Carlin should try to get his "research" published in a peer-reviewed journal so that Inhofe can have another hissy fit when it gets rejected.

It is amazing how much coverage an issue gets just because it involves or involved a celebrity even tangentially YET for NINE years, I have been illegally wiretapped by Shay Riley of the “Black Female Interracial Marriage blog” and not ONE investigative journalist has had to the courage of ability to uncover these digital hoodlums, these cyber fiends, these crass online Psychopath, Shay Riley aka Evia Moore aka Halima Sal Andersen.

Shay Riley of the “Black Female Interracial marriage blog” is a serial Predator who has illegally wiretapped my phone for years. This woman activates the microphone om my cell and home phones and uses it to listen to the conversations in my life. This woman runs very many interracial marriage sites pretending to be interracially married and using the lives of legitimately married women like me as fodder for her PREVARICATION.She is married to a BLACK NIGERIAN CROOK NAMED AKBAR SHABZZ of the “Project 21 site”-.

Why should the ability of these FELONS to access hundreds of legitimate websites and alter information enable them stay free. They continue to elude law enforcement and commit felony after felony.

This woman is a VILE PREDATOR who in all probability molests and abuses her own children. Why can this matter not be persistently and continuously investigated by an elite journalist and the truth found out???

Screaming BLACK POWER and running many various black power blogs should not be cover for this vile REPROBATE.

The FBI and the US Secret Service have not been able to route this woman. See her on ww.akbarshabazz.com. When people say they look ordinary, I say WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??? A sign on Shay Riley which reads, “I am a Felon and illegally wiretap and Send Trojans and spy ware to innocent law abiding citizens computers so that I can criminally stalk them, steal from them, co opt their lives experiences and oh, yes since I am a psychopath, I probably molest my children too.”!!! NO, she has to appear ordinary to lure and assault unassuming people online and elsewhere!

WHY SHOULD THIS WOMAN who runs hundreds of websites under numerous aliases, a fiend who listens to and records my calls even activating my microphones to follow my life and uses Trojans/spyware for my computers BE FREE?????

Must a crime INVOLVE A CELEBRITY FOR IT TO BE RIGOROUSLY AND CONTINUOUSLY INVESTIGATED???? WHat happened to truth in journalism. Can these CYBER Bots Shay Riley, her husband Akbar SHabazz and their accomplices be capable of deceiving the slew of so called ELITE TECHNOLOGY AND CRIME INVESTIGATORS???

I'm glad they let Bill Hemmer interview Inhofe. That way they get intellectual parity. It might have been more interesting, however, to have them discuss whether the world is flat or round. I suspect one of them would have pointed out that Oklahoma pretty much disproves conventional wisdom.

Moderator, clean-up @ 1:34.

Thank you.

They tried to suppress that.

I continuously hear this claim from climate change deniers and without fail it prompts me to ask "Why?" I simply can't understand why a scientist would seek to cover up evidence, or how they'd be able to pull that off in the community-at-large.

Of course, the answer, for people who aren't mouth-breathing morons, is that they wouldn't.

inhofe "surpressed" = "disagreed with." [aka: called it a steaming pile o crap.]

Updating my list of dispicable, moralizing, hypocritcal, willfully ignorant, batshit crazy, scumbag public officals. By no means a complete list, it only includes currently serving tools of the corporate elite.

Michelle Bachmann
Jean Schmidt
Larry Craig
David Vitter
Sarah Palin
Mark Sanford
Peter King
James Inhofe
John Ensign
Saxby Chamblis

Add more if you can think of them

Steve Benen quoted Inhofe: "Alan Carlin ... had access to the new science, which is really reversing a lot of the things that the scientific community thought were true ten years ago."

That's not "hysterical spin" and it's not a case of Inhofe "not knowing what he's talking about". It's a case of a bought-and-paid-for tool of the fossil fuel corporations doing exactly what he has been bribed to do. It's not hysteria and it's not ignorance -- it's blatant, sneering corruption from a con man fleecing the gullible rubes for everything they've got.

Inhofe's claim that Carlin had "access to the new science" which is "reversing" the scientific consensus on the reality of and the grave danger of anthropogenic global warming is a deliberate, blatant LIE and Inhofe knows perfectly well that he is LYING.

In fact, ALL of the actual "new science" is showing that anthropogenic global warming is much worse, and is progressing much faster, than the scientific community believed possible even a few years ago.

In fact, Carlin's unsolicited memo contained NO science, "new" or otherwise. It was nothing but ExxonMobil-funded bullshit that Carlin cut-and-pasted from denialist blogs and websites without attribution, plagiarizing the writings of others and misrepresenting them as his own work.

more and more, i really do think legislation -- or even an amendment to the constitution -- should be passed that in some way makes it criminal or at least grounds for removal from office for guys as STOOPID as Inhofe.

and i'm glad we let paranoid schizophrenics post here -- makes me feel normal and cheers me up...

