fayfreethinkers.com

Here are some links to help you decide:

sunspot theory - http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

greenhouse gas theory - http://www.realclimate.org/

Here's a neutral site that gives links to various points of view: http://www.geocities.com/nelstomlinson/ ... rming.html

I answered 'other' because the question was poorly worded. Too general.

I can't vote because I'm not a member yet - but I'd have voted "other" - same rationale as Coralie (although greenhouse gases are a major component of the human-caused component of climate change).

What's the problem? Should I restrict it to the last two millenium? Would that help?

Hogeye wrote:Here are some links to help you decide:

sunspot theory - http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

DAR
Okay, I read the whole thing top to bottom. No date unfortunately and the fellow died in 2004. No qualifications given other than he apparently used to be "a ship's officer in the British Merchant Navy." I wonder if he is taken seriously by climatologists? I suspect not. I'll do a little snooping. He relies a lot upon M & M.

HOGEYE
greenhouse gas theory - http://www.realclimate.org/

DAR
That link is too vague. These two are much more specific in their direct response to hockeystick comments made in the article you give from Daly:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

D.

Thanks, Darrel. I was hoping someone would find a better link for the greenhouse gas theory.

I can't say I think much of your ad hominum approach to science. If you can refute claims, then do so; but don't just villify the opposition!

I'm glad you saw the evidence for global MWP and LIA. Earlier you seemed to rather uncritically accept Mann's claim that they were regional.

Hogeye wrote:Thanks, Darrel. I was hoping someone would find a better link for the greenhouse gas theory.

DAR
There are lots of links for it, afterall, it is the prevailing theory.

I can't say I think much of your ad hominum approach to science.

DAR
Since you like to throw this bit of latin around a lot you might want to spell it correctly. I don't have an "ad hominem" approach to science. Again, it is not ad hominem to point out that your sources are often not qualified scholars/scientists in the field in which they attempt to overthrow extremely well established peer-reviewed science. Climatology is a complex science and one neither you or I am trained in. I can read both sides and make some observations. In the end I am going to probably defer to the fellows who have at least had the proper training and are scholars in that they publish in the peer-reviewed scientific journals and interact with other scholars/scientists. The link you provide for your sunspot theory does not rise to that level. Not even close. This doesn't mean he his argument is wrong. It just means that I am not going to take it very seriously because:

a) I don't have the expertise to know if it is palpable hogwash that might be dismissed as high school level junk

b) It is written by a non-expert hobbyist.

If you want to overthrow the science, you have to play the game, and the game goes like this: get the training to become an expert in the profession, publish your material to be examined by others who are experts in the field. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like you operate like the creationists who write no end of scientific looking articles that are total CRAP. Consider:

"A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects."

But I bet a lot of creationist folks were very impressed with the "science" in those 18 articles. I bet those articles were posted to a lot of Christian webpages and passed around.


HOGEYE
If you can refute claims, then do so; but don't just villify the opposition!

DAR
Be specific when you make these charges.

HOGEYE
I'm glad you saw the evidence for global MWP and LIA.

DAR
Nothing I haven't seen before.

HOGEYE
Earlier you seemed to rather uncritically accept Mann's claim that they were regional.

DAR
I do accept Mann's claims on this. If you want to knock down Mann, you need to get qualified people to do it. I know you are enamored with the anti-establishment underdog types, but it's going to take an establishment level guy to debunk Mann, not some untrained fellow with a website who does this as a hobby and therefore doesn't publish in the peer-reviewed science literature.

D.
-----------------------
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by an ugly fact."
-- Thomas Huxley, biologist and writer
(1825-1895)

[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they're willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/

What a perfect example of ad hominem! You reject all claims on a web page because the HTML coder doesn't have a degree in climatology. Yet, by your own peer-review standards, each of the 12 studies given are just fine. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to kill the messenger. Let's look at the evidence.

Exhibit 1 - The Sargasso Sea
[12] Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996

Exhibit 2 - Caribbean Sea
[32] Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000

Exhibit 3 - West Africa
6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.2198-2202, Jun 23 2000

Exhibit 4 - Kenya, East Africa
29] Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan 2000

Exhibit 5 - Quelccaya Glacier, Peru
[23] Peru ice core http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ic ... fig19d.htm

Well, I could go on, but you can read footnotes as easy as I. Moral: You can't ignore all the scientific evidence by tainting the web guy. That's classic ad hom.

