97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.

What really cracks me up, is that Chrissy and Rocks would have everyone paying a ton of money for new cars that didn't emit CO2. While the greatest cause according to the IPCC is meat production. Yet Chrissy and Rocks have not taken the steps according to their own religion(AGW) to save the planet from AGW, as they are not vegans.

When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.

I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.

No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

By the way it is going to be 70 degrees here today.

 

[JohnStOnge]

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

I think the Oreskes paper you reference provides an excellent illustration of the fact that it's wise not to just accept things because they were published. When I first heard of it, I did a Google search. Within about five minutes I was able to find two articles published in peer reviewed journals during the time frame she looked at (1993-2003) that disagreed with the "consensus" position. One is at http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf and the other is at http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf .

I knew I would find some because anybody who had been paying attention would've noticed the news media reporting periodic publication of such papers. Plus there are well known skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spender who publish. Take a look at Lindzen's publication list through 2007, for instance, at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html . Given how outspoken a critic of the "consensus" view he is, how likely do you think it is that none of the 63 papers he published 1993 - 2003 expressed disagreement with the "consensus" view?

Frankly, the fact that Oreskes' paper was published in Science shows a bias on the part of the editorial and review boards of that journal. Her conclusion was, at the least, misleading on its face and it shouldn't have taken any work at all to establish that. If it wasn't bias, it was a pretty shoddy review process; given that it only took me about five minutes (if that) of Google search to rebut the impression she created.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Some interesting discussion of the Oreskes paper can be seen at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html

A quote:

"They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet"'.

Another quote from the article:

"'Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: 'It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important.'

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. 'Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. 'The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming.'"

You guys are operating under the assumption that the peer review process associated with journals is unbiased and objective even under circumstances in which there is passionate devotion to certain beliefs that are associated with political issues. I think that's a big assumption. But, either way, it would've taken only one published paper dissenting from the "consensus" view 1993 - 2003 to prove the impression created by Oreskes' paper false and I linked two in the post above. Do you doubt that, if I wanted to take the time, I could go through the Lindzen publications and find more?

The Oreskes paper is a croc. We don't need to rely on others to tell us that. It can be very directly demonstrated as such. Global warminsts would do well to stop citing it.

 

[JohnStOnge]

When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.

I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.

No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

Do you see any kind of contradication involving the idea of discouraging ad hominem attacks between the two underlined portions?

On Exxon: If it was fair to dismiss Exxon's position because they had an economic interest, it's just as fair to dismiss it now. It's reasonable to think that a point came such that Exxon could see the public relations battle was lost and that it would be both futile and contradictory to its interest to continue to argue against the "anthropogenic climate change" hypothesis or certain details of it even if it had good arguments. It's very easy to see a scenario in which it switched to a "go along to get along" posture. It could very well be that, instead of opting to continue to resist, the corporation opted to play to public perception and cast itself as a "good guy" for political and public relations purposes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-
0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of
the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies.
We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
research communications (including a preview of their
thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
18, 2001), Dave Evans, Shaopeng Huang, Jim Kennett,
Yoshio Tagami and Referee #3. We thank John Daly, Diane
Douglas-Dalziel, Craig and Keith Idso for their unselfish contributions
to the references. We also thank the Editor, Chris
de Freitas, for very helpful editorial changes that improved
the manuscript. We are very grateful to Maria McEachern,
Melissa Hilbert, Barbara Palmer and Will Graves for invaluable
library help, and both Philip Gonzalez and Lisa Linarte
for crucial all-around help.


Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.

 

[Old Rocks]

JR;


I knew I would find some because anybody who had been paying attention would've noticed the news media reporting periodic publication of such papers. Plus there are well known skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spender who publish. Take a look at Lindzen's publication list through 2007, for instance, at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html . Given how outspoken a critic of the "consensus" view he is, how likely do you think it is that none of the 63 papers he published 1993 - 2003 expressed disagreement with the "consensus" view?


Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.

 

[jreeves]

There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.

What really cracks me up, is that Chrissy and Rocks would have everyone paying a ton of money for new cars that didn't emit CO2. While the greatest cause according to the IPCC is meat production. Yet Chrissy and Rocks have not taken the steps according to their own religion(AGW) to save the planet from AGW, as they are not vegans.