I like to think that the desperate lies (no getting off the hook with insanity pleas) spouted by the likes of Inhofe, Bachmann, Boehner and the rest are the subject of email roundups distributed among Obama appointees every morning. "Daily Follies" or "Nuts to Avoid" or something like that.

Inhofe, in other words, doesn't know what he's talking about. What a surprise.

Or he's simply lying in order to convince the dead-enders that climate change is all one big liberal conspiracy to shackle industry, just for laughs.

"Inhofe, in other words, doesn't know what he's talking about. What a surprise."

Inhofe DOES know what he is doing. You do know that politicians lie on purpose - the formulation you always use makes it difficult to tell.

Clearly Carlin has gained climatology experience via his proximity to climate scientists. It's called osmosis people!

One quick note: it's not right that Carlin "isn't a scientist". He has a Physics degree from Caltech, which makes him more qualified to discuss general science issues (which is all AGW involves) than 99% of the population, and most "climatologists".

Australia is also debating a 'cap and trade' bill. One of the senators on the relevant committee (Fielding) drafted a set of three questions regarding climate change, and asked the Climate Minister to respond. He then had the response audited by four prominent Australian scientists (be sure and check their credentials, now...).

The audit is well worth reading it its entirety, but I'll quote from the conclusion here:

---begin quote---
We draw the following general conclusions:

- At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and
minor cooling trend will deepen significantlyor will instead be succeeded by resumed
warming. Both are equally plausible, based upon the pattern of the well known natural
multi-decadal climate cycles.

- No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely
to cause, dangerous global warming on top of natural, cyclic trends.
It is unwise for government environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice,
and especially so when that monopoly is represented by an international political (not
scientific) agency, viz. IPCC.

- Other authoritative, independent audits have recently reached similar conclusions to ours
(Idso & Singer, 2009). As Carlin has recently concluded (2009; EPA internal document):
'As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of
global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a
scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available
observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the
breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data'.

- AccordinglyParliament should defer consideration of the current CPRS bill and institute a
fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a
dangerous human influence on climate.

The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous
global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where
competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under the strictest
rules of evidence.
---end quote---

In summary, Inhofe has it about right, and the entire AGW hoax is about political control, not science...

In fact, ALL of the actual "new science" is showing that anthropogenic global warming is much worse, and is progressing much faster, than the scientific community believed possible even a few years ago.

Thought I heard on the radio on this morning's commute, that since Gore put out his Inconvenient Truth movie, global temperature measurement has shown a .72 degree decline.

So it seems either global "warming" may be improving, or one set of global temperature measurements are flat out wrong (while other measurements are right?)

These types of news snippets do create doubt in many persons on what's real and what's not.

be sure and check their credentials, now...). - Terry 2:35

Whose credentials? If the report cites Carlin, we're back on a circular argument, aren't we?

Pencarrow,

What's the source for this assertion? Was it a scientific, peer-reviewed study? Did the media broadcast mention it?

These types of news snippets do create doubt in many persons on what's real and what's not. -pencarrow

To begin with, an average of global temperature is irrelevant, which is why the global warming name has always been a misnomer. Primarily, the concern should be with the temperature at the poles, where ice is demonstrably melting faster than predicted.

Secondly, it's a common fallacy to assume that a snapshot in recent time reflects the greater trend. It's akin to, though not nearly as bad, someone saying, "Well, it's cold today, guess global warming is a hoax!"

RE "Terry"'s post: the tell is the bloke Senator Fielding, who is Ozland's answer to our Inhofe.

Terry's a troll.

Danp:

"Whose credentials? If the report cites Carlin, we're back on a circular argument, aren't we?"

Absolutely not, though this report does absolve Carlin (regardless of his credentials, which are an appeal to authority, not something that automatically invalidates his findings) of reaching a wrong conclusion. You should read the entire audit, available at:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf

It includes 48 academic references, many peer reviewed.

Get back under your bridge Terry

Pencarrow said: "Thought I heard on the radio on this morning's commute, that since Gore put out his Inconvenient Truth movie, global temperature measurement has shown a .72 degree decline."

What's the source of this information? Talk radio? Why not your best friend's sister?

What's the duration of this supposed cooling? You are aware that Earth warms and cools on daily, yearly, and decadal timescales.

Consider the following... Very few trends in the natural world are constantly increasing or decreasing. Expecting every year to be hotter than the last due to the 200-year-long warming trend is a bit like concluding its the start of winter today because July 7 was cooler than July 6.

In science, you look at all of the data. In pseudoscience, you pick a single outlier and scream to the heavens "Why won't anyone take me seriously!?!"

