Monday, March 29, 2010

Surprise- Global Warming is Real

From the Washington Post:

"The last decade was the warmest on record, according to a report issued Thursday by the World Meterological Organization.

The United Nations' agency findings echo the recent findings of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which concluded the period from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest since modern temperature record keeping began in the 1850s."

This item was followed by several dozen comments by ignorant climate deniers, repeating their tired, worn out lies.


Grung_e_Gene said...

I think man cause Global Warming is a real phenomenon but I am open to evidence it is not real.

However, Global Warming Deniers NEVER produce opposing evidence but attack the scientists and persons who present evidence.

And I'll never forget that those who are the loudest denouncers of Global Climate Change also just as fervently deny Evolution.

Anonymous said...

"However, Global Warming Deniers NEVER produce opposing evidence but attack the scientists and persons who present evidence."

I found a couple of papers which produce opposing evidence with no personal attacks. read here

Green Eagle said...

I am open to evidence that it is not real, too. There just isn't any.

Anonymous, I was happy to take a look at your list. Here is a little of what I found:

Environmental Geosciences, a publication of the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists." A sample comment on them, from Wikipedia: "In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton espoused his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part."

The Electricity Journal, "the leading policy journal for the U.S. electric power industry."

Energy and Environment: again from Wikipedia: "Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include (editor in chief) Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

Some of the journal's articles opposing the mainstream scientific positions on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.

Iron and Steel Technology- a publication of the highly polluting steel industry

So, I sort of wonder what "peer reviewed" means in these cases. A lot of the others are from legitimate academic journals, but are only tangentially related to the subject and do not back up denial of anthropogenic global warming.

I don't have much time today to look any further at this list, but this is typical of claims of climate change deniers, which usually rely on "research" paid for by polluters, and deliberate distortion of the thrust of legitimate research.

Derek said...

NASA isn't completely independent of other agencies, which is why people are having a hard time seeing these findings as credible. East Anglia's drop in credibility has brought down essentially every other climate research center.

As for data Grung, solar variance fits temperature data far better than CO2 ever has, leading me to believe the Sun is the cause of the changing temperature, not human CO2 emissions. On top of this, the medieval warm period was just as warm, if not warmer than current global averages. Then there is the fact that multiple cooling trends that have occurred in the past century cannot be explains by the AGW model.

Derek said...

"There just isn't any."

None that you are willing to look at*.

Also, as far as peer reviewed goes, how does everyone feel about the IPCC using student papers as sources for information?