When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.

I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.

No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

By the way it is going to be 70 degrees here today.

Lmao, sure you only eat chicken and fish. That is the reason you said no not even close. That's the reason you said lets wait until Sept. right, cause their is just so much evidence of this AGW. Hypocrite, give up meat before you come preaching about your clean cars.....

 

[jreeves]

There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.

What really cracks me up, is that Chrissy and Rocks would have everyone paying a ton of money for new cars that didn't emit CO2. While the greatest cause according to the IPCC is meat production. Yet Chrissy and Rocks have not taken the steps according to their own religion(AGW) to save the planet from AGW, as they are not vegans.

When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.

I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.

No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

By the way it is going to be 70 degrees here today.

Lmao, more rock hard evidence. I wonder if it has ever been 70 degrees in Febuary?

 

[Chris]

jreeves, you don't care about evidence.

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures....

There is plenty of evidence.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.

When you say something like that, you ought to give at least one example from the piece you're citing of why it's an insult to our intelligence.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.

Remember, Rocks, what I was getting at is that the Oreskes paper created the impression that there were no peer reviewed, published papers contrary to the "consensus." There obviously were a number of such papers. What she did was intellectually dishonest; extremely so. And what Science did in publishing her paper as well as in refusing to publish rebuttals was also pretty bad.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is from the conclusions from Lindzens paper.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind..._Cli_Dynam.pdf


it was, in fact a scenario
designed to double effective CO2 by 2030 and quadruple it later in the
century. In order to arrive at such a scenario, it was necessary to project
substantial increases in population, higher standards of living in the currently
less developed world, increased reliance on coal, restrictions on
nuclear power, etc. Recognition of the vast uncertainty of all projections
over such long periods led to the presentation of a broad range of possibilities
in Houghtone t al (1992). It became clear that the main determinant
of emissions would be population and economic growth in the currently
less developed countries, and that emmission controls in the currently
developed countries was of relatively small long-term importance. In
addition to socio-economic uncertainties, there are significant geochemical
uncertainties in translating emissions into atmospheric CO2
.................

That was an interesting read, thank you, JR. And the quote you gave was out of context in that it refered to the equatorial warming, rather than the whole warming.

Now look at the paragraph that I copied for you. Lindzen makes the point that the projected increase by other scientists in the amount of CO2 could only take place if there were substancial increases in the standard of living in the then large third world countries. Only if there were substancial increases in the use of coal for power generation. This was written in 1993. Lindzen seemed to feel that this would not happen. It is now 2009. China now produces more CO2 than does the US. India is doing all it can to build more coal generation. Living standards have risen enormously in both nation.

The scientists that Lindzen was critisizing for making what he considered unwarrented assumptions concerning the growth and emmission of CO2 by the then third world countries were spot on in their predictions. And no where in the paper did Lindzen ever state that the increase in CO2 would not increase temperature. He seemed to think that there would be a point where the emmissions of CO2 would taper off. He also pointed out that in the PETM in the early Eocene, the poles warmed, and the equatorial regions either did not, or only warmed very little. At the time that he wrote the paper, the polar warming was not occuring at the rate we see it today. So, by his own data, we are now in a warming created by GHGs, in a classical pattern, no less.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.

When you say something like that, you ought to give at least one example from the piece you're citing of why it's an insult to our intelligence.

50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test
January 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(Jan. 10 update: A few people seem to have missed the point of this satirical post. It is a counterpoint to Al Gore’s use of “millions of tons” when talking about CO2 emissions. I’m pointing out that relative to the total atmosphere, millions of tons of CO2 is miniscule. And even a 50% increase in a very small number [the CO2 content of the atmosphere] is still a very small number.)

Now that there have been 50 full years of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration monitoring at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, I thought January1, 2009 would be an appropriate time to take a nostalgic look back.

As you well know from Al Gore’s movie (remember? It’s the one you were required to come to English class and watch or the teacher would fail your kid), we are now pumping 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day as if it’s an “open sewer”.

Well, 50 years of that kind of pollution is really taking its toll. So, without further ado, here’s what 50 years of increasing levels of CO2 looks like on the Big Island:


As you can see, there has been a rapid…what? You can’t see it?…oh, I’m sorry. It’s that flat line at the bottom of the graph…here let me change the vertical scale so it runs from 0 to 10% of the atmosphere, rather than 0 to 100%….


