goldenberg is not a climate scientist, rather a meteorologist and hurricane researcher, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts", as well as the bogus "International Climate Science Coalition" (http://www.desmogblog.com/stanley-goldenberg), (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Goldenberg)
69. Acknowledge that Andrei Kapitsa was, again, not a climate scientist and has published no work about climate science, but was a professor of geography at Moscow State University. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Kapitsa)
70. Acknowledge that Miklós Zágoni is a physicist and past science historian, not a climate scientist, and again, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts". (http://www.desmogblog.com/miklos-zagoni)
71. Acknowledge that Richard Keen has never worked as a climatologist nor ever published any work in the field of climate science, and like so many of the others above, is closely affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-keen)
72. Acknowledge that David Gee is a geologist, not a climate scientist, and has never published any relevant work to do with climate science.
73. Acknowledge that Hajo Smit is an amateur blogger and has also never published any work in the field (http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/650-scientists-challenge-global-warming.html)
74. Acknowledge that Philip Lloyd is a nuclear physicist and chemical engineer, not a climate scientist. And is managing director of "Industrial & Chemical Consultants", "EMS Minerals", and "Bateman Engineering" - all companies closely connected to mining and the fossil fuel industry (http://za.linkedin.com/pub/philip-lloyd/21/431/28).
75. Acknowledge that James Peden was a graduate researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, not an "Atmospheric Physicist" as he claims to have been. The Space Research and Coordination Center was in fact just a centre for students studying numerous disciplines related to the aerospace field at the University of Pittsburgh. Also that he is linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" front organisation, has never published any work to do with climate science, and is currently an amateur blogger, directly linked to Marc Morano, the political operative who compiled the list you are dishonestly using here. (http://www.desmogblog.com/james-peden)
76. Acknowledge that Pål Brekke, Phil Chapman, Delgado Domingos, Takeda Kunihiko, Eduardo Tonni, Art Douglas, Patrick Frank and Jack Schmitt are also not climate scientists, and have never published any work in the field. But are all linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" - the offshoot of the "Heartland Institute" referred to previously (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
77. Acknowledge that you copied and pasted this latest list of supposed "experts" directly, as stated above, from the following list compiled by Republican Party operative Marc Morano, with the help of the fossil fuel industry and tobacco front group, the "Heartland Institute", presented at the time by Republican Senator and notorious fossil fuel lobbyist, Senator Inhofe - (http://heartland.org/press-releases...-more-650-scientists-dissent-over-warming-cla)
78. Acknowledge that the list of "900+ skeptic papers" you and PopTart throw around is entirely fraudulent in nature, that most of the "papers" are by the same small number of people, that this small group are all involved in and affiliated with various fossil fuel industry front organisations, virtually none of them are climate scientists, and 9 out of the 10 most prolific in that regard are funded, either directly or indirectly, by Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies.
79. Acknowledge that even the small number of genuine climate scientists whose papers were included in this list have been grievously misrepresented, libellously so, given that you and PopTart are pretending they somehow deny the scientific consensus about global warming when they don't at all. And that they are demanding to have their names and their work removed from this list.
    A significant chunk of the list is authored by a small group of writers with extensive links to each other and to the oil industry. The most cited source for the 'peer reviewed papers' featured is a minor journal which appears to have a blatant political agenda.
    
    Not only do many of the other papers on the list either support the scientific consensus on climate change, or not discuss human influence on the climate, there are many cases where scientists featured on the list describe the inclusion of their work as misleading.
    
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-–-“journal-of-choice-for-climate-skeptics”-part-iii-of-the-analysis-of-the-900plus-climate-skeptic-papers
80. Present evidence which proves that the word "denier" is somehow used by anyone to link "scepitcs" to holocaust denial.
81. Present reportage which supports your claim that Patrick Michaels has somehow been threatened with violence.
82. Name any climate scientist who doesn't agree that man-made global warming is occurring. Then name one who has somehow been prevented from getting their papers peer-reviewed.
83. Produce evidence for your claim that "the number of scientists who signed the most important chapter of the IPCC report was reduced to a mere 25 after climategate".
84. Acknowledge that the Lavoisier Group is a shelf organisation and political front for the mining and fossil fuel industries, run by mining executives and fossil fuel industry 'consultants', together with the HR Nicholls Society, the IPA and ex-Liberal pollies, and its membership is a "dad's army" of retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries, none of whom come even close to any sort of legitimate expertise or qualification in climate science.
85. Provide evidence for your apparent claim that Ben Santer sent an email to Patrick Michaels, somehow making threats of violence towards Michaels.
86. Acknowledge that you don't understand what peer review is or what is involved in the peer review process.
87. Provide a list of 10 scientists with relavent qualifications who have actually changed their minds on the issue

