Brad- you are so smart- please check this article from a leftie site- pro-people- Global Research- "75 reasons to be Sceptical of Global Warming"
http://www.globalresearc...context=va&aid=17769

Saunders is SO FAR off base- it's close to crazy. Not one person has died from global warming. The Nazi's killed their way to the top. Climate-gate is real and shows real corruption. Other planets with no Co2 are warming...
Let us count the ways the science is not settled. Goldman_suchks to profit from any cap and trade scam.

Please maybe veer your green report more towards genetically modified foods and the corruption surrounding them at the EPA, which is a deeply corrupt organization. Our real environmental threats are chemical and genetic, NOT CARBON.

peace!
cauldron

Thanks for your comment, Cauldron. Brad is on deadline, so I'll just point you to the site Skeptical Science.com to help you get started separating the facts from the spin. Real Climate.org is also an excellent source for understandng the scientific evidence and the field data, run by actual climatologists and earth systems scientists working in the field today.

Thanks DES! What I sent you was not spin. Did you check it out? I've have read tons of warming reports. I was a warmer way back when, a member of a dozen environmental groups- but when I realized many facts, not spin- some of which are in the link I sent, I realized that AG warming is pure conjecture, and allows those in power to control and profit from our personal lives to an even higher degree. I urge you to read the SCIENTIFIC reports in the link.

Also please check GM Watch, and Institute for Responsible Technology for the environmental horror story of Genetically Modified Foods-

Peace!
cauldron

Thanks again for your comment.

I did read the items at the link; many are previously debunked zombie claims that have been making the rounds for years, others more recent misinformation and disinformation. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go through each one and point to the factual and logical errors with supporting links. Skeptical Science has already done the full debunking of the scientific disinfo, and Real Climate has also addressed and debunked the media malpractice in the attacks on climate scientists.

As yet there is no scientific evidence from a reputable research institution that overturns the basic physics and the empirical evidence of C02 interaction with solar radiation, or that overturns the basic chemistry of CO2 interaction with sea water, or that overturns the multiple robust lines of data across the entirety of the earth systems science disciplines.

Every reputable scientific institution in the world has endorsed the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. It's one thing to disagree with the policy choices as you perceive them to be, but policy and ideology arguments are not scientific data.

DES-
Thanks for responding. However you use the same ad hominem attacks the Republicans have mastered. Absolutely no substance in your "argument". You are wildly off-base. Many scientists and legitimate organizations are opposed to the phony science of AGW.

If Mars has warmed the same amount as the earth in the past 20 years, and a leading theory about warming suggests that sun is almost exclusively responsible for warming, NOT CARBON, then how is warming man-made?

How about the fact that the earth isn't even warming anymore?
Sea levels are not rising? Polar bear populations are increasing? All AGW proponents have is this "feed-back loop" chimera that will not materialize, long after we are paying taxes every time we fart.

Ever hear of the "Medieval warming period" that Hansen tried to suppress? Scientifically proven that temps were much higher then! Before cars. And boilers. and six point five billion of us.
QEW- AGW is BS

Science is as corrupt as religion and politics. All have idealistic goals but are known by deep corruption. Don't believe the hype.

Here is a famous scientist who thinks AGW is crap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ssment_of_global_warming

BOTTOM LINE: no consensus. DON"T PANIC des!!!!

Please get on the GM- Monsanto angle. Now that IS scary.

Cauldron, presenting links that contain factual, verifiable scientific data is not an 'ad hominem' attack, by definition. Still waiting for any verifiable, sourced data that overturns basic physics of CO2 and solar radiation, or the basic chemistry of CO2 and seawater as outlined above. Please include links to scientific data for your assertions so that our readers can evaluate for themselves.

I am not an earth systems scientist, as apparently neither are you, and I don't have time to address with linked sources the numerous errors contained in your comments, when each has been thoroughly addressed and explained elsewhere with full, verifiable data, using actual science from actual scientists who are experts in their fields. Skeptical Science.com and Real Climate.org contain the most comprehensive round-up of skeptics' arguments, along with accessible explanations, for any readers who would like to further their understanding of the current data.

If you disagree with their conclusions, or believe you are in possession of superior data, or believe you possess a superior understanding of the complex interplay of earth systems sciences and the field data currently presented showing clear trend lines of warming, then you should take your concerns to the research institutions involved.

