Global Cooling...

[KevinWestern]

Yup, it's all crashing & burning for them at this point. They will become more hysterical & shrill as they begin to understand their 'Global Warming' scam is over. It's what always happens when Cult fantasies don't work out. They wont be flying away on their Hale-Bopp spaceship. And that reality is gonna to sting em pretty badly. So expect much more bitter lashing out from them. It is what it is.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the great majority of scientists (need to emphasize “great majority&#8221 believe that it’s largely a cause of man-made activities.

I suppose you can say that you don’t think man is the cause of this warming, but fine that’s you’re prerogative I won’t think you’re entirely crazy.

You can also say that global warming won’t have that drastic of an effect, or is not as extreme as some say, and I won’t think you’re entirely crazy either. I don't agree, but I won't come right out and call you a nut.

But if you say that global warming doesn’t exist at all - man made or not man made - I’d just have to say that you’re completely crazy and/or horribly misinformed.

Funny how many on the extreme far right think that government is extraordinarily useless, incompetent, and horribly bureaucratic, but at the same time think that the government is capable of housing some worldwide conspiracy and has somehow found a way to make 9+/10 climate experts agree with a false conclusion. It's not possible.

 

[Meister]

Yup, it's all crashing & burning for them at this point. They will become more hysterical & shrill as they begin to understand their 'Global Warming' scam is over. It's what always happens when Cult fantasies don't work out. They wont be flying away on their Hale-Bopp spaceship. And that reality is gonna to sting em pretty badly. So expect much more bitter lashing out from them. It is what it is.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the great majority of scientists (need to emphasize “great majority”) believe that it’s largely a cause of man-made activities.

I suppose you can say that you don’t think man is the cause of this warming, but fine that’s you’re prerogative I won’t think you’re entirely crazy.

You can also say that global warming won’t have that drastic of an effect, or is not as extreme as some say, and I won’t think you’re entirely crazy either. I don't agree, but I won't come right out and call you a nut.

But if you say that global warming doesn’t exist at all - man made or not man made - I’d just have to say that you’re completely crazy and/or horribly misinformed.

Too bad more and more scientists are jumping that sinking ship.
But feel free to believe what you want, I won't think you're crazy either. I will think you're a willful tool. I won't come out and call you a blooming nut, because I just won't do that.

I will say that we go through cycles and have since the beginning of time for this planet.

 

[Ropey]

The Earth is cyclic with global warming and cooling part of the cycle. Sooner or later there will be a warming/cooling event that mankind likely will be unable to deal with and I doubt it will be human made.

 

[KevinWestern]

Too bad more and more scientists are jumping that sinking ship.
But feel free to believe what you want, I won't think you're crazy either. I will think you're a willful tool. I won't come out and call you a blooming nut, because I just won't do that.

I will say that we go through cycles and have since the beginning of time for this planet.

Meister, I form my opinion based on fact. I don't know where you some up with this "religion" stuff, and trying to discredit people who believe factual information. It's not right.

Right now it's my understanding that it's a fact that the VAST majority of climate experts (specifically climate experts) believe global warming is real and likely man made to some degree. That doesn't make it true (we once thought earth was flat too!), it just makes the most sense to side with the prevailing scientific consensus at this given moment in time. Maybe that's just me. If you have a compelling reason to believe the fringe science, then go right ahead.

If you can provide a legitimate source that shows me that the above statement is not a fact, and that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming, maybe I'll reconsider.

I don't study the climate myself, so I form my opinion based on the overwhelming majority opinion. Common sense!

 

[Meister]

Too bad more and more scientists are jumping that sinking ship.
But feel free to believe what you want, I won't think you're crazy either. I will think you're a willful tool. I won't come out and call you a blooming nut, because I just won't do that.

I will say that we go through cycles and have since the beginning of time for this planet.

Meister, I form my opinion based on fact. I don't know where you some up with this "religion" stuff, and trying to discredit people who believe factual information. It's not right.

Right now it's my understanding that it's a fact that the VAST majority of climate experts (specifically climate experts) believe global warming is real and likely man made to some degree. That doesn't make it true (we once thought earth was flat too!), it just makes the most sense to side with the prevailing scientific consensus at this given moment in time. Maybe that's just me. If you have a compelling reason to believe the fringe science, then go right ahead.