 

[Dan26]

You clearly don't understand empiricism. That's probably because your idea of "science" is reading blog posts from reactionaries.

I asked you for empirical evidence that human C02 are the main driver of warming.

I asked you for empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are dangerous.

You havn't provided this because they don't exist. You, instead provided some information under the headline "empirical evidence that humans are causing warming" which is not what I asked you for. The basic science of C02 causing warming is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is how much, and whether the feedbacks amplify or dampen the warming.

The empirical evidence is not compatible with the alarmist, catastrophic view. If you want to continue to believe the rubbish that we are headed for a catastophe, it just shows how stupid you really are. We are not headed for a catastophe. Get over it, you militant warmist fool.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I asked you for empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are dangerous.

It's been answered, dozens of time, you deny it. I've asked you 87 questions now, which you ahave ignored. Hence why we call you a "denialist"

 

[Dan26]

It's been answered, dozens of time, you deny it. I've asked you 87 questions now, which you ahave ignored. Hence why we call you a "denialist"

It hasn't been answered once you liar. I've asked you repeatedly for empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming. Instead of pretending that you have provided this, why not stop lying and tell the truth. There is NO empirical evidence to suggest that human emissions of C02 are the main driver of warming. How hard is that to admit? Not one peer reviewed paper has this. Not one. Where is it? Where are these "dozanes of time" and where is this peer reviewed paper with the empirical evidence I ask for? Where is it???

And stop with your rubbish too. I've answered every single one of those points. All you're doing is time wasting and deflecting the attention from the fact that the alarmists have lost the scientific debate. You do this when you're losing. It's a deflection tactic. You make up a list of things that have already been discussed to make it look like they havn't been discussed in order to send me off on a wild goose chase, hoping it will stop me arguing with you and beating you. I'm not stupid, I can see what you're doing.



And while we're at it, since you're a greenie, and presumably have a love of the human species and nature, why don't you call fishardansin to account for his abhorrent comment wishing me and other sceptics to die? Has it not occured to you, that this was wrong, regardless of any of our opinions on the science? Where are the alarmists on this thread holding that terrible comment to account? You don't approve of wishing other humans to die do you?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I've answered every single one.

Sometimes I think you actually believe your lies. So you won't have trouble linking to the answers to, say, the first 10, right? I won't hold my breath!

 

[Dan26]

Sometimes I think you actually believe your lies. So you won't have trouble linking to the answers to, say, the first 10, right? I won't hold my breath!

Is this what you do now? Ignore 90% of the post and focus on something that suits you because it is a deflection. As I said, you do this when you are losing.

Why ignore the part of the post about fishardansins death comments? Why havn't you disagreed with those comments? Are you going to condemn them? Why ignore the part of the post focussing on your inability to supply E.E that human C02 emisisons are the main driver of warming?

You said it has been provided dozens of times. When???? Where???

You havn't provided it once, yet you lie and say you have "dozens of times." A couple of posts back you provided a headline that said "empirical evidence that humans cause warming" which was NOT what I asked for.

There is categorically NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming. None. Zip Squat. Yet you claim there is and you have provided it. How hard is it to put your ego aside and admit that there is no E.E that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming?

This is the reason you warmists are losing the debate. The evidence doesn't match the models and the scientists know it. There is no consensus and all the opinion changers are going in one direction.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Shorter Dan:

Erm... no, I won't. I can't. David Evans and Jo Nova hasn't told me what to think outside my narrowly focused script and I get flustered when forced to try and understand complex things

 

[Dan26]

Do you condemn fishardansin's comments, Upton?