The source of the sunspot theory is not the web guy, it is folks like these:
[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425, August 15 2000
[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998

Are the periodicals above peer-reviewed enough for you?

Hogeye wrote:What a perfect example of ad hominem!

DAR
Actually it isn't at all. Now that you have learned to correctly spell the phrase you might as well learn when it applies. An ad hominem is when you use a personal attack (I believe it actually means "attack the man") in place of an argument. I EXPLICITLY stated, more than once now I'm sure, that the author of your sunspot theories utter lack of qualifications in the field in question DOES NOT invalidate his position. Specifically I said: "This doesn't mean his argument is wrong."
Again, it is quite appropriate to point out that the only reference you give in support of this sunspot theory of global warming displays not a single credential or qualification in field of this complex subject.

HOGEYE
You reject all claims on a web page because the HTML coder doesn't have a degree in climatology.

DAR
That is a caricature of what I have said of course. I refer to the author of the article, not who may have patched his website together (most of the links are dead incidentally). I didn't say I reject them, I said I don't take them very seriously, while qualifying it with the fact that I, having no training in the subject am not in a position to tell whether his conclusions are good solid science, or high school level junk. If it is the former you should be able to provide a reference from a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature. Why haven't you done this? Should I guess why?

HOGEYE
Yet, by your own peer-review standards, each of the 12 studies given are just fine.

DAR
I don't know where you get this from. Do you have a peer-reviewed article supporting this sunspot theory, or do you not?

HOGEYE
Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to kill the messenger. Let's look at the evidence.

DAR
It is not too much to ask that a person purporting to overthrow established science have some basic credentials in the field in question, and publish in a place where their claims will be examined critically by other experts in the field. Your fellow has neither and if that kills your messenger then so be it. Get a messenger with some credibility if you want to persuade me.

**snip footnotes from Daly's website**

HOGEYE
Well, I could go on, but you can read footnotes as easy as I.

DAR
Sorry, not impressed with a line of footnotes. Most of his links were dead, and I don't take him or his position remotely seriously enough to start checking his use of books. I do notice that he has several links to the Greening Earth Society, so this lowers his crediblity even more with me, and with good reason. Wiki gives us this for this group:

***
The Greening Earth Society is a public relations organization which, through its published materials, promotes the idea that there is considerable scientific doubt about the climate-warming effect of carbon dioxide. The Society publishes the World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels.

It is a front for the Western Fuels Association, an alliance of coal-burning utility companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society
***

Right, now I remember those guys.

HOGEYE
Moral: You can't ignore all the scientific evidence by tainting the web guy. That's classic ad hom.

DAR
Actually it isn't, for reasons already explained, several times. If you are interested in a sober discussion of this sunspot theory, at a more scientific level, see the links I gave above. It's interesting but for some reason, as far as I can tell, not taken very seriously by climatologists. Maybe that will change.

HOGEYE
The source of the sunspot theory is not the web guy, it is folks like these:
[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425, August 15 2000
[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998

Are the periodicals above peer-reviewed enough for you?

DAR
Unless the conclusions of these reports/articles are specifically referring to this sunspot theory, it's irrelevant to this separate conclusion of the sunspot theory of global warming. It would be classic quackery to jump to such a conclusion.

Society is filled with crackpots and charlatans passing off nonsense to the gullible or simply uninformed/non-experts. I even deal with his in my profession. That is, profoundly incompetent people going around working on pianos that have no business whatsoever tuning or repairing pianos. How do they get away with it? Piano work is specialized and rather technical but most people don't have the knowledge, understandably, to tell the difference between substandard work. Also the vast majority of people quite understandably have no idea whether a piano is in tune or not, and surprisingly this also applies to many piano teachers and even people who are advanced pianists. I see this every day. This is how the clowns get away with it. Then they fade away.