Now, as I was saying…you can see there has been a rapid increase…what? what NOW? You still can’t see it?? It’s that blue line at the bottom! Are you color deaf?

Obviously, you had too much to drink at the New Years party last night, and your eyes are a little blurry. Here, I’ll change the scale…AGAIN..to go from 0 to 1% of the atmosphere….


Now can you see it? Good. As I was saying, 50 years of carbon dioxide emissions by humanity has really caused the CO2 content of the atmosphere to surge upward. It might not look like much, but trust me, Mr. Gore says….

NOW what?? Carbon dioxide is what? Necessary for life on Earth?

What are you, some kind of global warming denying right-wing extremist wacko? The polar bears are drowning!!

I can see I’m just wasting my time…sheesh.

50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Old Rocks]

Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.

Remember, Rocks, what I was getting at is that the Oreskes paper created the impression that there were no peer reviewed, published papers contrary to the "consensus." There obviously were a number of such papers. What she did was intellectually dishonest; extremely so. And what Science did in publishing her paper as well as in refusing to publish rebuttals was also pretty bad.

OK, you have yet to show a peer reviewed paper that states that the anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of the heating that we are presently seeing. You produced one that stated that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, an old one from Lindzen that stated that he thought that the projected rise in CO2 was wrong, and made several other statements which the present has shown to be wrong.


What we are looking for is a paper that states that anthropogenically created CO2 has no effect on the climate. Not one that says, "Oh my, it has been warmer before" or the incorrect predictions in a rather good paper with interesting observations. In fact, I will now use Lindzens's paper to bolster my arguements concerning global warming. After all, he definately pointed out that one of the evidences for a GHG induced warming, such as we saw in the late paleocene and early eocene, is the rapid warming of the polar regions. And we are seeing that right now.

 

[del]

Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.

Remember, Rocks, what I was getting at is that the Oreskes paper created the impression that there were no peer reviewed, published papers contrary to the "consensus." There obviously were a number of such papers. What she did was intellectually dishonest; extremely so. And what Science did in publishing her paper as well as in refusing to publish rebuttals was also pretty bad.

OK, you have yet to show a peer reviewed paper that states that the anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of the heating that we are presently seeing. You produced one that stated that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, an old one from Lindzen that stated that he thought that the projected rise in CO2 was wrong, and made several other statements which the present has shown to be wrong.


What we are looking for is a paper that states that anthropogenically created CO2 has no effect on the climate. Not one that says, "Oh my, it has been warmer before" or the incorrect predictions in a rather good paper with interesting observations. In fact, I will now use Lindzens's paper to bolster my arguements concerning global warming. After all, he definately pointed out that one of the evidences for a GHG induced warming, such as we saw in the late paleocene and early eocene, is the rapid warming of the polar regions. And we are seeing that right now.

nice deflection.
do you use a corkscrew to put on your pants?

 

[JohnStOnge]

Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.

You say the Iris effect has been shown not to exist. I say some have argued that it doesn't exist. You have decided that those who argue that are correct. I say that I don't know.

Regardless, the point is that Oreskes claim of the total absence of dissent in peer reviewed articles is false. I am able to go to the links on the list of Lindzen publications and have no problem finding articles of dissent. This one, for instance: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/161scb~1.pdf .

Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from it because it's a "picture" pdf so I have to limit what I quote (because I have to type it). But look at the abstract. Then go to the concluding remarks on page 132 where it says this:

"Much of the debate on how the society should respond to the purported danger of global warming hinges on one's interpretation of and response to 'uncertainty.' In point of fact, there is neither an observational nor theoretical basis for expecting substantial warming."

You have opted to believe the majority view. But the point isn't whether Lindzen is/was correct or not. The point is that it isn't hard at ALL to find published, peer reviewed papers from the 1993-2003 period dissenting from the consensus position. At the least Oreskes was disingenous. At worst she is an out and out liar when she creates the impression of "no dissent."

 

[Chris]

Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.

You say the Iris effect has been shown not to exist. I say some have argued that it doesn't exist. You have decided that those who argue that are correct. I say that I don't know.