May 2009 was warm, but June 2009 is average

overall, the trend throughout the 21st century has been slightly down (least squares slope is negative), but nobody now knows whether that will continue.

The arctic has been cooler than average during this thaw, although predicted to have been warmer than average.

I noticed that Al gore has brought back the "moral equivalent of war" theme, though by comparison with WWII instead of war in general, citing Winston Churchill but not William James or Jimmy Carter.

This is too funny.

Who picked the 4 Australian scientists to audit the report? Were they chosen at random from a cross section of Aussie climatologists?

Er, no.

Was the review request submitted to an organization or academy of climate scientists?

Er, no.

The Fielding bloke picked them himself!
He simply cherry-picked a handful people whom he knew were already in agreement with him. What a bloody surprise!

Can't imagine why he didn't choose anyone from the hundreds of climatologists who disagree with his view.

neill:

"Terry's a troll."

That's called an "ad-hominem attack", and does nothing to address the substance of what I said. In debate, it's called "you lose".

Here are the credentials of the scientists who wrote the audit I quoted above. They're on Page 43. Along with the 700 scientists who've supported Inhofe's position here in the States, it's clear that there's no scientific consensus on AGW, nor reason to spend TRILLIONS of dollars and wreck our standard of living.

Credentials:

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter -Geologist/Environmental Scientist
Bob Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, is an Adjunct Research Fellow at James Cook University (Queensland). He is a marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181. Carter has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways). Bob has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a climate change briefing in parliament house, Stockholm. Carter was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth".

Dr David Evans -Carbon Modeller
David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Dept. of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, building FullCAM, a leading carbon accounting model that estimates carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ncas/activities/modelling.html). FullCAM is used to calculate the land-use portion of Australia's Kyoto Protocol compliance, calculating carbon emissions and fixations from each 25 meter by 25 meter plot across Australia, using geographical maps of climate and soils data and maps of land cover changes derived from NASA satellite imagery.
Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in Electrical Engineering. The evidence supporting the idea that carbon dioxideemissions were the main cause of global warming dropped away from 1999 to 2003, and by 2007 had reversed itself. The evidence unequivocally shows that the IPCC's 1984 estimates of future temperature increases (which they hold almost unchanged in 2009) were exaggerated at least twofold or threefold (for
example, http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf). During this period Evans moved from being an alarmist to a sceptic.

Associate Professor Stewart Franks -Hydro-climatologist
Stewart Franks is an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle. His PhD thesis addressed issues of uncertainty in modelling land surface -atmosphere interactions for atmospheric/climate models. Stewart’s research
interests primarily centre on the quantification and reduction of uncertainty in environmental modelling and hydro-climatic risk assessment. He is currently President-elect of the International Commission on the Coupled Land-Atmosphere System, a commission of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences.The remit of the commission is to organise symposia and workshops on dealing with hydrological variability and the interactionsbetween the land surface and theatmosphere. A special focus is directed toward building knowledge and capacity in developing countries. Stewart has edited a number of books documenting examples of historic hydro-climatic variability across the globe. He is perhaps guilty of adopting a more philosophical approach to climate modeling than most. Stewart prefers to believe that if we don’t understand the physics of climate, then we might be premature in building models of it and blindly believing their colourful output. He is also a firm believer that the politicization of climate science by politicians, scientist-advocates and environmental pressure groups is a particularly dangerous development in our modern technological society.

Mr William Kininmont-
Meteorologist/Climatologist
B.Sc (UWA), M.Sc (Colo State U), M.Admin (Monash U). William Kininmonth is a consulting climatologist with more than 45 years professional experience. He worked with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years in weather forecaster, research and applied studies; for 12 years until 1998 was head of its National Climate Centre. He has worked closely with the World Meteorological Organization since 1982 as Australia’s delegate to the Commission for Climatology, in expert working groups, lecturing at regional training seminars, and later as a consultant. He has been a member of Australian delegations to international conferences and intergovernmental negotiations relating to climate, including for the UN’s Framework Convention onClimate Change (1991-92). William Kininmonth participated in the Australian Public Service Executive Development Scheme (1977) and was leader of an Australian Government project of assistance to the Meteorology and Environmental Protection Administration of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1982-85). William Kininmonth is author of the book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard(2004,
Multi-Science Publishing Co, UK).

Picking 4 scientists that are going to tell Fielding what he (and you) wants to hear is in some way persuasive?

MatthewRMarler:

"This is too funny.

Who picked the 4 Australian scientists to audit the report? Were they chosen at random from a cross section of Aussie climatologists?

Er, no."

Of course not, since the "majority" opinion was well represented in Wong's response.

The paleoclimate record, as well as the current climactic record, show pretty clearly that CO2 based "global warming" is no threat. Certainly not compared to draconian regulations that only increase the government's control over every one of us, while making life substantially more expensive and less rich.