This will be a good test of your character. You're a left-wing guy, and that apparently means you are "sympathetic" and empathetic and you care about people so, so, so much. You wouldn't support, or agree with comments that hope a large portion of humans (who just happen to have a differing opinion to him) would die. Would you? That wouldn't be befitting of a man of the "tolerant left" such as yourself would it?

 

[fishardansin]

The stupidity on display is astounding.

I didn't ask you to justify your "hopes of death for sceptics" by claiming they are putting your childrens lives at risk, therefore it must be okay to want them to die. It's not okay. I learnt that basic human decency when I was 2.

I asked you to apologise for hoping sceptics die. You said you wanted them to die off. Other humans beings. Yes, other actual human beings, including the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition project you said you wanted to die.

That's what you said.

And when asked to apologise you can't bring yourself to do it? What kind of awful, abhorent individual wishes death on people and then doesn't apologise?

I can only assume you meant it.

Unbelievable. Astonishing. And so, very sad.

How hard is it to apologise.? I'm sure you didn't really mean it. It would be inhumane. You can prove it was only a slip of the tongue by apologising, so we can get back to the debate.

So go ahead. Prove you're not a coward. Prove you've got the balls. Apologise.

I don't wish you dead, I just wish you'd get out of the way! If that requires you to die then so be it. I wont be the coward and hide behind politeness, I'll stick my neck out and tell you what I really think!

 

[Dan26]

I don't wish you dead, I just wish you'd get out of the way! If that requires you to die then so be it. I wont be the coward and hide behind politeness, I'll stick my neck out and tell you what I really think!

You said you wanted sceptics to die off.

That tells me you don't care about the scientific debate. You want people who hold a differing opinion to die so that those with the same opinion (alarmists) can impose their political activism on the world free of debate. It tells me you don't want to debate.

I'm happy to have the debate because I'm comfortable that the sceptics are winning, and we have the evidence on our side. You know this. That's why you want them to die. If the sceptics are winning, the easiest way to get them out of the way is for them to die.

If you had the empirical evidence on your side (and you don't) you wouldn't need to wish death on good people. You would win the debate based on merit.

Sadly, you don't want the debate, which is borne out by your terrible comments, which, irrespective of the science is something you should apologise for.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Sometimes I think you actually believe your lies. So you won't have trouble linking to the answers to, say, the first 10, right? I won't hold my breath!

Still nothing from Dan, I'm sooo surprised

Dan26's List updated:

1. Provide evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
2. Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
3. Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
4. That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
5. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that Co2 is somehow a "nutrient" and would supposedly be such regardless of the proportion of it in the atmosphere.
6. Present peer-reviewed reports which support your claim that the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
7. Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
8. Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
9. Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4 (of the Carbon Debate thread).
10. Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
11. Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
12. Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
13. Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
14. Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
15. Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon price won't affect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
16. Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
17. Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
18. Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
19. Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
20. Acknowledge that you have plagiarised text from Joanne Codling's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
21. Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
22. Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.
23. Acknowledge the fact that the sources you've cited as being 'empirical' and somehow more reliable than models are themselves based entirely on models
24. Define what you mean by "empirical" and then explain why you believe models are not empirical evidence.
25. Explain what exact empirical evidence is required to substantiate a 100+ year exponential projection in the first quartile of said projection - while allowing for acknowledged natural variation.
26. Acknowledge that your cited 2009 source for a negative feedback from water vapour was refuted by Partridge et. al. in 2012 - i.e exactly the kind of "new science" you constantly claim supports your so-called "sceptical" worldview.
27. Acknowledge that you either lied or were misled when you claimed a survey showed scientifically literate people were more likely to deny climate science when really it showed people were more swayed by arguments that accorded to their cultural beliefs.
28. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the bloggers Evans and Tisdale's assertions that there has been no meaningful increase in the ocean heat content
29. Cite the peer reviewed literature that supports the blogger Evans' claims that Hansen's modelling is somehow "unreliable".
30. Cite the independent "scrutiny" of the Oregon Petition list
31. Provide all the "recent research" that you claim overwhelmingly supports a "skeptical" position and demonstrate that the research cited to the contrary is "biased"
32. Acknowledge that 14 years (ie. from 1998 to the present), or 20 years, or 8 years for that matter, are by definition statistically insignificant time periods to discern a climate trend, warming or cooling, thereby rendering your "it hasn't warmed since x" argument irrelevant in a single stroke.
33. Cite the peer-reviewed research which somehow supports your claim that the Mann graph is "fraudulent".
34. Cite the peer-reviewed research which supports Joanne Codling's atmospheric hotspot claim
35. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Pat Muller was somehow not in the "skeptic camp" previously.
36. Cite the evidence supporting your claim that Steve Schneider was somehow not either.
37. Present the peer-reviewed research which backs your assertion that Greenland's recent warmth is somehow "not unusual", and that it was warmer there in the 1920s.
38. Provide credible substantiation for your assertions about the "Climategate" malarky, including evidence as to why all inquiries which exonerated the scientists involved were wrong, and why you know better than those who led such investigations.
39. Provide credible evidence - i.e. not memes circulated on denier blogs - which backs your assertion that SkepticalScience has somehow "manipulated graphs and data".
40. Provide evidence to support your personal smears about John Cook, who runs SkepticalScience, and is a ClimateCommunication Fellow at the University of Queensland.
41. Present peer-reviewed research which supports your claim about Arctic sea ice levels supposedly having nothing to do with global warming.
42. Prove, by way of peer-reviewed research, that HadCrut data is "inadequate".
43. Cite the peer-reviewed reports which support the assertion that Hansen's predictions were "wildly wrong and exaggerated".
44. Cite evidence which supports your claim that the questions asked in a survey of climate scientists about global warming were "loaded".
45. Present reportage which backs your assertion that those seeking to muddy the waters about global warming are the ones being threatened, supposedly by climate scientists, and somehow disproves the substantial reportage out there about climate scientists being subjected to continuous harrassment, threats and character assassination.
46. Provide evidence for your claim that climate scientists who don't agree with the consensus about global warming are supposedly disadvantaged when it comes to funding. If you can even identify any, that is. And Lindzen doesn't count. Even he agrees that global warming isoccurring.
47. Acknowledge that David Evans, who appears to be one of your primary sources, is not a climate scientist at all, has been fundamentally dishonest about various parts of his own life, and is notorious for his connections with fossil fuel industry and mining industry front groups. (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans)
48. Acknowledge that Joanne "Nova" Codling is not a scientist of any kind, is an IPA member, and is funded by the IPA, who are themselves heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry, tobacco companies etc. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova)
49. Acknowledge that Anthony Watts is a non-scientist and paid AGW denier who does not have a university qualification, has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer, and is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, itself a well-known front group for the fossil fuel industry. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts)
50. Acknowledge that Marc Morano is also not a climate scientist, but rather a Republican Party political operative (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano)
51. Acknowledge that Robert Ferguson and his SPPI organisation are funded, directly and indirectly, by oil companies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute))and that SPPI relies heavily on serial fabricator, Christopher Monckton - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)
52. Acknowledge that Fred Singer is not a climate scientist, but a place man and paid operative for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer)
53. Acknowledge that Patrick Michaels is also not a climate scientist, and is a PR flack for the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests - (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels)
54. Acknowledge that Roy Spencer is not a climate scientist, and is regarded as a clown by real climate scientists. That he has a track record of distortion, fabrication and dishonesty a mile long, is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, and works for notorious fossil fuel industry front groups the "Heartland Institute" and the "George C Marshall Institute", amongst others. (http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer)
55. Present peer-reviewed reports which prove that "3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons" support your claim about global warming not occurring. In other words, highlight any peer-reviewed report which has formed a conclusion at odds with the consensus position about AGW.
56. Cite the peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that "all the major predictions have been exaggerated".