If you can provide a legitimate source that shows me that the above statement is not a fact, and that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming, maybe I'll reconsider.

I don't study the climate myself, so I form my opinion based on the overwhelming majority opinion.

Try googling it...it's easy to find, just as easy to find as the sites you googled to form you're unbiased opinion. IPCC has been outed...lies and deception on your side of the arguement and yet, you ignore all of that, and go with your so called facts.
Overwhelming majority opinion....bought and paid for.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about global warming anymore except the internet people who obsess upon it.

But dont take my word for it..........this is what a recent Pew Poll showed in terms of concerns Americans have..........

You talk about Oooooops??


Thats kiinda laughable.

 

[KevinWestern]

Try googling it...it's easy to find, just as easy to find as the sites you googled to form you're unbiased opinion. IPCC has been outed...lies and deception on your side of the arguement and yet, you ignore all of that, and go with your so called facts.
Overwhelming majority opinion....bought and paid for.

Meister - Let me see here, I can:

1.) Side with the opinion and the general conclusion/findings of each of the top national science institutes of every single developed nation on the planet.


or... (wait for it)....


2.) I can side with you and assume there's a massive conspiracy between all of the world's major governments, including (but not exclusive to) France, Germany, Spain, Britain, The United States, and Canada to pay off the vast majority of all credible scientists who study the field to lie and say that global warming is real, just so they can make some tax dollars off of emission fees,

despite the fact that the politicians who run all of those nations have campaigns that are funded by industries that would stand to lose billions and billions of dollars from added transportation costs .

(but never mind that)

I imagine that these Government officials, maybe 2 or 3 from each of the major countries, also meet in a secret bunker every few months to make sure their plan is staying on schedule, and to root out any emerging credible scientists so they can put them on the payroll. It's also very possible this bunker is the same place that they envisioned/developed the 9/11 hijackings (ie it wasn't really the terrorists).

Also, I've realized when typing this out that this is probably the reason no one's been able to balance any budgets (it all makes so much sense now!); they've been spending all of their time running the massive conspiracy...


I don't know Meister, it's a real toughie. Better sleep on it.
.
.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

You talk about Oooooops??


Thats kiinda laughable.

Yes, Skookerasbil, lets start judging how important things are based only on what the majority of Americans think is important.

You know, the same group that spawned an obsessive fascination with Jersey Shore, making Snooki a millionaire.

Good idea, sir.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kevin, these fellows post from wingnut sites, most of the rest of us post from peer reviewed science. From sources like the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society, just to name three. Yet we are supposed to be the 'religious nuts', running on faith.

Some even claim to be scientists, then post from Anthony Watts and other screwballs rather than peer reviewed sources. A sad reflection on their personal integrity when they let their political preferances take precedance over real science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Too bad more and more scientists are jumping that sinking ship.
But feel free to believe what you want, I won't think you're crazy either. I will think you're a willful tool. I won't come out and call you a blooming nut, because I just won't do that.

I will say that we go through cycles and have since the beginning of time for this planet.

Meister, I form my opinion based on fact. I don't know where you some up with this "religion" stuff, and trying to discredit people who believe factual information. It's not right.

Right now it's my understanding that it's a fact that the VAST majority of climate experts (specifically climate experts) believe global warming is real and likely man made to some degree. That doesn't make it true (we once thought earth was flat too!), it just makes the most sense to side with the prevailing scientific consensus at this given moment in time. Maybe that's just me. If you have a compelling reason to believe the fringe science, then go right ahead.

If you can provide a legitimate source that shows me that the above statement is not a fact, and that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming, maybe I'll reconsider.

I don't study the climate myself, so I form my opinion based on the overwhelming majority opinion.

Try googling it...it's easy to find, just as easy to find as the sites you googled to form you're unbiased opinion. IPCC has been outed...lies and deception on your side of the arguement and yet, you ignore all of that, and go with your so called facts.
Overwhelming majority opinion....bought and paid for.

All that has been outed is your preferance for willfull ignorance.

 

[Meister]

Try googling it...it's easy to find, just as easy to find as the sites you googled to form you're unbiased opinion. IPCC has been outed...lies and deception on your side of the arguement and yet, you ignore all of that, and go with your so called facts.
Overwhelming majority opinion....bought and paid for.

Meister - Let me see here, I can:

1.) Side with the opinion and the general conclusion/findings of each of the top national science institutes of every single developed nation on the planet.


or... (wait for it)....