Thanks Terry, there's also a bunch of guys with degrees in biological sciences who testify in court for the ID side when those guys attack evolution.

If you would be so diligent to read the stuff you posted yourself, then you could hardly avoid the conclusion that Buford was right in his suspicion. Fielding picked four guys he a priori know would agree with his position.

With that approach I'd bet you could assemble a scientific panel of four biologists who would come to the conclusion that Darwin was indeed wrong and evolution is a hoax.

It's a little disingenuous to claim that four guys whose opinion you like must be right and the vast majority of climate scientists who disagree with your position are politicized idiots.

Btw, this story of 700 'scientists who support Inhoffe' has been debunked as well. The fact that you bring it up again is quite telling. (For an example: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/inhofes_list_of_prominent_scie.php, if that is not enough just google 'Inhoffe' and '700 scientists'.)

Inhoffe is a nutter, not only because of his position on AWG, all you do with your vehement defence of his idiocy is becoming a nutter yourself.

That's not fair, Steve. It's also logic that Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) would love.

Terry is a troll.

Citing "credentials" is like citing Albert Einstein's credentials, (9th grade school teacher).

I want someone who understands a "buffered model" (none of the four do).

Imhofe is one of the three stooges of the Repub Party. He , like Rush and Sean, pass along every bit of misinformation they can get out there. Better yet, he just may be the CLOWN of the Senate as he tried to paint Al Franken. Franken is a Harvard cum laude grad while Imhofe got his BA at age 38 and ran an insurance company into the ground before he found a comfortable place in the Repub Party. He's the perfect example of the arrogant Republican who thinks everbody laughs with him. He doesn't have enough sensitivity to hear those laughing AT him.

slightly off topic, but

expansion of biodiesel production from algae>

biofuelsdigest is worth scanning regularly.

California has enough insolation on unused land, and enough water (which is recycled in the algae facilities anyway), that it could grow its entire automotive fuel supply. It would take sustained effort and investment, and the eventual real cost of the biofuels is not now known, but it's certainly achievable.

Terry, I appreciate your use of logic. It makes it possible to directly discuss the issue. So let's look at this logically. I'm ready to concede that I lack the academic and scientific background, as well as direct access to the data, to determine one way or the other. I presume that you also lack that information, otherwise you would present that, rather than someone else's findings. Correct?

Therefore, we can only argue with the evidence provided by more scientifically accomplished parties. I'm willing to accept that if you can find more recognized scientists who have research that somehow relates to climate change, and you have a list of recognized scientific bodies (i.e. are made up of accredited scientific professionals) that all have publicly issued statements disputing AGW, then you are clearly correct.

You have exactly one report by two scientists. N=1 is pretty much the definition of an unrepresentative sample. To back that up, you have a disputed list of 700 scientists who deny global warming (maybe it's not disputed, but last I heard, there were around 45 or so who were rather surprised that they were on that list).

Against that, I give you this list of organizations that have current statements in support of the theory of Anthrogenic Climate Change (culled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change):
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
Federal Climate Change Science Program
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
The European Academoy of Sciences and Arts
The InterAcedemy Council
The Internations Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
The Join Science Academies statement (32 independent national science academies who all agree, including both Australia and the U.S.)
The Network of African Science Academies
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Polish Academy of Sciences
The American Associate for the Advancement of Science
The European Science Foundation
National Research Council
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australia Coral Reef Society
The UK's Institute of Biology
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
The GSA
and it goes on and on and on.

In short, every reputable geological, meteorological, biological and almost every other scientific association has issued a statement in support of AGW. Granted, you might just say that this is an appeal to popularity or authority. If it were just a bunch of people on the street saying this, or if it were people who worked at these organizations, but didn't have scientific credentials (and no, a bachelor's degree isn't really scientific credentials), then you'd be right.

You might dispute this by saying that while the organizations approved of AGW theory, individual voices might be lost. Perhaps support is not so monolithic as I suggest. Put your mind at easy, Terry. A recent study by the University of Illinois at Chicago (Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22-23. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.) found that of the 3,146 responses, 96.2% of climatologists doing research believe that mean global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in that change. The most likely to dispute these views were petroleum geologists and meteorologists (of whom 47% and 64% respectively agreed with the consensus view of human involvement raising mean global temperatures).

Therefore, I feel comfortable agreeing with them, rather than 3 PhD's with political connections in Australia and a guy with a physics degree.

pencarrow: Thought I heard on the radio on this morning's commute, that since Gore put out his Inconvenient Truth movie, global temperature measurement has shown a .72 degree decline.

check out the link that I provided. You can get original data from NASA/GISS.

If you go to realclimate.org, you can follow hot links to lots of sources of original data.

Matt

Terry, my son has an undergraduate degree in physics. He is a computer software project manager. Wicked smart kid, but he wouldn't call himself a scientist.