57. Provide details about the "hundreds" of climate scientists who have gone from [insert denier buzzword here] to "sceptic". Including their qualifications in the field.
58. Provide details of the supposed studies which you claim show that people who accept the scientific consensus about global warming are somehow "dumber" than those who deny the science.
59. Provide peer-reviewed research to support your claim that the statement about extreme weather events now being 20 times more likely to occur is somehow "nonsense".
60. Acknowledge that you are grossly misrepresenting Joanne Simpson, who does not at all support global warming denialism, but rather agrees with the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is a major threat to life on Earth. And I quote:
    we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will, in this century become unsustainable.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/24/julie-bishop-misrepresents-joa/
61. Acknowledge that Ivor Giaever is not a climate scientist, but rather a retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's department of physics, has not published any work in the area of climate science, yet is affiliated with oil and tobacco industry front group the "Heartland Institute" as a "Global Warming Expert", and appeared as an endorser of a full-page ad funded by the CATO Institute (funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris), which featured in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune in 2009. (http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever)
62. Acknowledge that Kiminori Itoh is also not a climate scientist, has never published any work in the field, but is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute front group as an "Expert". And also appeared as an endorser of the CATO Institute ad as mentioned before.
63. Acknowledge that Arun Ahluwalia is not a climate scientist and never published any work in the field at all, but is a petroleum geologist, and affiliated with the "Liberty Institute", which is itself an Indian affiliate of the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/arun-ahluwalia)
64. Acknowledge that Jarl Ahlbeck is a chemical engineer, not a climate scientist and again, has never published any work to do with climate science.
65. Acknowledge that William Briggs is a statistical consultant, not a climate scientist, and also has never published any work connected with climate science. But is also, once again, affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" political front organisation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_M._Briggs)
66. Acknowledge that Geoffrey Duffy (http://www.desmogblog.com/geoffrey-duffy) is an emeritus professor of chemical engineering, not a climate scientist, and like the others, has never published any work to do with climate science, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" (falsely presented by them as a "Climate Expert"), as well as another front organisation called the "International Climate Science Coalition", which upon investigation, has been discovered to be hosted at the same IP address - in Arizona - as similarly-named front groups the "Australian Climate Science Coalition", and "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition". All three being offshoots of the "Heartland Institute", drawing their funding from it (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
67. Acknowledge that Victor Herrera is a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist, has never published any related work, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1331), (http://www.desmogblog.com/victor-manuel-velasco-herrera), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera)
68. Acknowledge that Stanley Goldenberg is not a climate scientist, rather a meteorologist and hurricane researcher, and is also affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts", as well as the bogus "International Climate Science Coalition" (http://www.desmogblog.com/stanley-goldenberg), (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Goldenberg)
69. Acknowledge that Andrei Kapitsa was, again, not a climate scientist and has published no work about climate science, but was a professor of geography at Moscow State University. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Kapitsa)
70. Acknowledge that Miklós Zágoni is a physicist and past science historian, not a climate scientist, and again, is affiliated with the "Heartland Institute" as one of their "Experts". (http://www.desmogblog.com/miklos-zagoni)
71. Acknowledge that Richard Keen has never worked as a climatologist nor ever published any work in the field of climate science, and like so many of the others above, is closely affiliated with the "Heartland Institute". (http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-keen)
72. Acknowledge that David Gee is a geologist, not a climate scientist, and has never published any relevant work to do with climate science.
73. Acknowledge that Hajo Smit is an amateur blogger and has also never published any work in the field (http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/650-scientists-challenge-global-warming.html)
74. Acknowledge that Philip Lloyd is a nuclear physicist and chemical engineer, not a climate scientist. And is managing director of "Industrial & Chemical Consultants", "EMS Minerals", and "Bateman Engineering" - all companies closely connected to mining and the fossil fuel industry (http://za.linkedin.com/pub/philip-lloyd/21/431/28).
75. Acknowledge that James Peden was a graduate researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, not an "Atmospheric Physicist" as he claims to have been. The Space Research and Coordination Center was in fact just a centre for students studying numerous disciplines related to the aerospace field at the University of Pittsburgh. Also that he is linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" front organisation, has never published any work to do with climate science, and is currently an amateur blogger, directly linked to Marc Morano, the political operative who compiled the list you are dishonestly using here. (http://www.desmogblog.com/james-peden)
76. Acknowledge that Pål Brekke, Phil Chapman, Delgado Domingos, Takeda Kunihiko, Eduardo Tonni, Art Douglas, Patrick Frank and Jack Schmitt are also not climate scientists, and have never published any work in the field. But are all linked with the "International Climate Science Coalition" - the offshoot of the "Heartland Institute" referred to previously (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition)
77. Acknowledge that you copied and pasted this latest list of supposed "experts" directly, as stated above, from the following list compiled by Republican Party operative Marc Morano, with the help of the fossil fuel industry and tobacco front group, the "Heartland Institute", presented at the time by Republican Senator and notorious fossil fuel lobbyist, Senator Inhofe - (http://heartland.org/press-releases...-more-650-scientists-dissent-over-warming-cla)
78. Acknowledge that the list of "900+ skeptic papers" you and PopTart throw around is entirely fraudulent in nature, that most of the "papers" are by the same small number of people, that this small group are all involved in and affiliated with various fossil fuel industry front organisations, virtually none of them are climate scientists, and 9 out of the 10 most prolific in that regard are funded, either directly or indirectly, by Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies.
79. Acknowledge that even the small number of genuine climate scientists whose papers were included in this list have been grievously misrepresented, libellously so, given that you and PopTart are pretending they somehow deny the scientific consensus about global warming when they don't at all. And that they are demanding to have their names and their work removed from this list.
    A significant chunk of the list is authored by a small group of writers with extensive links to each other and to the oil industry. The most cited source for the 'peer reviewed papers' featured is a minor journal which appears to have a blatant political agenda.
    