2.) I can side with you and assume there's a massive conspiracy between all of the world's major governments, including (but not exclusive to) France, Germany, Spain, Britain, The United States, and Canada to pay off the vast majority of all credible scientists who study the field to lie and say that global warming is real, just so they can make some tax dollars off of emission fees,

despite the fact that the politicians who run all of those nations have campaigns that are funded by industries that would stand to lose billions and billions of dollars from added transportation costs .

(but never mind that)

I imagine that these Government officials, maybe 2 or 3 from each of the major countries, also meet in a secret bunker every few months to make sure their plan is staying on schedule, and to root out any emerging credible scientists so they can put them on the payroll. It's also very possible this bunker is the same place that they envisioned/developed the 9/11 hijackings (ie it wasn't really the terrorists).

Also, I've realized when typing this out that this is probably the reason no one's been able to balance any budgets (it all makes so much sense now!); they've been spending all of their time running the massive conspiracy...


I don't know Meister, it's a real toughie. Better sleep on it.
.
.
.

Dude, I could care less who you side with, you mean nothing to me.
Your facts and all that science that roxie has wet dreams over....has been proven to be corrupt and less than solid. Yes....it IS a religious cult with nuts like that.
Any warming and cooling of this planet is nothing more than a cycle.
But as I have already said....even your scientists are starting to jump ship....I'm sure you and roxie will go down with the ship. No doubt about that.

 

[Meister]

Meister, I form my opinion based on fact. I don't know where you some up with this "religion" stuff, and trying to discredit people who believe factual information. It's not right.

Right now it's my understanding that it's a fact that the VAST majority of climate experts (specifically climate experts) believe global warming is real and likely man made to some degree. That doesn't make it true (we once thought earth was flat too!), it just makes the most sense to side with the prevailing scientific consensus at this given moment in time. Maybe that's just me. If you have a compelling reason to believe the fringe science, then go right ahead.

If you can provide a legitimate source that shows me that the above statement is not a fact, and that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming, maybe I'll reconsider.

I don't study the climate myself, so I form my opinion based on the overwhelming majority opinion.

Try googling it...it's easy to find, just as easy to find as the sites you googled to form you're unbiased opinion. IPCC has been outed...lies and deception on your side of the arguement and yet, you ignore all of that, and go with your so called facts.
Overwhelming majority opinion....bought and paid for.

All that has been outed is your preferance for willfull ignorance.

uh-huh...yeah that's it, roxie.
Boy...you got me good. Isn't about time for your communist indoctrination meeting for the month? Your a fool, roxie

 

[KevinWestern]

Dude, I could care less who you side with, you mean nothing to me.
Your facts and all that science that roxie has wet dreams over....has been proven to be corrupt and less than solid. Yes....it IS a religious cult with nuts like that.
Any warming and cooling of this planet is nothing more than a cycle.
But as I have already said....even your scientists are starting to jump ship....I'm sure you and roxie will go down with the ship. No doubt about that.

Meister, all I'm trying to do is bring you to the side of reason.

A government conspiracy simply doesn't make sense. For starters, our government is 50/50 (roughly) right vs left in the United States. If the government is the key force perpetuating a warming myth, then what do they do about that other half that's not so environmentally progressive? Do they just tell them they can't come to the secret bunker? What's the explanation there?

Also, what about motive? I hear people speak of the motive of a carbon tax, but that falls short. I think the collective power of the thousands and thousands of powerful industries that will lose trillions of dollars of profit (collectively) due to higher transport costs would have a much more powerful voice in influencing politicians (and the government) against perpetuating a warming myth so that the government can make a few extra dollars in taxes.

But anyways, I think we'll always disagree by the sounds of things.

 

[IanC]

Too bad more and more scientists are jumping that sinking ship.
But feel free to believe what you want, I won't think you're crazy either. I will think you're a willful tool. I won't come out and call you a blooming nut, because I just won't do that.

I will say that we go through cycles and have since the beginning of time for this planet.

Meister, I form my opinion based on fact. I don't know where you some up with this "religion" stuff, and trying to discredit people who believe factual information. It's not right.

Right now it's my understanding that it's a fact that the VAST majority of climate experts (specifically climate experts) believe global warming is real and likely man made to some degree. That doesn't make it true (we once thought earth was flat too!), it just makes the most sense to side with the prevailing scientific consensus at this given moment in time. Maybe that's just me. If you have a compelling reason to believe the fringe science, then go right ahead.