The only folks who are engaged in an effort to obtain political control are the fools who, in the face of damn near the entire scientific establishment, claim global warming is a hoax.

Goddard Institute for Space Studies, displays of data and links to excel files.

IntelVet:

"Citing "credentials" is like citing Albert Einstein's credentials, (9th grade school teacher)."

Well, your knowledge of Dr. Einstein's credentials certainly does little to bolster your views on the climate.

Some folks insist on credentials and peer-reviewed science. Others are willing to look at direct measurements and other evidence with an open mind.

Besides, always remember that Eugenics was a "consensus position" at one point (just like the flat earth, geocentric universe, etc...).

'I want someone who understands a "buffered model" (none of the four do).'

And you know this how...?

Regardless, the beauty of the anti-global-warming position is that it's based on ground truth (direct measurements) rather than the demonstrably flawed models used to promote Social Change through Anthropogenic Global Warming (SCAGW).

what, everything old is new again?

Alan Carlin is a longtime 30-year employee, and he had access to the new science, which is really reversing a lot of the things that the scientific community thought were true ten years ago. They tried to suppress that. [...]

HEMMER: Here's what the EPA says, Senator. They say Carlin's not a scientist, he included no original research in his report, and none of it was solicited by the EPA. It sounded like it was a side-job on the side ... Do you see it that way?

INHOFE: No, I don't see it that way at all. This guy's been there for 30 years, Bill. I mean, you know, he's not some new guy that was there. That's his job.

Huh? Carlin's an old guy with new science, not a new guy with old science? what is it, Senator, old or new?

Ron Byers:

"Terry, my son has an undergraduate degree in physics. He is a computer software project manager. Wicked smart kid, but he wouldn't call himself a scientist."

Why not? The scientific method is taught at the undergraduate level, not graduate school. Graduate school is there to give one deep knowledge in one particular area of the discipline. General knowledge of the discipline is given during undergraduate study.

Your son should re-evaluate what he calls himself - especially if he went to Cal Tech or the equivalent, it's a fine school.

Terry says:

"Regardless, the beauty of the anti-global-warming position is that it's based on ground truth (direct measurements) rather than the demonstrably flawed models used to promote Social Change through Anthropogenic Global Warming (SCAGW)."

I don't have the technical expertise with regards to the research that has been done re: climate change. I do know, however, that the assertion that AGW and its effects have not been directly observed and relate only to modeling is laughable.

Mike Lamb:

"I do know, however, that the assertion that AGW and its effects have not been directly observed and relate only to modeling is laughable."

Please post an "observation" of "AGW".

Note that the June 2009 global temperature anomaly versus the currently accepted baseline was 0 deg. Celsius. That is a satellite measurement, much more reliable and unbiased than the surface measurements so ironically favored by GISS.

I thought this might interest you. It isn't real recent.

earth temp and solar irradiance

The temperature and solar irradiance graph is from a peer-reviewed journal. The scale for solar irradiance is a recently-derived summary statistic for solar irradiance, and like everything else that is "recent" was tailored somewhat to achieve the desired fit to earth temperature.

Some things that are not yet known:

a. how low the current reduction in solar irradiance will go.

b. how long the current reduction in solar irradiance will last. The sun is "behind" in its " 11 year solar cycle".

c. how long the current reduction in earth temperature will persist.

d. what's causing the current reduction in earth temperature. There are multiple hypotheses, all post-hoc. That is to say, all except the solar irradiance hypothesis are post-hoc. The solar irradiance guys predicted the current cooling trend, and they are the only guys who did.

e. how long the current slight cooling of the earth temperature will last.

A recent regression analysis, within the last few months, concluded that only 14% of global warming can be attributed to solar irradiance, but all these regression analyses are unstable, that is, results are sensitive to small changes in the details. Since 1700, earth temperature is clearly more closely related to solar irradiance than to CO2, but numerous other variables can be added or omitted that dramatically alter the relative importance of sun and CO2. Most of those are not measured pre-1900, so analysts often omit the pre-1900 record. That makes a great difference in the estimated relative importance of CO2 and solar irradiance: the earth temperature changes since 1700 are almost completely unrelated to CO2 accumulation.

stay tuned

The answers will probably be known by the time the new US CAFE standards go into effect.

Terry is a Ditto-Head, slavishly regurgitating the fake, phony pseudoscience and outright lies that ExxonMobil pays Rush Limbaugh to spoon-feed him.

Show him that his claims are utterly bogus and he will simply repeat them. That's what Ditto-Heads do.

Terry gets a good feeling from repeating whatever the "conservative" media has told him to say, and he enjoys wasting your time with bullshit, and will do so forever if you let him.

