97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[jreeves]

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet
..

You bush supporters keep clinging to this "list of 600 scientists". Its been debunked over and over. And why are you linking to a rightwing Senator's website anyway, instead of to a nationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science?

Some of the people on Senator Inhofe's list have asked to be taken off. Some are quoted out of context.

And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?

Do you go to a dentist when you have a respiratory infection? No, you don't. You go to an internal medical specialist.


I looked up the first three guys on your list.

The first guy did research decades ago on super conductors and electrical physics. . Not a shred of expertise in modern climate science.

The second guy is an industrial chemist who's never done research in climate science and doesn't have a single peer reviewed published paper in climatology.

Dr. Kiminori Itoh declares himself as a "physical chemist familiar with evironmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science." According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals

The third guy is a geologist. I might ask him about rocks. But, I would never seek out his "opinion" on climate science.

Oh yeah the leaders in their fields of science are not credible....unbelivable

Nobel prize winners not credible.....like I said global warming has a highly supportative cult

 

[JohnStOnge]

Sigh. I can't post a link until AFTER my 15h post so here's my 15th post.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[

I've been asking all weekend for a link from denialists and flat earthers, to a recognized and established national or international scientific organization with expertise in climate science which supports their denialist position.

Since this is my 16th post, I can now link something. Try this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

I referenced it in another thread but this is a good place to actually link it. It's Chapter 9 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Working Group 1 Report, The Physical Science Basis. Hopefully you've got a pdf reader. Go to the bottom left of page 668, the 6th page of the chapter, or do a search for the word "experiment." That will lead you to the following language:

"‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’"

The language I underlined is a concession to one of those principles that transcends any particular discipline. Cause and effect cannot be inferred with statistical data without a controlled experiment. An additional principle they don't appear to concede is that a "level of confidence" for a cause and effect inference can't be established without a controlled experiment either.

As a practical matter, we've sometimes concluded there is a cause and effect relationship on the basis of statistical data without controlled experimentation. Smoking as a "cause" of cancer is an example. But we have data on millions of "replicates" involving subjects to which the "treatment" of smoking was applied as well as billions of subjects we can use as controls. There is only one Earth. There are absolutely no other Earth's or similar planets we can look to to serve as "replicates" for the treatment; nor or there any subjects we can use as controls. It's just wrong to say, as I've seen said, that the belief in a cause and effect relationship between human activity and a particular trend in planetary temperatures is a belief that is as certain as it gets in science.

And that's probably where my biggest beef lies. It's fine to say "we've studied this an awful lot and we think this is the case." But, to me, they're creating a false impression when they start doing stuff like saying "Extremely Likely" and defining that to mean a 99% probability of occurrence. I think that's giving the conclusion an aura of quantitative certainty that doesn't really exist. I also think it's wrong to do things like issue a Summary for Policymakers that doesn't contain any mention of that little problem about not being able to unequivocally say anything about cause and effect without controlled experimentation that's impossible to conduct. I won't link for now but there's actually a place in Chapter 1 of the 2007 Physical Science Basis report where the authors say that the impossibility of conducting controlled experiments is an important consideration. If it's an important consideration, why is there no mention of it in the Summary for Policymakers?

I think I can guess.

 

[jreeves]

I suspect the basic picture of results are correct but I hate it when media put out a description of a survey without providing some access to details about the methods. The minimal description provided suggests that it was not a "scientific" survey and I wish there was an easy way to find out if that impression is correct or not. I did a Google search to try to find more details, including going to a Science News article then going to a website for the publication it was in and no luck.

Otherwise, I'm among people who believe there's been a warming trend and that human activity has been a factor. What I don't believe is that unvalidated models can allow us to say that if we do or don't do X then Y or Z will happen within reasonable bounds of certainty that are of practical value. I also don't believe we know it's going to be some massive disaster for the planet if the Earth, which has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now or than it's predicted by the unvalidated models to be 100 years from now during the tenure of life on it, if we don't take draconian action.

And I'm of the opinion that there is a pervasive bias in the scientific community as well as western civilization at large towards being inclined to believe that anything different about the planet that is the result of human activity is "bad." There seems to be this preservationist mentality holding that the imagined state of the planet as it would be without humankind at this instant...with the certain set of species in place and all...is the best it's ever been or will be and that some different set of species and/or conditions is catastrophe.

The planet has been in a constant state of change since it started. There is no fixed, "balanced" ecosystem. Things have changed more slowly at times. Things have changed more quickly at times. I just don't agree with the hysteria over it.