Another example. I had an air conditioner guy (has an ad in the Yellow Pages) come by in August, who said he had been doing this for 25 years. He told me that "air-conditioners add humidity to the air." When I disagreed with him, very politely, he said "okay, you tell me how an air-conditioner works" which I promptly did, including the part about it draining moisture from the humid air inside the house, to the outside of the house via the DRAIN pipe. He still wouldn't concede the issue and said he wouldn't do the work unless I changed my attitude (he was especially embarrassed because am I a landlord of this property and the renters were watching). I said I was amazed that he had been working on air-conditioners for 25 years and hadn't caught on about how they worked. Then he left. It was amazing. And he said I needed a $400 condensor unit. After he left I took a cover off and cleaned out a piece of gunk the size of the last joint of my little finger that was blocking the drain pipe. Problem solved. So the man was an ignoramus and probably a crook too. And he had been getting away with this for 25 years.

D.
------------------------
"From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."
Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site, obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking.
--http://tinyurl.com/cq36y

Emphasis mine.

In the Doonsbury thread Hogeye said:

"Darrel wrote" wrote::
Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

Of course there is. Even global warming* skeptics generally agree. What they disagree with the alarmists about is: 1) whether greenhouse gasses are more significant than other anthopogenic factors like land-use, 2) whether the climate is out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the Medieval Warm Period,...

DAR
Your #2 flatly contradicts your claim that skeptics generally agree. If the climate is not "out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the MWP" then these who attribute global warming to human causes ("anthropogenic climate change") are barking up the wrong tree. Considering the overwhelming, practically unanimous consensus that global warming is to some significant degree cause by humans, and even the republican controlled government and Exxon can't seem to find legitimate climatologists to tell them what the would desperately like to hear, it seems the skeptics are pretty much on the ropes.

HOGEYE
Then there's the question of the role of consensus in science. Virtually all scientific theories were, at one time, counter to consensus. To the extent that claims of scientific consensus inhibit the search for truth, such claims are counter-productive.

DAR
This site has a useful comment regarding consensus which I will quote here:

"That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it and in consequence few people rebut skepticism of it (though Eric has done so recently here; and the IPCC mention it). That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years (see e.g. posts 64 or 7 by Mike) is one (but by no means the only) line of evidence indicating that recent change is likely to be unnatural (see update). (see note below*)

The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with "there is no consensus". That's wrong, and they usually retreat from it to "but consensus science is meaningless", and/or "consensus has nothing to do with science". The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn't do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn't prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media.

The existence of the consensus shouldn't be used to hide the fact that there are areas of doubt. Climate models clearly aren't perfect. There are questions about the differences between surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Conversely the existence of some areas of doubt shouldn't be used to try to hide the many areas of understanding and agreement.

*NOTE:
This is true, but incomplete and possibly misleading, in that it may appear to overstate the importance of the proxy record. If you follow the link to the TAR chapter 12, you'll have found that the IPCC based its conclusion of human influence on climate on:

A longer and more closely scrutinised observational record
New model estimates of internal variability
New estimates of responses to natural forcing
Improved representation of anthropogenic forcing
Sensitivity to estimates of climate change signals
Qualitative consistencies between observed and modelled climate changes
A wider range of detection techniques

...and all of this lead them to write: The increase in the number of studies, the breadth of techniques, increased rigour in the assessment of the role of anthropogenic forcing in climate, the robustness of results to the assumptions made using those techniques, and consistency of results lead to increased confidence in these results.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

D.

Hogeye> Even global warming* skeptics generally agree. What they disagree with the alarmists about is: 1) whether greenhouse gasses are more significant than other anthopogenic factors like land-use, 2) whether the climate is out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the Medieval Warm Period,...

DAR> Your #2 flatly contradicts your claim that skeptics generally agree. If the climate is not "out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the MWP" then these who attribute global warming to human causes ("anthropogenic climate change") are barking up the wrong tree.

No, your logic is off here. It is possible (and even likely) that there are both human-causes to warming and climate is in a normal range (less than MWP peak temp.)

"That [some] increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it..."

This is the claim that even global warming skeptics agree with, for the most part. If you replace "some" by "all", then most folks, including global warming alarmists, would disagree. In fact, there is a plausible theory that greenhouse gasses are the result, not the cause, of warming.