If you can provide a legitimate source that shows me that the above statement is not a fact, and that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming, maybe I'll reconsider.

I don't study the climate myself, so I form my opinion based on the overwhelming majority opinion. Common sense!

I can understand your comment and it makes sense up to a certain point. there are observations and physical processes that are real and we should accept them. but many of the explanations and conclusions that are publically proclaimed as 'settled science' are not settled at all. CO2 has increased and temps did warm up. but positive feedbacks and GCMs do not match the data and therefor need to be rethought. it was reasonable to be very concerned in the 90's when the available data seemed to support CAGW but now that we have had over a decade of information that does not agree with the GW hypothesis it is time to move CO2 to a less prominent position on the scale of factors that determine climate.

 

[IanC]

Dude, I could care less who you side with, you mean nothing to me.
Your facts and all that science that roxie has wet dreams over....has been proven to be corrupt and less than solid. Yes....it IS a religious cult with nuts like that.
Any warming and cooling of this planet is nothing more than a cycle.
But as I have already said....even your scientists are starting to jump ship....I'm sure you and roxie will go down with the ship. No doubt about that.

Meister, all I'm trying to do is bring you to the side of reason.

A government conspiracy simply doesn't make sense. For starters, our government is 50/50 (roughly) right vs left in the United States. If the government is the key force perpetuating a warming myth, then what do they do about that other half that's not so environmentally progressive? Do they just tell them they can't come to the secret bunker? What's the explanation there?

Also, what about motive? I hear people speak of the motive of a carbon tax, but that falls short. I think the collective power of the thousands and thousands of powerful industries that will lose trillions of dollars of profit (collectively) due to higher transport costs would have a much more powerful voice in influencing politicians (and the government) against perpetuating a warming myth so that the government can make a few extra dollars in taxes.

But anyways, I think we'll always disagree by the sounds of things.

politicians are not climate scientists so they must decide which authorities to listen to. the IPCC was formed to give them that information. unfortunately the IPCC was taken in a certain direction by a small but misguided subset of climate scientists that hyped disaster.

have you investigated the climategate emails at all?

 

[westwall]

Yup, it's all crashing & burning for them at this point. They will become more hysterical & shrill as they begin to understand their 'Global Warming' scam is over. It's what always happens when Cult fantasies don't work out. They wont be flying away on their Hale-Bopp spaceship. And that reality is gonna to sting em pretty badly. So expect much more bitter lashing out from them. It is what it is.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the great majority of scientists (need to emphasize “great majority”) believe that it’s largely a cause of man-made activities.

I suppose you can say that you don’t think man is the cause of this warming, but fine that’s you’re prerogative I won’t think you’re entirely crazy.

You can also say that global warming won’t have that drastic of an effect, or is not as extreme as some say, and I won’t think you’re entirely crazy either. I don't agree, but I won't come right out and call you a nut.

But if you say that global warming doesn’t exist at all - man made or not man made - I’d just have to say that you’re completely crazy and/or horribly misinformed.

Funny how many on the extreme far right think that government is extraordinarily useless, incompetent, and horribly bureaucratic, but at the same time think that the government is capable of housing some worldwide conspiracy and has somehow found a way to make 9+/10 climate experts agree with a false conclusion. It's not possible.

Global warming WAS a fact till 1998. Before that there was a cooling period that ended in the mid '70's. Before that it was warm again...in fact warmer than this current trend was.
Now, it looks like we're headed for another 20 years of cooling.

In other words it's all cyclical. As far as the majority of scientists meme, that's all it is a fictitious proclamation based on a survey sent to 79 climatologists. And to make matters worse the questions (there were a whopping 2) were heavily biased. And even with that, they could only get 74 climatologists to agree with them.

Climatology has sadly turned into the National Enquirer of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Next El Nino is going to show what a fool you are, Walleyes. And I will make sure to remind you often.

 

[KevinWestern]

politicians are not climate scientists so they must decide which authorities to listen to. the IPCC was formed to give them that information. unfortunately the IPCC was taken in a certain direction by a small but misguided subset of climate scientists that hyped disaster.

have you investigated the climategate emails at all?