What hysteria?

We aren't doing shit about it.

This hysteria....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]

Senate poised to take up sweeping global warming bill - USATODAY.com
Landmark legislation to reduce global warming is set to spark an intense Senate debate in early June.
While it is unlikely to become law this year, the Climate Security Act is seen by both supporters and opponents as evidence of how far Congress has moved on the issue and how quickly a bill is likely to pass after a new president moves into the White House in January and a new Congress takes office."I really believe that if we don't get across the finish line this year, we will next year," said bill proponent Jeremy Symons, executive director of the global warming campaign at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is the first bill to have a serious chance of getting passed."

The bill, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., is the first major global warming legislation to be approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It would reduce global warming emissions by more than 65% by 2050 in an effort to slow devastating climate change that could cause massive flooding along U.S. coasts, increase the number and strength of hurricanes in the Gulf states, create drought throughout the Midwest farm states, and fuel more wildfires in the West.

Which would have this effect....
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Global Warming Legislation Would Prolong Recession
According to the theory, carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal and gasoline are chiefly responsible for warming. There is no dispute that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. But the highest global temperatures ever recorded were in 1998 -- ten years ago. Global temperatures have been declining since 2002. In the last year the decline was nearly great enough to offset all the warming that has occurred since 1980.
With the evidence turning against them, proponents of global warming theory are trying to manufacture their own.

Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) -- one of four bodies which monitor global temperatures -- declared this past October to have been the warmest ever. This was startling to those who knew that on Oct. 29, 115 communities in the U.S. set or tied records for low temperature; that the day before it snowed in London in October for the first time since 1922, and Tibet experienced its worst snowstorm ever.

It turns out that Mr. Hansen -- who set off the global warming scare with his testimony before a committee headed by then Sen. Al Gore in 1988 --had carried over temperature readings from monitoring stations in Russia from September, an error so glaring it calls into question the reliability of all GISS data.

"Whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought," wrote Christopher Booker in the London Telegraph.

 

[Chris]

So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?

We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.

 

[dilloduck]

So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?

We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.

cool----do your share and ride a bike.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?

I'm new here but as you come to know me you'll see that I do not automatically accept something as known truth because it's what a majority or even an overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field say. I.

If you were sick, and 11 out of 12 doctors who were experts in the field of oncology told you you had cancer, what would you do?

Take immediate action to take care of your health?

Or tell the doctors, that there was one dissenting voice and you should wait and do more research?


We all know which option you would choose.

You should see a movie called "The Miracle of the Letters."

 

[jreeves]

So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?

We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.

You just stated what hysteria, I showed you. Renewable energy is a good thing.
Although we shouldn't put ourselves in a depression to accomplish implementing such technologies. There is great dispute in scientific circles as to the reliability of the theory of man made global warming. As a matter of fact; recent cooling trends, along with rebounding total sea ice levels points to global warming being nothing more than a pseudo theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Reeves, here is what a gathering of Noble Laureates think concerning global warming.


EDITOR'S NOTE: One hundred fifty Nobel Laureates will gather in Stockholm, Sweden, and Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 7 for an unprecedented celebration marking the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. The prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics meet in Stockholm, where their prizes were awarded, and, correspondingly, the peace prize winners meet in Oslo.

The more than 100 signatories to the attached statement have their own individual priorities in viewing the future, but all agree to this broad outline of the challenge facing humankind. Among scientists signing are Dr. Francis Crick (Physiology/Medicine, 1962), co-discoverer of the double-helix; Dr. Hans Bethe (Physics, 1967), discoverer of the source of the sun's energy; Dr. Charles Townes (Physics, 1964), co-discoverer of the laser, and Drs. Mario Molina (Chemistry, 1995) and Paul Crutzen (Chemistry, 1995), honored for their studies of the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ozone hole.

Among literature winners Miss Nadine Gordimer (1991), and among peace prize winners Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) ,Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1984) and His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1989). The final signature was received from Mr. Gorbachev in Moscow, where he is hospitalized.)

By Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Jose Saramago, Nadine Gordimer, Francis Crick and more

STOCKHOLM -- The attached statement, prepared in consultation with an extensive group of Nobel prize winners, was some time in the making. Sept. 11's appalling terrorist attacks occurred after the statement was written. The terrorization of civilian populations has, for too long, been a horrifying aspect of the global scene. The time has come to end it. This will require a reshaping of relations within the human family. Our statement, addressed to the long term, is a plea for just such a reassessment of our obligations to one another.