If you believe you can disprove the recent determination from NOAA, NASA and the World Meteorological Organization that the last decade was the hottest on record, and January 2010 was the warmest on record, by all means take your superior data to them.

If you find a legitimate, reputable, internationally recognized research institution that has not signed on to anthropogenic climate change, please provide a link and we will update our reports accordingly.

Claiming that "Science is as corrupt as religion and politics" and then referencing scientists to support your argument is self-contradictory.

Finally, disagreement with policy proposals does not constitute scientific evidence.

For those who are interested in actual scientific evidence based on field data, and a better understanding of the gaps in that data, see the sites linked above.

DES- Thanks for taking the time to reply.
You actually think NOAA and NASA are beyond corruption?

THE LAST DECADE WAS NOT THE WARMEST ON RECORD!!! How can you know that? That is faith-based science! The actual temperature records only go back 150 years! Much other evidence points to the medieval warming period as being warmer than today, look it up!

It's like the Big Bang. Nice idea-but a theory with more holes than cheap socks. But "scientific people" believe it, because they are supposed to.

Do you really believe we are about to be flooded? DES, as an individual, do you really think we are about to be flooded? That crops are going to die and we will starve from temperature changes? Who told you that and why? Do you agree that the Powers That Be manipulate us with fear?

Not one person has died from temperature increases!

Here is a link to many scientists, climate scientists, oceanographers and meteorologists that completely disagree with AGW hokum.

"Another prominent scientist ridicules global warming theory
Thomas Lifson
Princeton University physics professor William Happer, director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, has put himself on the record dissenting on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories. He has asked to be added to a list of over 650 global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report.

Dr. Happer was fired from his government post by Al Gore, reportedly over his refusal to support Warmist doctrine. The Daily Princetonian reports some of the good professor's caustic comments:"
http://www.americanthink...minent_scientist_ri.html

Science IS often corrupted. It is often driven by the profit principle, and the ego priciple, instead of the search for truth. Government is in bed with the corporate sector, and Global warming hysteria is meant to benefit both, with the aid of "science".

Cheers- read on with an open mind.
Cauldron

BREAKING NEWS! THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP!
By Mike Russell
WEATHER REPORT...................

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at
Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers,
he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration
expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far
north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while
at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few
seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast
shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November
2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.

Cauldron, are you unclear that "hottest decade on record" is by definition the era of record-keeping over the last 150 years? They didn't have thermometers and satellites in Medieval times.

As to your claim about the Medieval Warming Period, once again, if you believe you possess superior data, by all means take your new evidence to the world's climate research institutions ASAP! Scientists are waiting for your data that fills in the gaps in the record and conclusively proves the MWP was global and not just in parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

Aside from your ridiculous strawman statements, you have yet to post a link to one internationally recognized scientific organization that disagree with every other scientific organization in the world... you might also consider this study that discusses the Duning Kruger effect.

"Mark" --- goody for you that you've figured out how to use teh Google! Nice work. What's your point?

Are you pointing out that the Northwest Passage, was once thought to be a crazy fable way back in 1922? Interesting how things have changed so much since then, what with China, the U.S., Russia and Canada jostling for territorial rights to fossil fuel reserves & shipping routes once thought permanently inaccessible (even back in '22)!

Or is your point that they didn't have satellites back in 1922, which makes the current warming trend in the Arctic that much more remarkable because we can now see & verify the extent of sea ice in real time, and accurately measure and compare temperature records with precision unknown to the early explorers of the 20th century?

DES, Cauldron's point concerning corruption in AGW research is spot on. I would add that climate scientists who've decided that AGW is a fact, basically are nothing more than competitors vying for funding to support policy driven notions.

Global governance requires a global tax, not only control and surveil us, but to make us dependent on the whims of tyrants. Each of these scientists knows exactly who funds them, and that is the problem. The governments who fund the majority of climate scientists clearly have a stake in the outcome, and those scientists who don't follow policy in their research are ostracized and likened to holocaust deniers. Most government funded climate scientists probably aren't even fully aware of the kind of world they will leave their children if this AGW belief system is embraced. Their immediate concern is that the funding continue.