Hi Ian, thanks for bringing this conversation in a more cordial direction. Yes, I'm aware of Climategate, and have been exposed to the issue in detail. My take is that only a handful of scientists (literally about 4-5) were caught up in the scandal in a significant way, a few of the "most incriminating" phrases that were exchanged via email by the scientists have been widely taken out of context by skeptics, and finally (this is certainly the most important too) the scandal in no way showed (to any degree) that the researchers were manipulating their data to any extent. For instance, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe asked the Inspector General of US Commerce to investigate, and in the report it was stated that they "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures". I don't know, that's good enough for me.

Why people come out thinking that this somehow 'debunks' anything is completely beyond me. Thoughts?

Ok, and now for addressing some of your more specific points. From what I hear, we had an abnormally strong "El Nino" in 1998 that made it the highest surface temperature to date (from my understanding), and that some people (like good ole @WestWall) will say that this data proves that the earth is no longer warming (because the following years, the surface temp was less warm).

Unfortunately, this viewpoint totally disregards that you have to take into account the temperature of the earth overall (not just surface, but also ocean and atmosphere) and if you look at the linear trends of warming on all three, the earth has still clearly experiencing warming well into the 2000's (2005 was the hottest year on record, topped again by 2010). Taking into account all the factors and all of the known "facts" is what credible scientists do. Cherry picking is what dishonest scientists do. Ocean temperature has been rising steadily since 1998, atmospheric temperature has been rising; when you say that we've had a decade of information showing that does not agree with the GW hypothesis, what are you referring to?

"Cherry picking" is a common tactic used by GW dissenters. One example is the Greenland ice core data which some skeptical "scientists" said proved that earth experienced many warmings and coolings within the recent past, thus this one is no different and out of our control. Well, not so fast...

Credible scientists on the other hand take samples from all around the world, compare them, then form an opinion on past warmings of the earth. They don't simply pick one spot and say that tells the whole story. The broader and more comprehensive approach is obviously a better one. When you take samples from all around the world, the scientific community has found that Greenland in particular experienced a lot of changes to its climate within the past 2,000 years (I believe), but the rest of the world on average did not experience such drastic and frequent changes on average. This is just one of many examples of dishonest science on the side of the skeptics...

politicians are not climate scientists so they must decide which authorities to listen to. the IPCC was formed to give them that information. unfortunately the IPCC was taken in a certain direction by a small but misguided subset of climate scientists that hyped disaster.

have you investigated the climategate emails at all?

The IPCC is still the leading and most respected authority on climate change from a science perspective. You can say all you want about it, but its my view that a handful of skeptic blogs and articles from conservative think tanks that claim the IPCC is overly biased does not mean (quite frankly) much at all to me.

The fact is over 195 countries are official members, and that it reviews a very large body of independent, peer reviewed science research before making its overall assessments and issuing statements. It's endorsed by many of the largest and most well respected climate research institutes in the entire world. The simple fact is that the skeptic view does not in any way shape or form have anywhere near this kind of support on their side from major and credible science institutions. There's not a 50/50 split. Also, the skeptics do not have a fraction of the amount of well researched and peer review science supporting a claim that global warming isn't real. Again, if you know otherwise, please share. I'm open for debate.

You take 1,000 well researched and independent peer reviewed reports by credible sources and you're going to find that the bulk of them reach my conclusion, not yours.

Even putting IPCC aside, are there any comparable national science research institutes of that caliber (I'm talking with regards to size, reputation) that have reviewed the large body of independent climate research and have concluded that global warming is a farce and publicly come out and said it? I've not heard of one.

The opinion of one man is not credible science. The opinion of one man peer reviewed by 4 others is getting somewhere but still not telling me much.

But alternately:

The opinion of one man, who has been reviewed by 4 others, and who's claim has been found to be in line with 1,000 other independent experts who each have been peer reviewed as well IS good science. That's what I have on my pro-warming stance - good science. Until someone can present me with compelling evidence that the majority of scientists believe otherwise, I'm sticking to my opinion.

If believing in the majority consensus of climate experts, which is based on the conclusions from thousands and thousands of independent peer researched reports, and is endorsed by major credible institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science makes you "silly" or "part of a religion" (ie @Meister's opinion) then so be it.

 

[IanC]

KevinWestern- I am somewhat astounded that you say you are familiar with the climategate emails(and presumably some of the back stories) and yet you still give the hockey team and IPCC a full pass.

