The way you framed your query is instructive. You have your IPCC Report, it’s big and gets big media, so why not exploit the opportunity to frame any oppo as nothing but a bunch of illiterate bloggers stirring up trouble on the internet?

But you know as well as I do that the advocacy is coming not from my side but from yours. The energy, the calls to action, the tax & regulatory proposals, the UN-sponsored reports, the excited pols and breathless celebrities demanding programmatic alterations in the people’s lives, all that PR excitation is coming from the AGW side, not the other.

The other side is not advocating anything at all. It is merely rebutting conclusions drawn (and promoted) by your side.

So I can hardly refer you to “my” IPCC Report report.

And you already know full well that if you seriously want to expose yourself to scientific rebuttals, you can find them all over the net. Search engines are wonderful. So please, dispense with the disingenuousness.

Anyone else still reading here, just start with the links I gave above (Sen Inhofe’s site, perhaps), and actually follow the links into what Boris likes to mischaracterize and trivialize as mere Doofuses & Bozos yakking it up on the internet.

And, you can tell a lot about a person’s opinions by the company he keeps, and this issue is so perfectly–and otherwise incongruously–split left/right that it’s pretty apparent to even a lay observer that it’s far, far more politics than it is science.

Basically, global growth for some years now has been creating so much new private property that the international left is in dire danger of losing its constituency.

It needs something powerful enough to slow this vast expansion of wealth formation, some issue dramatic and ubiquitous enough to control it toward its own ends, as people free from fear & privation are less needful of, and dependent on, the power of big government (which is, of course, the international party of the left).

Nothing else accounts for this issue being so split along political lines.

So pardon me if I don’t roll over for the IPCC Report. Any field engineer in any discipline understands well that the measuring is critical, that the measuring is the first order to avoid divergence into conclusions that may be logical to the assumption but wrong everywhere else.

the IPCC temp measuring is being attacked by many, many scientists all over the world–just do a search.

And here, let me make some assertions and ask YOU to disprove them: the IPCC is the UN, the UN is the transnational movement, and AGW panic has been timed to crest with the USA’s 2008 election, and the whole thing is aimed directly at retarding the global economic expansion.

That expansion that threatens the entrenched elites from both below and above, because it dilutes its voter base and relatively decreases its economic power.

A side note: since there does exist a real true ‘left’, the old classic workingman’s left of Steinbeck and Dos Passos, and since the same global economic expansion is for the first time in human history lifting the world’s poor out of desperation, and since the poor are the natural concern of a real left, the conclusion is inescapable that this movement operating out of the UN and the precincts of the Gores, the Kennedys, the Soros of the world, is not really the ‘left’ at all, but something else, something concerned with its own power and control.

A real lefty would say, let’s burn the shit out of all the carbon we need to feed the hungry, and worry about AGW when we see some.

So in that true-left sense, whatever it is that Al Gore & co is pushing is pretty deeply fraudulent.

But back on topic, given all that, the AGW political front really MUST have the facts on its side whether it actually does or not.

That’s why the anti-AGW science is such a spoiler, and that’s why the pro-AGW side has to ignore, deride, accuse it of Exxonism, sneer, mock, compare it to religious fundamentalism, et cetera, all the well-known lefty methods of shouting down the opposition.

Because the panic has to take off big and fast or else it’ll fall flat on its ass.

It must “do something” NOW so that it can take credit for the coming lack of an Armageddon ten years out.

Otherwise, no catastrophe in ten years, AGW folk gonna have some ‘splainin’ to do.

But not to its own useful idiots–they won’t care one way or the other, they’ll be off on something else by then, their leaders will see to it. So, Al & co as usual have little to lose and much to gain.

If you look at the “experts,” you find them divided, for good reason. Climate modelers are often proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). But climate modelers are using instruments which cannot be well calibrated and certainly not tested. In at least one case, they use exactly the same model that cannot predict the weather very well 5 days out.

Paleo-climatologists are more divided. They see how sparse and shaky the historical data is, and thus how hard it is to make accurate correlations (or test models by predicting the past).

All climatologists have a financial interest in increased funding for global warming research (not that all are biased by that, of course).

Yeah, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is methane (which mankind started releasing in much larger than “natural” amounts with the advent of agriculture) and so is water vapor.

The climate system is vastly complex, perhaps literally chaotic (in a mathematical sense). It is far too complex to model well, and the lack of calibration data makes the models even worse. When you add in selection bias caused by cherry picking models whose arbitrarily chosen parameters (there’s LOTS of parameterization in these things) match a best guess at history, well… it ain’t very convincing.

Hence, if someone claims they can tell you the range of temperatures expected 100 years out, they are simply wrong. It is certainly plausible that significanntly increasing the presence of a trace (.0004 of the atmosphere) grass cause warming or other changes.

How much? More than changing patterns of agriculture? More than urbanization? Enough to compensate for solar variations?

We don’t know. Spending trillions at this point based on so-called scientific estimates is foolishness, which is why it is so popular on the left.

Would you go against the recommendations of all medical bodies because you found osmeone who disagrees on the internet?

* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
–

Boris, next you’ll be telling us that are all descended from apes. Hee haw dontcha know that climate change is a liberal scam just like evolution.

We libertarians have a very simple reason for denying climate change in the face of what might seem to some to be overwhelming evidence. Climate change HAS to be a myth, because addressing it requires taxes and regulations. It MUST be a scam because if it isn’t then the libertarian free market greedfest will grind to a halt. So we’d rather flush the planet down the crapper.

Can’t we go back to talking about all the progress Bush is making in Iraq? I can’t wait to hear about the next success story!! Goodie!!

better grease your scroll wheel

I’d love to help. You see, while Harrison does not hold any advanced degree in the sciences, he can simply do some research and find the positions of the world’s premiere scientific bodies:

* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

What’s the point of having experts if we don’t listen to them?

As for Barret’s “3) Scientists are divided over CO2 as a cause or a consequence of increases in temperature (i.e. if anyone wants to read the research).”

He should perhaps read the research before posting. CO2 undeniably causes warming. It is a greenhouse gas. This has been known since 1896. However, CO2 can increase when the Earth warms, primarily by outgassing from the oceans. But the gas that is released causes more warming, hence its role as a feedback to orbital forcings.

Hey, I’m glad to help. You guys seem to have problems with the science.