Regardless, the point is that Oreskes claim of the total absence of dissent in peer reviewed articles is false. I am able to go to the links on the list of Lindzen publications and have no problem finding articles of dissent. This one, for instance: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/161scb~1.pdf .

Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from it because it's a "picture" pdf so I have to limit what I quote (because I have to type it). But look at the abstract. Then go to the concluding remarks on page 132 where it says this:

"Much of the debate on how the society should respond to the purported danger of global warming hinges on one's interpretation of and response to 'uncertainty.' In point of fact, there is neither an observational nor theoretical basis for expecting substantial warming."

You have opted to believe the majority view. But the point isn't whether Lindzen is/was correct or not. The point is that it isn't hard at ALL to find published, peer reviewed papers from the 1993-2003 period dissenting from the consensus position. At the least Oreskes was disingenous. At worst she is an out and out liar when she creates the impression of "no dissent."

How old is that article?

All the graphs end in 1990!

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things here. One, you are correct that he did state that he did not expect substancial warming, and unlike his earlier paper, he now seems to state that the increase in CO2 is not a problem. This was written in 1994, 14 years ago. His concluding sentence is;

It will be of great interest to see whether, in the event that scientific evidence profoundly diminishes the expected danger, the momentum can be reversed.

The momentum that he felt had to be reversed was any action to diminish the output of CO2 of the coal plants. He, and others, were successful. There was no action taken.

But what has really happened? The evidence is that the danger was greatly underestimated by even the most pessimistic scientists of the period in which this paper was published. We are seeing very real and very major feedbacks in exactly the area that Lindzen had earlier said we should be seeing them. However, now that we are at 285 ppm instead of 255 ppm, and seeing an accelerating increase, we can see what a failure that Lindzen is as a prophet.

Again, thank you, JR, you have definately given me more information concerning how wrong in the past that Lindzen has proven to be. Lindzen predicted in 2004 that there would be 20 years of global cooling. Twenty percent of that period is now past, and it has been very warm.
2008 Global Temperature Ties As Eighth Warmest On Record

 

[Sinatra]

97% of climatologists know a gravy train when they see one.

Ummm ... that would be 97% of the climatoligists participating...just to make sure everyone understands it isn't 97% of ALL climatoligists.

Exactly. All this report represents is the alarm within the Global Warming money-making community over what to do with the prevailing data of the last 10 years indicating the earth's climate has been in cooling mode, with the last two years erasing all the warming that took place during the warming trends of the late 80's and peaking around 1998.

And so we will be inundated with more of these reports until another bogus study is circulated explaining the warming trend away (utilizing the already well established moniker of "climate change") and attempting to keep the hysteria up to optimum profit making levels.

The fact is, if these so called Global Warmers were serious about the issue - they would be demanding that China and India clean up their industrialized mess.

But no, these same GWs only wish to exercise control in the United States where the real $$$ is to be made via carbon credits and the "Go Green" industry. (See: GE)

It has always been a sham.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLt3nU14W4[/ame]

What we see is a flat global temperature trend between 1995-1998 - temps dropped considerable following that high point in 1998, then remained fairly constant, and have now been falling considerably since 2007. 2008 was the coldest year in the last eight, with indications of continueing cold into 2009 and beyond. Basically, what Al Gore and the GWs did was utilize a chart starting during the colder than normal global temp trends in the 1070's as teh basis for rising global temperatures. This finally caught up to them as the earth follows a 25-35 year climate pattern in which global temperatures rise and fall marginally within that cycle.

The GW proponents were quite aware of this fact - that is THE reason for the change to the far more ambigious "Climate Change" mantra that has been chanted for the last few years.

Now please note that in the wake of these cold temps, you have those within the science community whose livelihoods are directly linked to selling the GW theory, minimizing the reality of the cooling trend data. Come summer, as they do every year, when there is a hot spell, you will see a substantial increase in Global Warming/Climate Change stories.

This is funded by BIG MONEY - 10 years ago Enron was one of the primary funders of GW research. It wanted a slice of the multi-billion dollar GW business pie. Other large multi-nationals have followed suit.

Open your eyes folks and do your own thinking on this - Global Warming has, and remains, a gaint money-grabbing lie.