The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust.
NPQ

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Dr. Hansen did not carry over the reading, they were given to him that way. And it had a great effect. It reduced that month from the warmest November on record, to the second warmest on record. The primary problems with the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made, and Dr. Hansen himself will tell you this, is that they have been too conservative. And it does seem that people in the field of climate think highly of Dr. Hansen;
14 January 09
American Meteorological Society gives top honors to Dr. James E. Hansen
Tags: American Meteorological Society, Award-worthy, Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, Emily Murgatroyd, james hansen, NASA climate change, US
NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen has been chosen by his peers to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

Jim Hansen is performing a tremendous job at communicating our science to the public and, more importantly, to policymakers and decision-makers," said Franco Einaudi, director of the Earth Sciences Division at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"The debate about global change is often emotional and controversial, and Jim has had the courage to stand up and say what others did not want to hear," Einaudi added. "He has acquired a credibility that very few scientists have. His success is due in part to his personality, in part to his scientific achievements, and in part to his refusing to sit on the sidelines of the debate."

As Andrew Revkin notes on his DotEarth Blog:

"Whatever one thinks of James E. Hansen’s mix of climate science and policy advocacy (just explore comments here for a cross-section of views), it’s hard not to take note when the country’s largest organization of weather specialists, the American Meteorological Society, gives this veteran climatologist its top honor."

 

[jreeves]

Well Reeves, here is what a gathering of Noble Laureates think concerning global warming.


EDITOR'S NOTE: One hundred fifty Nobel Laureates will gather in Stockholm, Sweden, and Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 7 for an unprecedented celebration marking the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. The prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics meet in Stockholm, where their prizes were awarded, and, correspondingly, the peace prize winners meet in Oslo.

The more than 100 signatories to the attached statement have their own individual priorities in viewing the future, but all agree to this broad outline of the challenge facing humankind. Among scientists signing are Dr. Francis Crick (Physiology/Medicine, 1962), co-discoverer of the double-helix; Dr. Hans Bethe (Physics, 1967), discoverer of the source of the sun's energy; Dr. Charles Townes (Physics, 1964), co-discoverer of the laser, and Drs. Mario Molina (Chemistry, 1995) and Paul Crutzen (Chemistry, 1995), honored for their studies of the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ozone hole.

Among literature winners Miss Nadine Gordimer (1991), and among peace prize winners Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) ,Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1984) and His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1989). The final signature was received from Mr. Gorbachev in Moscow, where he is hospitalized.)

By Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Jose Saramago, Nadine Gordimer, Francis Crick and more

STOCKHOLM -- The attached statement, prepared in consultation with an extensive group of Nobel prize winners, was some time in the making. Sept. 11's appalling terrorist attacks occurred after the statement was written. The terrorization of civilian populations has, for too long, been a horrifying aspect of the global scene. The time has come to end it. This will require a reshaping of relations within the human family. Our statement, addressed to the long term, is a plea for just such a reassessment of our obligations to one another.

The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust.
NPQ

Classic Global warming cultism, take an article that is 8 years old and put it forth as if it is current thought on the subject. Besides I never stated that some, who want to profit from the theory are willing to promote the theory as fact. I stated there is great scientific dispute as to the theory's accuracy.

 

[garyd]

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.

 

[Meister]

Geeze, old rocks, I just noticed that your from Portland, Ore. No wonder you think the way you do. Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are all peas from the same pod. Hell, I wouldn't have ever wasted my time, if I had known that. I feel sorry for you dude, you didn't have a chance.

 

[Chris]

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.

The Antarctic ice in the water is melting because the ocean is warming. The land ice is staying cool because of the hole in the ozone created by our CFCs.

You believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% will only warm the earth by one degree. The problem with that is that CO2 is not the only issue. Billions of tons of arctic methane are starting to be released as the permafrost melts, and methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

We have set in motion a series of events, and we do not know where the will lead.

 

[jreeves]

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.

The Antarctic ice in the water is melting because the ocean is warming. The land ice is staying cool because of the hole in the ozone created by our CFCs.

You believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% will only warm the earth by one degree. The problem with that is that CO2 is not the only issue. Billions of tons of arctic methane are starting to be released as the permafrost melts, and methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

We have set in motion a series of events, and we do not know where the will lead.

