Cool.
I read this one.
Well sort of as it is long but I got the basics.

1. This little unfinished report relies basically on two tools to measure global temperature changes. Upper surface ocean water in the 1)Atlantic and 2)Pacific. Nothing about atmospheric temp. changes other than water vapor may not have been accounted for in temp readings that do use atmospheric temp to try and determine if the earth is warming and which actually show the earth has been in a warming trend.

2. There are solar scientist that are highly skeptical of this report as they do not think the solar cycles play near as an important role as the atmospheric absorbing and releasing heat energy. This goes directly against this report.

But that was interesting nonetheless as it tells me more about how people are struggling to make comprehensive measurements of the average temp. of the earth.

3. They also noted that some computer models were way off in their ability to accurately assess the temp. of the ocean's at the surface and the rises predicted did not occur.

4. No mention of the Arctic Ocean melting which is in so many of 'the other sides' web pages and documents. I have seen the Greenland thing before.
No mention of Antarctica, some of which has been used to say the Earth is not warming. It was not present from what I read.

It is a fairly narrow assessment but I personally learned some more stuff.
Thanks Z.

hallelujah

Or victims. Can't forget to play the victim card.

If the "anti-" global warming side wants to voice skepticism, the way to do so is to show the overwhelmingly fatal flaws in the reams of science that's already been done, and how the conclusions made cannot possibly be validated or logically derived from that accumulated information.

Politics doesn't enter into that conversation. It's completely extraneous.

Now, that wealth of information has already stood up to years (a couple decades) of peer review, and is being further validated on an ongoing basis by new information, how predictions are indeed working out, so much so that the vast majority of scientific disciplines fully support it.

It is rare, a small minority, that voice skepticism of the reality of global warming. Sort of like the Flat Earth Society members, and those that think the moon walk occured in Arizona.

See, the thing about science is that one doesn't form an opinion, then try to find stuff to justify it. Rather, one goes in with no opinion, and the reality and facts steer you to logical conclusions.

not according to time magazine at least in the mid 70's or are these the Flat Earth society members?

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

??? Do you have a point? :D If so, what is it?

A few decades ago scientits were fearing an ice age?

A few more decades ago malaria was thought to be caused by "bad air".

There are many more older studies also showing this and the opposite.
But as of right now, the general consensus is that the earth is
in a warming period.

I think this is the problem: There will be individual studies or reviews of studies that will indicate the earth is cooling, the earth is warming, we cannot tell, the earth's temp. has generally stayed steady having up and down cycles.

But the general consensus is that the Earth is in a warming trend. This might change, as Science this big, is very complex, takes a lot of time, and can be interpreted in many ways depending on what one wants to looks at as significant. And of course political leanings.

And yes the press will take many findings or studies and blow them way out of proportion as to make for excitement... happens all the time in studies concerning certain food, drugs, epidemics...
'Eat raw pine needles, dont eat raw pine needles...'

So for our health nuts the following appear to be true as of now:

1. Smoking is linked to cancer, heart disease, and a few other things in most people.
2. Certain types of fats (saturated variety) increase the risk of heart and circulatory problems, strokes in most people.
3. High Fiber in the diet appears to lower the risk of colon cancer in most people.

We could go on.

ANd of course that person that smokes, eats only butter avoiding fiber at all costs will live to 100 getting killed in a car accident. Some will then conclude this is evidence that the 3 findings written above are wrong.

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...change-report/

www.badscience.net

"Next week the World Conference of Science Journalists will be coming to London. A few of us felt they were might not adequately address some of the key problems in their profession, which has deteriorated to the point where they present a serious danger to public health, fail to keep geeks well nourished, and actively undermine the publics’ understanding of what it means for there to be evidence for a claim."

I don't put all the blame on the media, I think some of it lays within some school systems: not teaching critical reasoning or thinking skills, calling "intelligent design" a "science", etc. type of thing.

How about we agree to keep the discussion of global climate change in the scientific realm, where it belongs, rather than stepping off into the sideshow of the political circus?

when EPA reports are suppressed because of political motives we have a problem.

The guy who wrote the report is an economist.