Mann's hockeystick graph was the poster child of the CAGW movement. here in Canada everyone even got a copy mailed to them from the govt! 'hide the decline' refers to chopping off the last 30 years of data from Briffa's treering series solely because it did not agree with the temperature record. if that is not manipulating data perhaps you could explain what is.

Jones's 'delete all emails' attempt to thwart FOI has worked so far. the surely embarrassing crosstalk emails pertaining to the IPCC AR4 report, and the fantastic lengths gone to in order to suppress McIntyre's criticisms and bolster Mann's faulty papers, are still under lock and key. the two british investigations into Jones and the UEA did not even ask Jones if he wrote the email or whether the offending emails were in fact deleted. (Eugene Wahl testified under oath that he did delete his copies of the emails, in a scantly publicized NOAA investigation). Mann was asked by Penn if he deleted his but it was never checked.

the first batch of climategate emails were essentially hand waved away by many like you who assumed they were just taken out of context. the second set released added substantial context and brought to light the fact that many involved scientists were concerned with what they were being asked to agree with. there are still thousands more emails sitting on the internet behind a password.

the theory behind global warming sort of sounds reasonable but every time you look at any single part up close it is either wonky or vastly overstated. Judith Curry was a believer until she started asking colleagues whether their particular field of expertise and study was conforming to CAGW expectations and was met with, "my stuff doesnt fit too well but please dont tell anyone I said that". she has taken a lot of flak for being a traitor but they cant really do anything to her because she doesnt say anything that cant be backed up by data. unlike many of the hockey team who run things at the IPCC in their catagory.

I could go on and on but its all been said before. you say we think it is a conspiracy. it isnt in the usual sense except for Mann and his cronies. but calling out Mann for his mistakes would tip over the apple cart and many climate scientists would just rather let the mistakes wither on the vine. if they made him fix the upsidedown Tiljander cores it wouldnt just be his papers, it would be all the other ones downhill that used his numbers. and the scandal involved for not speaking out earlier. scientists dont want to rock the boat, they want it to go away and be left in peace to do their work.

 

[KevinWestern]

KevinWestern- I am somewhat astounded that you say you are familiar with the climategate emails(and presumably some of the back stories) and yet you still give the hockey team and IPCC a full pass.

Mann's hockeystick graph was the poster child of the CAGW movement. here in Canada everyone even got a copy mailed to them from the govt! 'hide the decline' refers to chopping off the last 30 years of data from Briffa's treering series solely because it did not agree with the temperature record. if that is not manipulating data perhaps you could explain what is.

Jones's 'delete all emails' attempt to thwart FOI has worked so far. the surely embarrassing crosstalk emails pertaining to the IPCC AR4 report, and the fantastic lengths gone to in order to suppress McIntyre's criticisms and bolster Mann's faulty papers, are still under lock and key. the two british investigations into Jones and the UEA did not even ask Jones if he wrote the email or whether the offending emails were in fact deleted. (Eugene Wahl testified under oath that he did delete his copies of the emails, in a scantly publicized NOAA investigation). Mann was asked by Penn if he deleted his but it was never checked.

the first batch of climategate emails were essentially hand waved away by many like you who assumed they were just taken out of context. the second set released added substantial context and brought to light the fact that many involved scientists were concerned with what they were being asked to agree with. there are still thousands more emails sitting on the internet behind a password.

the theory behind global warming sort of sounds reasonable but every time you look at any single part up close it is either wonky or vastly overstated. Judith Curry was a believer until she started asking colleagues whether their particular field of expertise and study was conforming to CAGW expectations and was met with, "my stuff doesnt fit too well but please dont tell anyone I said that". she has taken a lot of flak for being a traitor but they cant really do anything to her because she doesnt say anything that cant be backed up by data. unlike many of the hockey team who run things at the IPCC in their catagory.

I could go on and on but its all been said before. you say we think it is a conspiracy. it isnt in the usual sense except for Mann and his cronies. but calling out Mann for his mistakes would tip over the apple cart and many climate scientists would just rather let the mistakes wither on the vine. if they made him fix the upsidedown Tiljander cores it wouldnt just be his papers, it would be all the other ones downhill that used his numbers. and the scandal involved for not speaking out earlier. scientists dont want to rock the boat, they want it to go away and be left in peace to do their work.

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?