Please at least attempt to sound intelligent on the subject, Please?
SOTC: Sea Ice
Sea ice is frozen seawater that floats on the ocean surface. Blanketing millions of square kilometers, sea ice forms and melts with the polar seasons, affecting both human activity and biological habitat. In the Arctic, some sea ice persists year after year, whereas almost all Southern Ocean or Antarctic sea ice is "seasonal ice," meaning it melts away and reforms annually. While both Arctic and Antarctic ice are of vital importance to the marine mammals and birds for which they are habitats, sea ice in the Arctic appears to play a more crucial role in regulating climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.

Antarctica is warming;
That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html

Your Hungarian scientist is full of it. By the way, if you refer to a scientist saying something, give us a referance as to when and where this was said. Otherwise, it is just hearsay, and worth only that.

Persecution of the scientists that are sceptical of global warming? Bullshit. The oil companies pay them far more than the honest researchers into this subject make.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geeze, old rocks, I just noticed that your from Portland, Ore. No wonder you think the way you do. Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are all peas from the same pod. Hell, I wouldn't have ever wasted my time, if I had known that. I feel sorry for you dude, you didn't have a chance.

Well, actually from Eastern Oregon. But Portland is a very nice city. Just keep feeling sorry for us Oregonians. And stay away. We would hate for you to have to put up with our beautiful sea shores, the majesty of our mountains, the wonders of our high desert. As for Seattle and San Francisco, both wonderful cities. In fact, the whole of the West Coast is a place of wonder, from the San Juans, to the Mojave east of San Diego. But we do not need any help appreciating it, so just stay away. You won't be missed.

 

[garyd]

NO the actual temperature reading show it is cooling the satellite data which has been rendered essentially useless by tinkering with it to get it to suit the models disagrees with the stations on the ground which have and still do show a cooling trend that began in the 80's

 

[jreeves]

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.

Antarctica is warming;
That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html

Your Hungarian scientist is full of it. By the way, if you refer to a scientist saying something, give us a referance as to when and where this was said. Otherwise, it is just hearsay, and worth only that.

Persecution of the scientists that are sceptical of global warming? Bullshit. The oil companies pay them far more than the honest researchers into this subject make.

Damn are you really this ignorant....
They found that from 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html

The IPPC 2007 report didn't mention Antarctica except to say there were no measurable changes there. But as usual the IPPC wanted to cherry pick research. A 2004 study of Antarctica found that since 1850 the average temperature has dropped 2 degrees C. That's 3.6 degrees F. Seeing how the IPPC frets about a .5 degree rise in temperature anywhere else in the world, interesting they don't want to even think about a 3.6 degree drop. http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/01/antarctic-cooling.html

“Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade,” they write. “The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change.”

The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures. An ice sheet many kilometers thick in places perpetually covers almost all of Antarctica.

Temperature anomalies also exist in Greenland, the largest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, with cooling in the interior concurrent with warming at the coast.

Peter Doran, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, the lead author of the paper, and his co-authors, acknowledge that other studies conducted in Antarctica have deduced a warming trend elsewhere in the continent. But they note that the data indicate that the warming occurred between 1958 and 1978. They also note that the previous claims that Antarctic is warming may have been skewed because the measurements were taken largely on the Antarctic Peninsula, which extends northwards toward South America. The Peninsula itself is warming dramatically, the authors note, and there are many more weather stations on the peninsula than elsewhere on the continent.

Averaging the temperature readings from the more numerous stations on the Peninsula has led to the misleading conclusion that there is a net warming continent-wide. “Our approach shows that if you remove the Peninsula from the dataset, and look at the spatial trend. The majority of the continent is cooling,” said Doran.

He added that documentation of the continental cooling presents a challenge to climate modelers. “Although some do predict areas of cooling, widespread cooling is a bit of a conundrum that the models need to start to account for,” he said." The Dry Valleys are the largest ice-free area in Antarctica, a desert region that encompasses perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, arid soils, exposed bedrock and alpine glaciers. All life there is microscopic.

The team argues that the cooling trend could adversely affect the unique ecosystems in the region, which live in a niche where a delicate balance between freezing and warmer temperatures allows them to survive and where liquid water is only available during the very brief summer. They argue that a net cooling of the continent could drastically upset that balance.

“We present data from the Dry Valleys representing the first evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased lake primary productivity and declining soil invertebrates,” they write.

Their data, they argue, are “the first to highlight the cascade of ecological consequences that result from the recent summer cooling.”
Pondering A Climate Conundrum In Antarctica; Unique, Distinct Cooling Trend Discovered On Earth's Southernmost Continent

 

[garyd]

Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way for some time now..