    Not only do many of the other papers on the list either support the scientific consensus on climate change, or not discuss human influence on the climate, there are many cases where scientists featured on the list describe the inclusion of their work as misleading.
    
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-–-“journal-of-choice-for-climate-skeptics”-part-iii-of-the-analysis-of-the-900plus-climate-skeptic-papers
80. Present evidence which proves that the word "denier" is somehow used by anyone to link "scepitcs" to holocaust denial.
81. Present reportage which supports your claim that Patrick Michaels has somehow been threatened with violence.
82. Name any climate scientist who doesn't agree that man-made global warming is occurring. Then name one who has somehow been prevented from getting their papers peer-reviewed.
83. Produce evidence for your claim that "the number of scientists who signed the most important chapter of the IPCC report was reduced to a mere 25 after climategate".
84. Acknowledge that the Lavoisier Group is a shelf organisation and political front for the mining and fossil fuel industries, run by mining executives and fossil fuel industry 'consultants', together with the HR Nicholls Society, the IPA and ex-Liberal pollies, and its membership is a "dad's army" of retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries, none of whom come even close to any sort of legitimate expertise or qualification in climate science.
85. Provide evidence for your apparent claim that Ben Santer sent an email to Patrick Michaels, somehow making threats of violence towards Michaels.
86. Acknowledge that you don't understand what peer review is or what is involved in the peer review process.
87. Provide a list of 10 scientists with relavent qualifications who have actually changed their minds on the issue

 

[fishardansin]

Here are a few more.

Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now

Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv,one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Claude Allègre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre

lets hope his grasp of atmospheric physics is better than his understanding of air resistance. Good on you for clutching onto a socialist though!!

Bruno Wiskel
as an honors graduate in geology I'm pretty sure he has never contributed to any papers, so really a person changing his opinion isn't big news.
http://mobi.fcpp.org/event.php/261

Nir Shaviv is an interesting choice. He has written papers on climate change. Interesting theory, but a debunked one. I'm not sure he's changed his mind though because the solar driving of the warming was first published in 2002 and he did his post doc in 99-01 so not really a long history of work there!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

George Bellamy has changed his mind ... and who can forget the humiliation he suffered at the hands of George Monbiot for his terrible source of data!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

Tad Murty is someone who claims very strongly to have changed his mind. He is also an author or co-author on a number of papers, however, none seem to be on the topic at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Murty
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Tad+Murty

De Freitas and Bryson are definitely published autors. However, De Freitas is causing a lot of controversy regards his method of being published. Also there is no evidence of any of them being "believers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas

So one more person who has changed their mind. That is now two.

However, where is the published work that refutes or debunks the theory?

You'd have to be an idiot to not realise that if someone can debunk climate change that everyone would be popping champagne bottles and celebrating what a hero this person was. NO BODY WANTS THIS TO BE TRUE!! Some of us don't have our heads in the sand though.