Scientists come forward against global warming with evidence- what do you think?

Temps will rise, drop, or stay the same.

If they rise, it'll be global warming.

If they drop, it'll be climate change.

If they stay the same, then some other change will be called climate change.

We can't win.

Dana, at least, as signed up to the bet - either a new record will be set in 2009-2010 or it won't, and that'll be our barometer. For all that can be said of him, at least he's not backtracking, hedging his bets, etc.... He's put all his chips on warming.

The other AGW believers, I can't say as much for them.

Reading this article might give the impressions that a leading UK Climate Researcher was barred from the conference because of his views. The 'climate researchers' are one Christopher Monckton, and Vincent Gray. Christoper Monckton is not a climatologist or a climate researcher. He is a business consultant and former government adviser who has carried out no scientific research on climatology and has not had a SINGLE piece of work published in any peer-review scientific journal ANYWHERE on the planet. He has no qualifications whatsoever in either climatology or meteorology. He does however have a diploma in journalism and a hereditary peerage. His one attempt at making a contribution to the debate on global warming left him with egg all over his face when it became obvious that his ludicrous mis-understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann law made him a laughing stock among first year undergraduates. The same applies to "Dr Vincent Gray", listed as an "expert IPCC reviewer". This gives a misleading impression, which Gray is not at pains to correct. Gray is not an expert reviewer for the IPCC; what he did was write to the IPCC and ask to see a copy of the draft IPCC report. ANYBODY who does that is called 'an IPCC reviewer'. If your auntie Madge writes to the IPCC and asks to read a draft report, she is called 'an IPCC reviewer'. The idea that Gray is somehow an expert overseer of IPCC research is just wrong. He's not. You will have a hard time finding any peer-reviewed climate research by Vincent Gray, as he's not a climatologist at all, he's a chemist. In the petrochemical industry. (Now there's a surprise.) The overwhelming consensus among climatologists is that global warming is happening, it's real, and it's anthropogenic. You can ignore this, or disparage this, or poo-poo it, but that will be in much the same way as flat-earthers or those who believe the sun goes round the earth do it. A SMALL NOTE for those who think carbon dioxide is dwarfed as a greenhouse gas by WATER VAPOUR:- Water vapour contributes to global warming, this much is true. However, the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is only dependent on ambient temperature. When the temperature rises, so does water vapour concentration. When it falls, so does water vapour concentration, through precipitation. But no one is digging up vast quantities of water from under the ground and pouring it into the atmosphere (though even so, it would still be temperature-dependent). Carbon dioxide is different. Carbon dioxide acts rather like a one-way valve in keeping heat trapped in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is not temperature-dependent in the way water vapour is. Mankind, however, is digging vast amounts of carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the atmosphere at a rate that is MILLIONS of times higher than the rate at which it was laid down, and faster than the natural 'sinks' can therefore re-absorb it. Moreover, there is a risk that one of the largest natural sinks, the ocean system, may itself become saturated with CO2 and be rendered incapable of absorbing any more. As CO2 concentration increases, so too does the mean temperature, which means that the oceans release more dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the mean temperature still further... Water vapour is not the issue here. It is in dynamic equilibrium. Carbon dioxide is the issue here. It is not in dynamic equilibrium.

You can check Abdussamotov's predictions. That was written months ago, and solar cycle 24 has continued -- it is a very deep solar minimum. Unfortunately the earth has continued to warm. Abdussamotov has already been proved wrong. This is important: he was calling out how the cycles of the sun affect climate, but he under-estimated the effect of CO2 which is clearly overwhelming the natural effects of sun cycles. Now that we know the earth is continuing to warm during a solar minimum, the question is what does he or anybody expect to happen when it cycles back to a maximum. We don't know when that will happen, but the best guess is 2013.

Oh, really? And what kind of 'scientists' are these? Is this the same recycled garbage that was spewed earlier, where these 'scientists' were marine biologists or meteorologists (weathermen who don't even study the same subjects as climatologists) that are payed by the CEO's of oil companies?

If you just use your common sense, look at the population of 1900 as opposed to now, add numerous electrical gadgets to it and tell me how all this does not affect the environment?

Also, this has been discussed for decades and other environmental issues are showing the strain of a population too large. IE marine life, water shortage, air pollution, poor food quality, etc...this is nothing new or should be surprising.

Abdussamatov is simply wrong. Solar activity has not increased in over 50 years.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/...

The rest of the list is composed of non-climate scientists and misrepresented studies. They didn't "come forward", the list was compiled by Republican Senator Inhofe, who's coincidentally received the most money from the coal and oil lobbies of any US Senator. So he puts together this list of computer programmers and economists who have said something remotely contrary to the man-made global warming theory in the hopes that the seemingly large number (700) will fool people into thinking there's significant debate about man-made global warming.

In reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.p...

One report from the wonderful folks who brought you Lysenkoism is not going to change my mind. Nor will 700 "top" scientists, compared to the thousands on the other side. I suspect that most of those 700 get their funding from energy companies or auto manufacturers. I am more impressed by the AP study, in which several statisticians were given 30-year climate data without being told what they were and told to look for trends. They found an upward one. To "prove" global cooling, you have to start with 1998. If you start in 1997, the trend disappears and if you stary in 1999, the trend is toward warming.

I will, however, agree that forced abortions are a bit much as would be forced sterilization if only done for the purpose of population control.

Parry. Riposte.

Blasphemy ! Blasphemy !

His Supreme Holiness, the Divine Albertus (Al Gore, to all Unbelievers) will order their Burning at the Stake ! (using solar cookers)

usually well oiled fonded scientist always follow orders from corrupt master....

bottom line: a very low credibility form of science is produce

At least the Russians and others are worrying about something that would actually be harmful and that is cooling. I would equally doubt their ability to predict the climate as I would the fraudulent alarmists.

There is nothing scientific about the AGW movement. It is politically inspired by leftist radical whose aims are to restrict prosperity and growth and transfer wealth. The actual science they base it on is so asinine that any true scientist that supports the notion of harmful warming has to politically motivated or not very bright. Paying them billions of dollars to "study" something only if they can show harm has corrupted many that claim to be scientists. You can fool the ignorant masses with illogical fantasies of CO2 forcing but it is not so easy to fool scientists who understand the issue.

Very impressive! You've managed to combine several different debunked myths into one post and that's a rarity. Usually, deniers tend to go with just one per post, but you are obviously an overachiever.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...