"That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years..."

This is a controversial one, and almost certainly false. Evidence shows that the MWP was warmer, and that the MWP was a global phenomena. See those 12 non-northAtlantic examples and accompanying citations.

Hogeye> The source of the sunspot theory is not the web guy, it is folks like these:
[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000
[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425, August 15 2000
[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998

DAR> Unless the conclusions of these reports/articles are specifically referring to this sunspot theory, it's irrelevant to this separate conclusion of the sunspot theory of global warming.

Obviously, they do specifically refer to the sunspot theory. Here's a quote from Svensmark:

Swensmark et al wrote:Solar Activity and Earth's Climate

For more than a hundred years there have been reports of an apparent connection between solar activity and  Earth's climate. William Herschel, a famous scientist in London suggested in 1801 that the price of wheat was directly controlled by the number of sunspots, based on his observation that less rain fell when there was few sunspots. Since then numous reports have indicated a link between solar activity and climate, of which most where based on regional observations that in some cases gave conflicting results. Solar activity is now known very long back in time due to the production of isotopes in the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays. From such records there is a striking qualitatively agreement between cold and warm climatic periods and low and high solar activity, during the last 10.000 years. In figure (3) is shown the variation in C14 production during the last millennium. From year 1000 - 1300 AC solar activity was very high which coincided with the warm medieval period, in fact it was during this period that the Vikings settled in Greenland. Solar activity decreased considerably after 1300 AC and a long cold period followed now called the little ice age.  This climatic shift was a disaster for the Vikings. The Little Ice Age lasted until the middle of the last century. During this century solar activity has again increased and is the highest in the last 600 years. - Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate

Consensus is irrelevant; we are freethinkers, not traditionalists. Of course, I could easily dismiss the Mann fan-site RealClimate.org the way you dismiss the Greening Earth Society site, but I'm not playing that game. What they say is true or false; the source doesn't matter.

Here's an excellent movie about global warming:
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change
I wish they had a DVD version, so we could show it at our FayFreethinkers meeting.

"That [some] increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it..."

HOGEYE
This is the claim that even global warming skeptics agree with, for the most part. If you replace "some" by "all", then most folks, including global warming alarmists, would disagree.

DAR
No need to doctor the quote, it doesn't say all, it says:

"That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it and in consequence few people rebut skepticism of it..."

In fact, there is a plausible theory that greenhouse gasses are the result, not the cause, of warming.

DAR
If you have a serious reputable source for this claim, pass it along.

"That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years..."

HOGEYE
This is a controversial one, and almost certainly false. Evidence shows that the MWP was warmer, and that the MWP was a global phenomena.

DAR
If you have material written by someone with proper training on this subject and who writes papers for peer-review and interacts with other scholars at a professional level do pass it along. Otherwise I will just reiterate that your position is very much the extreme minority one and your claim that the overwhelming majority position of climatoligists is "almost certainly false" is not in the least bit persuasive.

See those 12 non-northAtlantic examples and accompanying citations.

DAR
Not my specialty, or yours, as explained. Do you think Daly submitted this to any of the appropriate journals for review? Of course not. Want to know why? If you want to overthrow the science you have to play the game, and this includes getting training and participating by interacting with other experts. Lobbing peanuts from the gallery doesn't do it. That's what creationists do. But I repeat myself.

DAR> Unless the conclusions of these reports/articles are specifically referring to this sunspot theory, it's irrelevant to this separate conclusion of the sunspot theory of global warming.

Obviously, they do specifically refer to the sunspot theory. Here's a quote from Svensmark:

Swensmark et al wrote:Solar Activity and Earth's Climate

For more than a hundred years there have been reports of an apparent connection between solar activity and Earth's climate. William Herschel, a famous scientist in London suggested in 1801 that the price of wheat was directly controlled by the number of sunspots, based on his observation that less rain fell when there was few sunspots.