Terry wrote: "The paleoclimate record, as well as the current climactic record, show pretty clearly that CO2 based 'global warming' is no threat."

That's a lie, Terry.

It's a blatant lie.

Are you a deliberate liar?

Or are you a gullible, ignorant, weak-minded fool who slavishly believes whatever bullshit some big corporation pays the "conservative" media to spoon-feed you?

Very tiresome dealing with deniers after all this time. Simple answer:

http://data.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

SecularAnimist:

Another nice ad hominem. You lose.

Try addressing some of the argument, none of which has been repeated.

On the other hand,

"slavishly believes whatever bullshit the government tells the "mainstream" media to spoon-feed you"

sounds quite believable in your case.

Terry, I will agree that Cal Tech is a fine school, but nobody with a BS in Physics working professionally in a totally different field would call himself a scientist. I don't think Carlin calls himself a scientist. I think he calls himself what he is, an economist.

The only people who would call Carlin a scientist are paid media professional "conservatives" totally tied to the polluting industry or fools who are totally taken in by them.

I am old enough to remember when ad men working for Phillip Morris who called themselves scientists were peddling the idea that smoking doesn't cause cancer. How did that similar bit of crap science work out.

SecularAnimist:

"That's a lie, Terry.

It's a blatant lie.

Are you a deliberate liar?

Or are you a gullible, ignorant, weak-minded fool who slavishly believes whatever bullshit some big corporation pays the "conservative" media to spoon-feed you?"

So you're calling me a liar? Fine, how about some evidence of such rather than rolling out another useless ad hominem attack?

Why don't you inform all of us of the percentage of global greenhouse gasses for which humans are responsible? That's an enlightening statistic...

Ron Byers:

Point taken, although "professional scientist" and "scientist" are two different terms.

However, the analogy to "smoking research" is weak. Many actual field studies contradicted the claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

However, neither studies of the past or present climate present convincing evidence that humans have anything to do with today's climate, and in fact the current climate is completely outside the bounds of that predicted by the IPCC and its models in the recent past.

Marler wrote: I thought this might interest you.

Why do you think anyone is interested in anything posted by a commentor with your nonesistent credibility and long history of bad faith posting?

Seriously, Marler -- why do you think you have any credibility, when you refuse to address your years of water carrying on behalf of the Republicans and their sweet, sweet tax cuts? Or is your occasional pretense as an honest commentator -- which fools no one -- just another example of bad faith?

Shame on you, Marler.

Terry wrote: "Another nice ad hominem. You lose."

You don't know what ad hominem means.

I said you are a liar. That's not an ad hominem. It's a fact.

You are posting lies. Blatant lies. Lies that have been exposed and debunked and refuted many, many, many times over.

There is no question about that.

The only question is whether you are a deliberate liar, or merely a gullible dupe of deliberate liars.

The kind of gullible dupe who thinks that ExxonMobil is a noble, heroic underdog defender of liberty, courageously and selflessly struggling against the awesome power of a global conspiracy of "liberals" who have somehow convinced thousands of climate scientists and the national scientific academies of every nation on Earth to perpetrate a monstrous hoax so that Al Gore can become dictator of the world and subject you to "social control".

Is that what you believe, Terry?

Is that what Rush Limbaugh told you?

Do you really think that life is like a comic book with "conservative" heroes battling evil "liberal" villains?

Are you older than twelve, Terry?

Terry wrote: "Try addressing some of the argument, none of which has been repeated."

You haven't offered any "argument". You have only offered rote, verbatim, cut-and-paste regurgitation of the blatantly false denialist drivel that the fossil fuel corporations pay the "conservative" media to spoon-feed to gullible dupes.

You are not interested in actual "argument". You are interested in the good feeling that you get from obediently saying what you've been told to say by the corporate "conservative" media.

Shorter conservative argument: to believe in global warming means we have to do something about it. Doing something about it would cost industry money (can't have that). Better to wait until some city goes underwater or half of the population suffocates before we're really, really, really, really sure that we want our OLD fossil fuel industry to come into the future. Because anyone who dies in the service of capitalism has not died in vain.

Terry wrote: "... neither studies of the past or present climate present convincing evidence that humans have anything to do with today's climate ..."

That's a blatant, laughable lie, Terry.

Again, the only question is whether you are despicably dishonest, or pathetically ignorant.

I'm inclined to think that you are in fact just another pathetically ignorant Ditto-Head, simply repeating what you've been told to say by the phony "conservative" media.

You know nothing about actual climate science.

You don't know what "evidence" of anything there is or isn't. You don't even know what most of the pseudoscientific gibberish you are cutting-and-pasting even means.

All you know is that as a good "conservative", you must obediently say whatever the "conservative" media tells you to say.

Terry wrote: "... it's clear that there's no scientific consensus on AGW ..."