I am glad he is questioning the science but its
really hard to refute unless he gives out the papers
that he read or some compilation like Danzig gave out
so the data that someone has gathered can be looked at
as selective, wideranging and important... we just dont
know. He may have used part of the report Danzig gave.
It sort of sounds the same. And in that case I can see how
he was told to move on or find something more comprehensive.

I agree that the report has to be looked at but instead of dismissing it simply because the guy is a economist makes no sense. Otherwise Al Gore should be suppressed do to him being a politician and a very bad one might I add.

okay. how's this?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...bkes/#more-691

this is just one more small battle in the right's long term war on science.

Of course it makes sense to weigh the evaluation of a report in one field, in light of the evaluator not being competent within the field of study! Would you pay attention to the report by an OB-GYN evaluating the efficacy of doing cardiac ultrasounds to screen for occult cardiomyopathy in older men? Wouldn't that type of report have more weight coming from a cardiologist?

?? Al Gore is a politician who talked about an issue he put front and center in his campaign. He's not a scientist. Climate change, and the scientific discussion and investigation of it, went on no matter what Al Gore did or didn't do.

i don't think we need to spend all that much time bothering with the pitcher's qualifications when what's been thrown is a slow curve over the fat part of the plate.

this is an un-peer reviewed article that cites as one source a blog.

apparently, if someone at nasa writes that the earth is flat, that needs to be included in any discussion of orbital mechanics.

Somehow I have the feeling if Science indicated that
the Earth is warming and it ended right there everyone
would feel a lot better.

As sort of a parallel:

Charles Darwin wrote an incredible study in which he presented
a mechanism for evolution. He did not invent the idea of evolution.
He gave so many observations to back up his idea (natural selection)
and was so forthright about what he did and did not understand it
set a standard for science books for public consumption.

Sadly this standard has been lost. The self critical nature of science does not
reveal itself well enough imo. Darwin also did not consider himself
a good debater so he left it up to others who understood the
implications of his work (Huxley) and realized how important it was.
Sometimes the people that speak out the most may not be
the experts. Some very good science people are fairly timid
people.

What bothers me about the anti-global warming science stuff
is a lack of self criticism. I did notice this was quite prevalent.
ANd I may be wrongly concluding the lack of self criticism is
occuring because of the politcal nature of this group. The
group of climate scientists that are a part of the warming trend
types are very careful to point out the immense nature of the study
and what data they would dearly love to have so that their studies
would be more complete.
However, there is again a group that are not climate people that
have seen massive changes in their field of study (the guys studying
Arctic wildlife especially) and they are clearly sounding loud warnings
based on their field and not the climate/temp of the Earth as a whole.

So for me it is understandable that a region that has been near and
dear to a group of people that adore its beauty would be quite upset
and look for a culprit too quickly. It has happened before. And in the
same light, people that have an economic interest in seeing global
warming go away dont want to see their way of making a living
hindered for what they perceive as fantasy made up soley
to scare people. Another 'the World is ending in 2012'. Or is it
2050?

I hope I live long enough to see how it all turns out.

Here's the deal. Can we afford this crap and trade program? Obama says "it will cost the average American the cost of a postage stamp per day". Postage stamps are 44 cents. There are 365 days in the year. That equals $160 per year per individual. so if you have a family of four its $640 per year. The republicans say it will cost the average family $3100 per year. My electric company said it will cost me at LEAST $50 per month.. which is at $600 per year... and I'm just one person so thats more than $160.

I dont believe anyone... i really dont believe the White house's numbers, because everytime they say something it going to cost x amount.. it ends up costing y amount (like the health insurance plan). I dont believe the Republicans either because I have no reason to believe them. So I'm going to assume that $600 is the least its going to cost me and maybe $1500 is the most its going to cost me. I DONT HAVE THAT EXTRA MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT WE ARENT PREPARED AS A COUNTRY TO CHANGE.

Thats what it boils down to with me. I dont think I'm the only one in this boat. Can our country afford this right now? I say no.

As I stated in an earlier post, I think this adminstration is ready to move the country to alternative energy sources now. It will cost. But in the long run this administration thinks it is the forward looking way to go.

I dont think it is just about CO2 emissions. I personally think it is part of a larger effort to get us away importing oil, polluting with Coal burning. Part of the interim solution imo has to be nuclear power. I dont know how the plans for that are going.

I have no opinion on the timing. I just dont know enough.