lebouitz: - I sent you the info on his latest joint paper that indicates satelite observations have shown empirical data contradicts the findings of the climate models. I am highly suspect these models actually predict anything.
 

Skeptics have been combing the data for years and have found some errors. However non have been of such significance as to noticeably change predictions. Is your opinion more informed than those of the people represented by all major scientific organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
--- With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.---

The AAPG changed its position because many of its members resigned and more threatened to resign. 

lebouitz: I do not think there is anywhere near the consensus on GW or AGW that you suggest- and yes- I think we are in for a 20 to 30+ year cooling period.

Insolation due to earths geometric position related to the sun (see graph) has been declining for 30 years and will remain at a low level for another 20. Insolation due to sun spots has been trending lower since 1980 and has been dropping steeply since 2002. Yet global temperatures have trended upward over this entire period (contrary to the predictions of the paper by the J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter paper.

lebouitz: I disagree with you that science is consensus- indeed all the big advances in science have been made by scientists that were willing to question the consensus and develop breakout theories. It takes only one scientist to contradict consensus- and prove his theory is correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).

Science is validated by consensus when a large majority of scientists with extensive knowledge and experience in a particular field agree. That is what has happened with global warming.

When was the last time a contrarian scientist was able to overturn a significant theory that has been confirmed by nearly all scientists in the particular field?

You again bring up the canard of a grand conspiracy to sustain you opinion or a stampede of nieve sheepentist that follow the crowd. You will note that it did not happen in the 70's when some were predicting cooling. In the end the science ruled. Climatologists and geoscientists agreed that GHG warming effects overrode the cooling effects of aerosols and predicted a warming climate. Their consensus has been confirmed by the continued trend in global temperatures.

With the science background you have, why did you not recognize the fatal flaw in J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter paper? In retrospect, it seems they wrote the paper for the single purpose of getting a denier claim in the literature. The work they did was trival, using existing data to develop added detail about a relationship that was already understood. Among the valid claims, they inserted a claim that was not supported by the research. The authors are well known climate change skeptics with ties to the enegery industry. Why does that make me suspect their motives.

Of course, it does not suprise me. Why is there such a need for the skeptics to use dishonest means to prove their position if the science they propose is real? They are using the same tactics, some of the same scientists, and same think tanks that spread doubt about the link between tobacco and cancer, the link between cancer and second had smoke, and the link between the ozone hole and CFC's. Have you read about the fiasco behind the Oregon petition?

http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition
The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, and individual named Art Robinson and his organization, the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. Since then many have requested their names be removed and many more have requested their names be removed because they had not signed the petition.

lebouitz: What really irks me about AGW- is it has become a political movement of the left- full of ridiculous alarmist rantings about biblical floods, massive storms, desertification, economic ruin. AGW is now at the forefront of a movement for deindustrialization, income redistribution and increasing the role of world bodies such as the UN.

Your ideology is showing through. Not suprising for someone who is willing to swallow nonsense from the Cato institute without validating the claims.

It is interesting that you and Alan Greenspan both worry about income distribution.

From Wikipedia:
The majority of social scientists believe that income inequality currently poses a problem for American society with Alan Greenspan stating it to be a "very disturbing trend."[4][5] Meanwhile, other, mostly conservative social scientists argue that income inequality is mainly the result of more workers in the average household and their age and education, and that the disappearance of the middle class is more statistical than real[6] In a 2004 poll of 1,000 economists (from the AEA), a majority of polled economists favor "redistribution."[7] A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government."[8] Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[14][15] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.

Note that Alan Greenspan was not very liberal. He even suggested that fraud in the financial markets could be ignored because the market place would sort it all out. Of course, he later admitted his belief (ideology) was incorrect.

I sent you the info on his latest joint paper that indicates satelite observations have shown empirical data contradicts the findings of the climate models. I am highly suspect these models actually predict anything.

I do not think there is anywhere near the consensus on GW or AGW that you suggest- and yes- I think we are in for a 20 to 30+ year cooling period.

I disagree with you that there are no scientists, who are far better equipped than you or me, that have legitimate and well researched analysis that contradicts GW

I disagree with you that science is consensus- indeed all the big advances in science have been made by scientists that were willing to question the consensus and develop breakout theories. It takes only one scientist to contradict consensus- and prove his theory is correct. Science is about being right- not agreeing with anyone. Unfortunately for GW, I believe there are so many incentives for scientists to sell out and go along with the crowd- and huge penalties and derision for the scientists that are brave enough to say the Emporer has no clothes.

While I do not have any background in climate change- I do have a technical background that includes studies in astronautics, aeronautics, physics, electrical & mechanical engineering and a lot of advanced math.