That's a blatant LIE, Terry. Cut-and-pasted verbatim, directly from the script that ExxonMobil has paid phony "conservative think tanks" to crank out for years.

Let me be clear:

I'm not engaging in an ad hominem, which is a classical rhetorical fallacy.

I'm addressing the "substance of your argument".

And the only "substance" of the "arguments" you have posted here so far is LIES. Lies that have been repeatedly exposed, debunked and refuted over and over and over again.

So, again I ask:

Are you a deliberate LIAR, who knows that the rubbish he's posting here is LIES?

Or are you (as I suspect) a weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dupe of deliberate LIARS?

Which is it?

SecularAnimist:

'Let me be clear:

I'm not engaging in an ad hominem, which is a classical rhetorical fallacy.

I'm addressing the "substance of your argument".

And the only "substance" of the "arguments" you have posted here so far is LIES. Lies that have been repeatedly exposed, debunked and refuted over and over and over again.'

Let ME be clear. Your claim that something I said is a lie is fine, but YOU need to be clear as to what, exactly. Make a specific claim, I'll respond specifically.

To the best of my knowledge, everything I've stated here is true.

Now, how 'bout addressing my question regarding the percentage of greenhouse gasses contributed by humans?

SecularAnimist:

"Are you a deliberate LIAR, who knows that the rubbish he's posting here is LIES?

Or are you (as I suspect) a weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dupe of deliberate LIARS?

Which is it?"

So, how often do you beat your wife?

Science is about objective examination of the truth. Lies are the province of politics.

Terry wrote: "To the best of my knowledge, everything I've stated here is true."

Fine. I'm willing to accept that you are not a deliberate, knowing liar, but are merely repeating lies out of ignorance.

Terry wrote: "Science is about objective examination of the truth. Lies are the province of politics."

It's quite clear that you have a political agenda, since the people who are spoon-feeding you the deceitful pseudo-scientific garbage you are regurgitating here have convinced you that that the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming is somehow a "liberal vs. conservative" issue.

And it's equally clear that you know nothing about actual climate science, and that rather than "objectively examining the truth" you are concerned with obediently reciting talking points, without any idea whether they are true or not. They are marketed to you as "conservative" and that's good enough for you.

So your constant stream of regurgitated, politically-motivated lies is fully consistent with your aphorism.

Gregory: Why do you think anyone is interested in anything posted by a commentor with your nonesistent credibility and long history of bad faith posting?

The graph was from a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-reviewed journals accrue a lot of respect on this site.

SecularAnimist:

"Fine. I'm willing to accept that you are not a deliberate, knowing liar, but are merely repeating lies out of ignorance."

How wonderfully understanding of you.

"It's quite clear that you have a political agenda, since the people who are spoon-feeding you the deceitful pseudo-scientific garbage you are regurgitating here have convinced you that that the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming is somehow a "liberal vs. conservative" issue."

Not at all. In fact, I don't believe I've used either the term "liberal" or "conservative" in my posts. You have, on the other hand.

"And it's equally clear that you know nothing about actual climate science, and that rather than "objectively examining the truth" you are concerned with obediently reciting talking points, without any idea whether they are true or not. They are marketed to you as "conservative" and that's good enough for you."

I think the phrase "you know nothing about climate science" bears particular scrutiny.

What is "climate science" exactly? It encompasses a wide range of disciplines, from physics, to mathematics, to chemistry, to meteorology, to solar astronomy, to archaeology, to geology, to computer science, and to scientific modeling. So, very few if any are cognizant of the entire range of knowledge that encompasses "climate science".

The beauty of analyzing the "AGW" claims versus science is that "AGW" involves no higher mathematics, as does quantum physics for instance, and that a lot of "ground truth" data is directly available to the public via the Internet.

The facts are:

1) The computer models used in support of AGW have serious defiencies, including not manifesting the periodic oceanic climate changes, as well as predicting increased high-altitude tropical heat content, which hasn't been observed. They also over-predict drought when hindcast, and include positive temperature feedback water vapor models when negative temperature feedback is almost certainly correct instead.

2) 1998 was, by all accounts, the warmest year on record. So, by definition, temperatures have not increased since then. In fact, temperatures have been falling consistently since 2002. To an earlier poster who invoked "arctic ice", just a bit earlier this year total sea ice was above the (arbitrarily chosen) baseline. Once again, just as with this June being at a 0 deg C temperature anamoly, where is the warming to justify massive expense and lifestyle sacrifices? It doesn't exist.

3) The AGW models have no way of predicting true natural variability, such as the large Sarychev volcanic explosion earlier this year. It will have a definite negative impact on global temperature. The only plausible event that might raise temperatures is an increase in solar irradiation. However, a decrease in solar output is equally likely, and in fact we likely are looking at 20+ years of cooling from here, based on the sunspot cycles.