DAR
Sorry, this is just really really bad. I have already provided links which deal with problems with this. There is more extensive rebuttal here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153

Consensus is irrelevant;

DAR
Nonsense. There is consensus that the earth is a sphere, not flat. I find that persuasive although I have never undertaken examining the evidence for this personally, first hand (unless using my satellite radio counts). Perhaps the consensus (already listed several times) on global warming will be overthrown. If it is, it will only be when the established scientific material/papers are debunked by people who can rise to the challenge. This won't be done by hobbiests with obvious blatant political agendas (greening earth society etc).

we are freethinkers, not traditionalists.

DAR
I ask for good credible science conducted by experts not because I am a "traditionalist," (whatever that is) but because I am interested in using methods that work. As I have quoted to you before.

Regarding the claim:

"consensus has nothing to do with science"

"Quite the opposite. As Thomas Kuhn observed, scientific truth is what scientific consensus says it is. Many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of god. But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain."

Of course, I could easily dismiss the Mann fan-site RealClimate.org the way you dismiss the Greening Earth Society site, but I'm not playing that game.

DAR
Of course you do. That's the only game I have seen you play. You refer to this reputable scientist, with a very sober and fair website that explicitly tries to avoid any politicization, (there are many other climatologists posting there as well) as "liars" and "cronies" etc. The sites you pass along are typically amaturish with this kind of hysterical hyperpole. In my opinion your dogmatism on this profoundly clouds your ability to think clearly about this.

What they say is true or false; the source doesn't matter.

DAR
Of course it matters, and it matters a great deal. This is why people don't call the air conditioner guy to have their piano tuned. And I don't go to political front groups for the best science on climatology. This is a complex subject requiring a high level of expertise. If you want to read good well-referenced material giving an overview of the best science on this issue then the realclimate.org site is one good one, of many. They are head and shoulders above anything I have seen you send along. No comparison. And I am putting A LOT of sugar on that. I wish there was a serious fair-minded sober skeptic site that you could pass along but apparently you don't have one of those. And I think I know why. But I might be wrong.

Oh, I just noticed that Scientific American gave realclimate.org an award last year:

***
Science & Technology Web Awards 2005
Our editors name 25 of their favorite sites

Real Climate
A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring."
***

That's been my experience.

D.
-------------------------
Oh, and an extensive rebuttal to Svensmark can be read here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42#more-42

Here's an excellent movie about global warming:
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change

DAR
I watched the first four minute section of this. There are probably some good points in this, but even right at the beginning there are howlers as well. Professor Tim Clark of Ottawa says:

"In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause [of global warming]."

Dear god.

D.
------------------
Again:
"Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small.
LINK

So we are to believe, that this near 100% agreement among climate scientists regarding humans influencing the climate is believed even though there is "no evidence of humans being the cause."

Doesn't pass the smell test.

DAR
I thought this was an interesting exchange, the link is important too:

Comment:
I don't just trust the IPCC sanctioned experts, because I read the sceptics sites and they bring up really good points

Response:
Firstly, it is not just IPCC santioned experts, the list of reputable scientific organizations that have done the hard work of verification and found the arguments sound is very long, as presented in the link I provided:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ensus.html

Secondly, the sceptic sites do not bring up really good points. They only sound plausible to people, like most people, who do not have the time or the desire or the ability to verify them. When you do start to verify them you will find they do not hold up. You will also discover quite a few out right falsehoods and this may make you feel like you have been duped and taken for a ride.

You are also seriously misled to believe that the sceptics are publishing in the reputable scientific journals.

Don't give up, keep learning and you will come to the only supportable conclusion.

"How much warming will occur?" is a legitimate area of debate, but the doubt is between "alot" and "a hell of a lot", not between "a bit" and "nothing worth worrying about".

"Can we do anything about it?" is a socio-political issue, not a scientific one, though there is surely alot of good science needed to make sure we know the best choices.

Darrel quoted Dr. Clark out of context, and even inserted erroneous and misleading bracketed paraphrasing. Here's how Darrel quoted Dr. Clark:

"In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause [of global warming]."

Here's what he actually said:

Dr. Clark wrote:I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contributions of CO2. The association seemed so clear and simple: increases of greenhouse gasses were driving us towards a climate catastrophe. However, a few years ago I decided to look more closely at the science, and it astonished me. In fact, there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun." - Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Univ. of Ottawa

If you want to paraphrase and shorten it, then this is a more accurate way:

"In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause [of climate catastrophe]."