What really irks me about AGW- is it has become a political movement of the left- full of ridiculous alarmist rantings about biblical floods, massive storms, desertification, economic ruin. AGW is now at the forefront of a movement for deindustrialization, income redistribution and increasing the role of world bodies such as the UN.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

----
Predicting what will happen to carbon dioxide over the next century is a rather uncertain matter. By assuming a shift toward the increased use of coal, rapid advances in the third world's standard of living, large population increases, and a reduction in nuclear and other nonfossil fuels, one can generate an emissions scenario that will lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2030--if one uses a particular model for the chemical response to carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I's model referred to that as the "business as usual'' scenario.
----

The IPCC "business as usual" scenario is not based on a reduction of the uses of nonfossil and nuclear fuels. They are based on the existing mix of energy sources.

One deliberately misleading statement (i.e., a lie) at the beginning of the paper is enough. This is not a scientific paper. It is a piece of propaganda, using what the scientific community would consider ridiculous figures. It is standard fare for the Cato institute. Every paper I have seen from them lies by ommission, distorts  facts, or makes baseless assertions to support their libertarian ideology.

About Richard S. Lindzen
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

You can post all the links to skeptics opinions you wish but that does not change the facts that the science is settled. Every major national and international science organization, all national science academies, many major corporation executives and the vast majority of scientists (including over 97% of climatologists) agree that global warming is real and is being driven by human emissions of GHG's.

You consider yourself to be more knowledgeable that all these people?

I noticed you never challenge anything I post or explain your claims based on your understanding of science. That leads me to question whether you know much about climate science?

Another new study that uses empirical satelite observations that show opposite results of major global warming climate models-

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml

I thought you would find this article by Richard S. Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of particular interest. I suppose he is an idiot as well-

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

The paper asserts a well know relationship between the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and global temperature. The high global temperature in 1998 was partially the result of a strong El Niño and sun spot activity. What is new from the paper is the details about level of correlation between temperature and the southern oscillation index (SOI) and the delay between ENSO events and temperature changes. None of that is a suprise. However, the paper does have a number of problems.

1. --- The authors assert a step shift in temperatures occurred around 1976 based on the fact that temperatures prior to that time and after that time exhibited the same variablility and could be explained by a step shift in 1976. However, they could have shown three or four step shifts by analyzing smaller sequences of the data. Of course, the most likely and logical assumption is that the data show a trend (not step shifts). ---

2. --- The study used the year to year differences of temperature and SOI to calculate the variability (variance) and coorelation. This approach produces results that measure variability but do not measure trends because the difference process reduces any information about trends to a single constant representing the average of the sequence.

Therefore the conclusions drawn by the authors about the global temperature trend (there is none) are not justifed based on there analysis. Based on their study, they can assert that they have identified the delay between the two measurements and the variance of the measurements, but they are not justified in asserting anything about global temperature trends.---

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/

Even if  the years of significant volcanic cooling are removed, there is still no evidence of a dominant ENSO influence on temperature trends.

Furthermore, even if their methodology had been correct (which it was not), this would be only one paper contradicting the huge number that identify global warming as actually happening and being caused by human activity. More than 99% of research published in peer reviewed journals assert that the climate is warming and human activity is the cause.

Science is established by consensus. Researchers publish papers describing their data, methodology, results, and conclusions. If other find no fault (errors) with all four items and are able to replicate the first three, a consensus forms that the conclusions are valid and accepted as science. This has not happened with this particular paper or any of the other skeptics papers that have sneaked by the reviewers notice or been directed to reviewers that are themselves skeptics.

Although the Journal of the American Geophysical Union record on publishing questionable papers is not as pristene as other science organizations, its position on climate change is no different that all the other science organizations:
---------
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. --------

European Geosciences Union
---------------
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the EGU issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

In 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere
-----

 My limit is reviewing no more than one nonsense article per day so I did not bother looking at the other link you posted. As I have said before, I have better things to do with my time other than plowing through nonsense. If you have a claim you believe is valild, post it and the supporting evidence and explain how the evidence supports the claim. I will answer such a post.

There seem to be many peer reviewed studies skeptical of global warming, especially manmade global warming- here's one you might like to comment on-

http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Here is a list of some other peer reviewed studies-

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6

Cite on fact from Inhofe's nonsense that contradicts what I have posted here, on any other form, or in my journal at
http://www.aarp.org/community/edsilha/journals/Climate_Science/2183172?cn=STREAM_edsilha_journals_large_PAGE1

You keep raving about political correctness in science because you have no facts to contradict science, just a bunch of hand waving and conspiracy theories. Do you have any idea what the graphs I posted mean? Do you have any basic understanding of science?
 

All the major national and international science organizations are on record that human activity is most likely causing climate change (a declaration of most likely for a scientist means a 95 percent certainty). You may hope that the 5 percent probability is true, but how often would you bet on a 5 percent probability when the gains are small and the consequences of being wrong are huge?

Four of the Republican candidates last fall asserted that we must do something about climate change.
http://www.us-cap.org/
USCAP Members Include:
AES, Alcoa, Alstom, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Conoco Phillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors Corporation, NRG Energy, PepsiCo, PG&E Corporation, Shell, Siemens Corporation, and others.