Terry, if you are interested in actually learning something about actual climate science, then I suggest that you start with www.RealClimate.org and www.SkepticalScience.com (especially their page which lists and rebuts the "hottest skeptic arguments").

But I don't think you are interested.

Why do I think that?

Because in your comments on this thread, you have done nothing but regurgitate long-debunked lies and distortions, bogus pseudoscience churned out by ExxonMobil-funded propaganda mills, and inane irrelevancies.

And you have made repeated statements that indicate you are a devout Ditto-Head, who has been brainwashed into believing that the corporate-sponsored, phony "conservative" media -- and ONLY the corporate-sponsored phony "conservative" media -- is telling you the REAL TRUTH about anthropogenic global warming, while thousands of climate scientists and the national scientific academies of every nation on Earth are engaged in perpetrating the greatest fraud in the history of the world so that Evil Liberals can impose "social controls" on you.

In other words, you are so far removed from the real world that there is no hope for you.

Terry wrote: "1998 was, by all accounts, the warmest year on record. So, by definition, temperatures have not increased since then. In fact, temperatures have been falling consistently since 2002."

I quote that just because it is a perfect example of the complete, utter bullshit that you have been posting here all day.

First of all, the deceitful deniers always pretend that the temperature record begins with 1998, because it was a very hot year -- because it was the year of a strong El Nino.

But 2005 was just as hot, and it was not an El Nino year. Do you even understand what that means?

And temperatures have NOT been "falling consistently since 2002". That's just a flat out lie.

In fact, the last decade is the hottest decade in recorded history.

And your other two numbered, scripted talking points are likewise either blatantly false or utterly irrelevant.

You have been lied to, Terry. If you want to go on being a mental slave of whatever lies and rubbish the corporate media tells you is "conservative" then that's up to you.

If you want to learn something about actual climate science, then stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and other bought-and-paid-for ExxonMobil liars and frauds, and start listening to actual scientists.

For the record, making an ad hominem attack in the course of postulating an argument does not mean "you lose" or in any way diminishes the truth of the argument being made. Quite to the contrary, ad hominem attacks draw attention to the character of the individual, in this case "Terry", offering the specious arguments by focusing attention on the person's character and motivation(s) for making specious arguments in the first place. AGW deniers are apparatchiks and reactionaries. In our era they deny the reality of climate change which, in its most severe form, threatens the life of every living thing on the planet not to mention property as well. In the past they have denied evolution, the existence of bacterial and viral agents in causing disease, the existence of subatomic particles, indeed they have denied the reality of every truth arrived at through the scientific method. At one time they denied the earth is round. I suspect these self-conscious know-nothings will be with us for the foreseeable future.

SecularAnimist: In fact, the last decade is the hottest decade in recorded history.

Even ignoring 1998, the temperature trend over the last 10 years has been slightly downward. The possibility that this slightly downward trend will last 40 years, like the 1940-1980 slight decrease, can not be ruled out by available knowledge.

The graph was from a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-reviewed journals accrue a lot of respect on this site.

That doesn't answer my question, Marler. You don't have any respect on this site because of your long history of bad faith -- which continues now, in your dodging the question of your persistent dishonesty. No one is fooled into thinking you cite anything to inform or in good faith.

Answer the question, Marler. Why do you think anyone is interested in anything posted by a commentor with your nonexistent credibility and long history of bad faith posting?

Why did Memmer not say, "No, you moron, that is NOT his job!"--oh, right, Fox.

This thread is probably dead by now, but I'd like to add a response to Marler's last comment, i.e.
"The possibility that this slightly downward trend will last 40 years, like the 1940-1980 slight decrease, can not be ruled out by available knowledge.

As a matter of fact, if I were religious I'd pray for a downward trend, even if it wouldn't last 40 years, because that would give humanity a reprieve to enact measures that slow down and eventual reverse some of the increases in atmospheric CO2. But to conclude that such a downward trend would mean that the AGW issue has disappeared, would essentially be tantamount to fooling ourselves.

The greenhouse effect is a function of the intensity of the energy source (the sun) and the extent of heat absorption in the atmosphere of the earth. If the activity of the sun goes through a low intensity episode and the global average temperature therefore sees a decline (as in the decade after 1940; for the rest of the 40 years the temperature actually was essentially constant), that won't mean much once solar activity picks up again and the concentration of radiation absorbing CO2 in the earths atmosphere has increased unabated during the reprieve period.

Hi guys. By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Distance learning business degrees. I found only this - university business degrees. Taken students can possess you to earn your career especially, which is an bachelor informally if you are climbing for a degree that is bad to encourage you with your administration in bachelor to change you in a other occasion within the business, business degree. With an other interest in wealth training and second accounting, is a largely divided product such, business degree. THX :rolleyes:, Efrem from Guinea.