The police state required to implement a carbon tax and regulatory system to control our carbon footprint will have an iron grip on everything we do. I don't want to live in such a world. Meanwhile if you think AGW is real, and moving our manufacturing to countries with very little in the way of any kinds of pollution control, and living in a police state will somehow help the planet, then, by all means push the propaganda. I'll do my best to make you and others suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect aware of where all this climate change agenda is leading.

"Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences

Mark Fredrickson said:

The police state required to implement a carbon tax and regulatory system to control our carbon footprint will have an iron grip on everything we do. I don't want to live in such a world.

Just curious why you haven't made that case in the past, for similar cap and trade programs and protocols which were supported and signed by Republicans and Democrats alike. And since they have already taken affect (and have been effective), aren't we already living under that tyranny as slaves anyway?

Or did you miss those previous programs and "global taxes" because the wingnut media hadn't gotten their act together yet to present false evidence about them (and didn't want to, because they happened under Republican Presidents) as they have for the carbon issue?

Either way, good luck fighting against world domination. We thank you for saving us from the tyranny of the Evil New World Order bent on enslaving us all. Society owes you a great debt for your courageous fight for the "truth".

Wow! Great arguments Brad. I guess we are living under tyranny right now, and, as more and more people are pushed out of their homes and into the streets by the excesses of crony capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all, and ever increasing taxes on energy especially, those with nothing left to lose might lose it. So we need to be slaves and sleep sweetly under the jackboot for our safety to facilitate the greatest transfer of wealth in our history under both republicans and democrats. The banker bailout tax our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren will pay for, will be nothing compared to a tax on every breath we exhale. At some point, don't you think, there will be a tipping point as to what we are able to afford to pay to big government so they can take care of things in their usual efficient manner? Boy, you place a lot of trust in government efficiency. And I'm sure the same government people Sibel Edmonds talks about really do have our best interests at heart. They'll use the carbon taxes well and for the benefit of all mankind. And, please forgive me, I really don't believe tyranny can happen here, after all this is the United States.

Mark Fredrickson said:

They'll use the carbon taxes well and for the benefit of all mankind.

Except there is no "carbon tax". They're pushing for a market based cap and trade system instead (as has worked well in the past to combat acid rain, ozone, etc.)

While many argue a "carbon tax" would be smarter and more effective than a cap and trade system, the push is for the latter, not the former. And if you don't know the difference, my apologies that I don't have time to help you out today.

And, please forgive me, I really don't believe tyranny can happen here, after all this is the United States.

Nice false argument. And again, keep up the brave fight against "tyranny"! You haven't misplaced your battle in the slightest!

Mark, you are conflating science and politics.

The scientific evidence is one thing, separate from any policy responses. But only one is dependent on the other --- the scientific evidence exists independently of any policy response. Dismissing the clear scientific evidence as some kind of global conspiracy because you're afraid of the response does nothing to overturn the actual scientific evidence.

Most skeptics --- aside from creationists who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that humans rode dinosaurs --- object on the basis of the perceived policy responses.

But the only way to completely eliminate the policy prescriptions you fear is to deny there's any problem in the first place. No one has yet been able to muster credible scientific evidence to overturn all of the data gathered from all of Earth's systems that point all in the same direction. Surely you guys can find some credible data somewhere that overturns basic physics of CO2 interaction with solar radiation and the basic chemistry of CO2 interaction with seawater??

If the evidence supports that there is a problem, then the next step in halting the any policy response is to move on to attacking the messengers.

Surely you can find some scientist willing to become a whistleblower to reveal the conspiracy and demonstrate how all the data across all disciplines, across the entire globe, since the 19th century, is all fabricated?

Look, it's understandable to fear the policy responses as you perceive them to be. There's a fair debate to be had over whether we can afford to have clean air and water, or whether we can afford to use anything other than fossil fuels, and how to best go about it.

As Brad mentions, we've successfly dealt with similar looming problems uncovered by science before, without destroying the economy or descending into one world government. Cap-and-trade used the free market to solve the problem of acid rain; the global treaty to repair the destruction of the ozone layer led directly to innovation of new products which simply did not occur until the incentive was put in place. Both were Republican initiatives pushed by Reagan and the George H.W. Bush (the first).

It's unfortunate that the scientific evidence across all Earth systems disciplines all points in the same direction. You can do nothing, or do something.... or you can deny there's a problem at all and attack people for conspiring against you. But then you need to prove it.

The scientific evidence, however, remains.