As I said, I'm not interested in the consensus red herring. So I'll just give a good freethinker quote:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. - Galileo Galilei

Just to interject another opinion:

My original interpretation of the quote was that, because the speaker had just mentioned that he used to teach that "most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contributions of CO2," and due to the wording of the sentence, an accurate presentation would be

In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause [of the increase in temperature of the past century]

However, upon reading it again, I can see how one might interpret the quote the other way. I still lean toward the above interpretation, however, because the second sentence describes human's impact on global temperature, and the questionable line has to do with human impact.

Maybe one or both of you can find quotes from the remainder of the movie that clarifies his position?

Hogeye wrote:Darrel quoted Dr. Clark out of context, and even inserted erroneous and misleading bracketed paraphrasing.

DAR
I thought about that concern as I typed it up because what I was providing was certainly short. I am glad you took the time to add more context but I absolutely stand by the quotation as given. It was neither erroneous or misleading. He is clearly talking about global warming as he explains in his very, next, sentence:

"In fact, there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes,..."

Natural causes of what? Global warming. As he goes on:

"...such as changes in the output of the sun."

He clearly is talking about global warming. He thinks the output of the sun is causing the increase in temperature. As he says earlier, he used to believe:

"most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contributions of CO."

Now he believes this warming is due to "natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun."

HOGEYE wrote: If you want to paraphrase and shorten it, then this is a more accurate way:
"In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause [of climate catastrophe]."

DAR
No, your claim makes no sense, because Clark doesn't believe in "climate catastrophe." So you have inserted something he doesn't believe. This is misleading. In his sentence he is clearly referring to something he DOES believe in because he gives the reason he believes in it (increase in temperature), in the very next sentence:

"...there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun."

The claim that there is "no evidence" (!) of humans being the cause of increased temperature on earth is idiotic to the point of being comparable with creationists saying there is no evidence of evolution. Clark has drank the global warming skeptic Kool-aid and has become a true believer. It's facinating to me how once they go over to the dark side, they become such extremists. I am reminded of this quote:

"It is strange, when mistakes are so common, to find everyone positive and dogmatical? And that the zeal often rises in proportion to the error?"
--Attributed to SPARTIAN in The Natural History of Religion, David Hume, pg. 59

As I said, I'm not interested in the consensus red herring.

DAR
And I am not interested in dismissing such well established science without good reasons.

So I'll just give a good freethinker quote:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. - Galileo Galilei

DAR
Right. So where's the humble reasoning? You haven't sent me anything that I haven't been able to quickly find a substantive rebuttal to, written by qualified experts who participate in peer-reviewed science.

D.
--------------------------
In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents:

* http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
* http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:

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

If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?

LINK

DAR
Maybe Clark's right and everyone else is all wet. But perhaps you can understand why I am rather doubtful. I will get around to watching some more of the video bits. I snooped around this little Canadian site and joined their mailing list. They loathe environmentalists. Surprise surprise.

The quote is open to interpretation, but Dr. Clark does use "climate disaster" and "climate catastrophe" earlier in the paragraph, but does not use "global warming."

I think there is another thing to consider: the words "the cause" (as opposed to "a cause" or "a contributing factor").

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Univ. of Ottawa wrote:In fact, there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes, such as changes in the output of the sun."

I suspect that Dr. Clark would agree that humans are a contributing factor. They even discuss land use factors later in the film. I interpret him to mean that humans are not the sole cause, nor the main cause; he seems to be referring to his earlier erroneous opinion "that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contributions of CO2." Later in the film they show how CO2 is a result of warming - increases of CO2 lag warming by up to 800 years. (part 4 of movie)

HOGEYE
They even discuss land use factors later in the film.

DAR
If this is a variation of the "heat Island effect" you might read this summary rebuttal with links:

HERE

D.
----------------------
"A 2003 paper ("Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found"; J climate; Peterson; 2003) indicates that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated, finding that "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming." The main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely to be made in park "cool islands."

--Ibid